Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never liked the replacing a vehicle with a crater/difficult ground. It's too undefined and arbitrary for me. For one, what is difficult ground? Difficult terrain is something; difficult ground is not (according to the rulebook). Right off the bat there's an issue there for RAW. Obviously it's just gakky writing and they mean to say difficult terrain. At least it's reasonable to assume so.

Let's forget about difficult ground though and go with craters. My issues are many. The first being the issue of "if you have one". My problem with that is it's not fair. Free 4+ cover saves for those who happen to have craters with them. Not cool. I guess I'm a communist; everyone should have craters or no one. I often play mechanized guard, could you imagine if I had a crater packed with me for every chimera in my list. Lame.

My second problem is one of size, the GW craters are huge, and almost always far larger than the vehicle that blew up. There are better solutions out there like micro art studios vehicle wreckage which is approximately 3x5 inches just a little bit bigger than a rhino. But still, the issue is that there is no guide for size. Anyone could pack a bunch of gw craters in their bag and bring them to a tournament. Nothing you could really say, the rules say use them if you got'm and they got'm.




Another issue with putting down a crater which is larger than the vehicle that blew up is it may prevent the remnants of a squad (assuming it was a transport) from being assaulted. That or the crater may simply not fit because of other models or terrain in close proximity.

Also, consider this. Before the game you define what everything is. You decide along with your opponent what is impassable, difficult/dangerous, what will count as area terrain or ruins and of course what save will be conferred by each piece of terrain. (you may or may not decide to go with the chart on page 21). What if there were no craters beforehand and as such neither side has agree to how they’ll work, where the edge is, if it is going to count as area terrain and what save it will confer and so on. The book will offer you a rough guide, like page 21 will tell you craters probably confer a 4+ save. But what about where the terrain starts and ends, is just the hole section of the terrain going to count or is any part going to be difficult terrain?




I just want to state that I like the idea of a vehicle blowing up and leaving a big hole for infantry to hide in. I like the idea of a changing battlefield over the course of the game and cover where there was no cover before. My issue is there's no standard for size, it's rife for abuse. If gw had a bunch of pieces similar to the micro art studio wreck pile for each vehicle I'd be fine with it. Obviously they would fit because they're more or less the same size as the vehicle that just blew up. There's still the problem of being able to afford enough for every vehicle in your army, again leading to situations that aren't fair. Also, there is the issue of real line of sight to take into account. You’d pretty much have to define craters/wreckage piles as area terrain to circumvent real line of site issues.

In a friendly/casual game this is likely a non-issue assuming you discuss it beforehand. I'm focusing more on in a tournament setting. What would you do if you were facing a big mech force and your opponent had gw craters for every one of their vehicles? Great you blew up his chimera/rhino, the squad is still getting a 4+ cover save in subsequent turns. Boourns.

I have tried to avoid this potential argument by making my own craters. Cut from plasticard the base is the same size as my chimera then just pva'd newspaper on it sanded it and painted. Free 4+ saves and potential of ruining assaults is just to good an opportunity to pass by.

But are you calling them craters? Do your opponent generally mind playing craters/rough ground (whatever rough ground is) as area terrain?

I ask because area terrain is sort of the last bastion of abstract terrain that throws out true line of sight.

As with all terrain, you have to agree pre-gamer.

Vehicles dont explode and make nice craters that were the exact size of the vehicle ... debris and such will be scattered a considerable distance.

Also what whining is this about free 4+ cover saves for people with craters? Take the 4+ save even if you dont have the actuall terrain object, the rules say its there so it is.

I, for one, am deeply offended by your anti-Communist comment. If you were a real communist, you would go to a hobby store, buy a can of spray paint, a few containers of plaster, and spend a few hours mixing plaster and pouring craters instead of whining that no one gave you any. "From everyone according to their means" means that you have to get up off your butt and do stuff, instead of just complaining.

Only the petty, cold hearted Bourgeoisie would attempt to gain advantage by attempting to deny people the right to use craters.

As far as tournaments go, at my previous tournament I brought:
1. My army that I was going to use.
2. The army that I was letting someone borrow.
3. Two six by four fruit crates full of craters in case anyone needed them.
4. Extra buildings and box of assorted terrain to help fill tables.

Craters for everyone, I say. Rise up together, my brothers, and bring about a world filled with enough glorious terrain that no table must go barren, and no exploded vehicle goes unreplaced.

Crablezworth wrote:But are you calling them craters? Do your opponent generally mind playing craters/rough ground (whatever rough ground is) as area terrain?

I ask because area terrain is sort of the last bastion of abstract terrain that throws out true line of sight.

