So I attended a small RTT this weekend that pretty much stuck by the book rules (missions etc ). What stood apart from most of my local 40k games was the re-introduction of impassible ( for my gaming experience). I had a rant a week or 2 ago about GT's not having impassible for reasons that i see as picking and choosing. 2 things I relearned this weekend was we as players are leaving out a very tactical part of the game by not including impassible. Why have terrain on a board if it is only for LOS blocking and a cover save ( yes i know it counts in assaults but we are talking impassible. )? Going around things adds another tactical aspect to assaults and movement: example : "will my land raider have to sit here and pummel these guy or can it get in and tank shock?". Fast units may get a leg up now that they can reach troops etc by going around vs I move through the wall. Also things like C'tan that ignore these rules actually become special as the rules intended ( you are ignoring this special rule if there is no impassible for everything). Your IG can't move through solid ceramite, sorry. What if we said no cover saves or everything is LOS blocking! People would be going nuts on that type of ruling. Warhammer 40k is not fair, wars are not fair. Sometimes you get dealt a great hand via super dice rolls, match ups, first turn, etc, but sometimes you get the @#$% end of the stick. Do I like impassible? yes and no. I like it as it can work for me ( as well as the other guy ), but I also use things that deep strike so no I don't like it. That said I still wish we would use it more as the component it adds is giving the game depth.