The sort of compromise that Ginger outlined is probably the best that could be hoped for in realistic terms.
I must say, however, that I think that there should be a standardised set of line of sight rules/terrain in the core rulebook. I thought that the rule was as follows:
Quote:
Line Of Fire: The line of fire is a straight line drawn from
the shooting unit to one unit in the target formation. The
line of fire is blocked by terrain features such as buildings,
hills, woods, etc. Weapons higher up can often see over
any terrain that is lower down. Buildings, rubble, woods,
fortifications and the like don’t block the line of fire to or
from units that are in the terrain itself unless the line of
fire passes through more than 10cms of the terrain
feature (ie, you can shoot 10cms ‘into’ a terrain feature,
but the line of fire is still blocked to units on the other
side). The only units that can block the line of fire are war
engines (see 3.0). Other units do not block the line of fire
for friend or foe.
Is this not the case? Given that this seems to be a core rule, I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that play testing is conducted using this rule.
Anyway, the point is that I still feel that calls for play testing to balance armies are undermined by the ongoing problem of players not adhering to the same set of core rules. I agree that it's not possible to make people play to the rules though, which is why the only way forward is compromise, assuming list development is viewed as a priority.
Were it left up to me, I'd just ensure that all the core lists are approved, and then not worry about developing all the others.
_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.