They look like craters, I call them craters and no one has ever argued with them after seeing the exploded result on the damage table. Yes I use them as area terrain and difficult terrain with no problems. If people are arguing with you over this (or half the arguments that crop up here) in real life (not on the internet) then find other people to play with.

The only argument I could see is over the size of the crater hence I made my own.

I didnt think craters were, by default, area terrain?

nosferatu1001 wrote:I didnt think craters were, by default, area terrain?

By default they aren't anything! Nor is anything in 40k, because one of the steps of starting a game is to define the terrain which applies to that game only.

Just my opinion but generaly destroyed vehicles dont disapear leaving a crater, unless hit by a suitably large explosion such as laser guided bomb or massive internal explosion (car bomb). the template should be a wreckage the size and shape of the original vehicle. Yes there would be debris and wreckage scattered but nothing anyone with legs left couldnt easily negotiate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I didnt think craters were, by default, area terrain?

I don't think they are by default area terrain. What I'm saying is the only terrain type that throw line of site out the window is area terrain. Some people make "craters" or rough ground markers (flat card pieces with a few plastic bitz) and the problem is if it doesn't block los then it's not giving you cover unless you define it as area terrain in which case just being in/on it will give the squad a cover save.

joker8911 wrote:Just my opinion but generaly destroyed vehicles dont disapear leaving a crater, unless hit by a suitably large explosion such as laser guided bomb or massive internal explosion (car bomb).

Hence the difference between the Destroyed: Wrecked result and a Destroyed: Explodes! result.

we just generally agree that craters are 4+ cover, difficult ground, and we use the gw craters provided, but stick to the small ones. (if a second vehicle explodes close by or near the first we replace it with thte double craters etc)in my exp this dosent wreck the game, and in the event a vehicle explodes while it was in terrain we use common sense. if it was a smaller/lighter piece like a small group of trees, they get removed in favour of the crater (since they probally got pancaked by the blast) larger buildings get the craters placed as close as possible to accomidate the buildings orginal posistion and the crater. no one ive ever played against has had a problem with this.

If you can't make craters for 6-explodes... then make paper outlines the size of your vehicles or most common vehicles.

I bring craters that fit the 3 major sizes (walker, rhino and LR) and that pretty much handles every situation for me and opponents.

Even if you don't put craters, the rules say mark it with difficult terrain, which means you have to mark it. So dice outlining an area, a piece of paper... WHATEVER.

I do agree with the communist comment. The true communism position is that if you have the means to make and provide craters, than you come to every game with enough for your fellow gamer and give him your craters instead of coming with none and demanding no one have any. Personally, that is what I do mainly because I want the advantages of craters causing issues for movement.

DarthSpader wrote:we just generally agree that craters are 4+ cover, difficult ground, and we use the gw craters provided, but stick to the small ones. (if a second vehicle explodes close by or near the first we replace it with thte double craters etc)in my exp this dosent wreck the game, and in the event a vehicle explodes while it was in terrain we use common sense. if it was a smaller/lighter piece like a small group of trees, they get removed in favour of the crater (since they probally got pancaked by the blast) larger buildings get the craters placed as close as possible to accomidate the buildings orginal posistion and the crater. no one ive ever played against has had a problem with this.

I think that's fine. I've not had many issues in friendly/pickup games but my concern is more from a tournament perspective where being a little tighter/anal/exacting about the rules is more common.

The main problem as I see it is as follows:

I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

In my opinion I am correct in that it is indeed part of the rules that if you have a crater you must replace the destroyed vehicle with it. However a crater, unlike a wreck, does not have specificly defined rules. All wrecks are dangerous terrain, simple, case closed. However, pretty much everything else terrainwise has to be agreed upon, there's plenty of suggestion in the rulebook as to how you may want to treat certain terrain but it's not definitive, it states several times the importance to agree to how you will define each piece of terrain.

Again, in most friendly/pickup games the tension is not high and you can use the good ole 4+ to decide disputes but in a tournament you may have spent a lot of money to travel to and attend you may want to risk receiving a crappier sportsmanship rating (assuming it's not so competative as to not even have a sportmanship component though those sort of tournament do exist).

I've never had any problems using GW craters when they're available. So what if they're a little bigger? The very fact that there was an EXPLOSION!!! suggests that it has affected an area greater than the dimensions of the former vehicle.

If you wanted to avoid advantageous placement, try this for a house rule:

- Randomly choose a crater
- Determine the exact centre of the vehicle
- Determine the exact centre of the crater
- Determine a point of reference on the outside of the crater
- Remove the vehicle from the table
- Place the centre of the crater where the centre of the vehicle was
- Using a scatter dice, turn the point of reference in the direction of the arrow (in relation to the determined centre).
- Optional: you may place your disembarking troops anywhere in the new terrain piece to represent being flung out of the wreckage

Once in a game I triple-stacked the same GW plastic crater because they happened to fit into each other... and because three vehicles exploded in approximately the same place during the course of the game! There was no real purpose - it just seemed funny at the time.

nkelsch wrote:Even if you don't put craters, the rules say mark it with difficult terrain, which means you have to mark it.

The rules actually say to replace the vehicle with a terrain piece if you have one.

So, no, that doesn't mean dropping down a piece of paper that says 'crater' on it. If you don't have one on hand, just remove the vehicle.

Crablezworth wrote:I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

If I couldn't reach an agreement with my opponent at that point, I would call over a Judge to clarify the rules in play at that event for craters and for the placement of terrain in the event of a Destroyed: Explodes! result.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I've never had any problems using GW craters when they're available. So what if they're a little bigger? The very fact that there was an EXPLOSION!!! suggests that it has affected an area greater than the dimensions of the former vehicle.

If you wanted to avoid advantageous placement, try this for a house rule:

- Randomly choose a crater
- Determine the exact centre of the vehicle
- Determine the exact centre of the crater
- Determine a point of reference on the outside of the crater
- Remove the vehicle from the table
- Place the centre of the crater where the centre of the vehicle was
- Using a scatter dice, turn the point of reference in the direction of the arrow (in relation to the determined centre).
- Optional: you may place your disembarking troops anywhere in the new terrain piece to represent being flung out of the wreckage

Once in a game I triple-stacked the same GW plastic crater because they happened to fit into each other... and because three vehicles exploded in approximately the same place during the course of the game! There was no real purpose - it just seemed funny at the time.

I appreciate the suggestion but it's not just advantageous placement, it's also physical limitations (crater won't fit) and aesthetic considerations it looks stupid, the crater doesn't match the terrain at all, part of it is on top of other terrain and now it's on an angle so wobbly model syndrome is far worse. I'm pretty particular, I make an effort to only play against fully painted armies on finished terrain. I'm a bit of a snob like that. Craters seem like a nice idea but it's half baked. It's like when I read through planetstrike and realized you essentially need a ruined version of each bastion. I think abstract stuff like this is better suited for cities of death or planetstrike or any other add on to the core game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Even if you don't put craters, the rules say mark it with difficult terrain, which means you have to mark it.

The rules actually say to replace the vehicle with a terrain piece if you have one.

So, no, that doesn't mean dropping down a piece of paper that says 'crater' on it. If you don't have one on hand, just remove the vehicle.

Crablezworth wrote:I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

If I couldn't reach an agreement with my opponent at that point, I would call over a Judge to clarify the rules in play at that event for craters and for the placement of terrain in the event of a Destroyed: Explodes! result.

Well assuming it was a smaller tournament that was semi-competative and didn't have judges/mediators. It was simply up to you to give your opponent a rating from 1 to 10 on sportsmanship. How would you handle it?

Also, in you opinion am I crazy or is my assessment of the situation for the most part valid?

Then your scenario is inherently flawed. Consider the following problem at the same tournament:

My opponent starts to measure from front to back when moving, and moves the ruler with the model, gaining an extra 2" of movement. When I point it out to him, he refuses to acknowledge the problem. What do I do?

If there are no judges, then you can do nothing here either. Hell, even if the opponent starts claiming 2++ saves for being in those craters, you can't do anything.

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Even if you don't put craters, the rules say mark it with difficult terrain, which means you have to mark it.

The rules actually say to replace the vehicle with a terrain piece if you have one.

So, no, that doesn't mean dropping down a piece of paper that says 'crater' on it. If you don't have one on hand, just remove the vehicle.

Well let me rephrase...

Most events determine what to do with craters, and almost all of them seem to say you MUST mark the area as difficult terrain crater terrain or not. There is no choice or option. All players must mark craters and be impacted equally by them.

But if you take the rulebook to the extreme, does this mean that I only have to put a crater when it benefits me? What if my opponent explodes and I know the crater will trip him up and be a disadvantage, can I force a crater on him? What if I don't want a crater as it will slow down my unit, can I refuse a crater? bY RAW does 'if you have one' mean the owner of the vehicle must own the crater for it to be used or does an opponent providing a crater model fill the RAW of 'if you have one'?

This seems like way too much abuse based upon having or not having a crater model. Which gets us back to the core situation... you either have to choose to never use craters ever, or always use craters in every situation. Tourneys say 'use craters in every situation' and there are rules for it and it is easy enough to mark difficult terrain.

NOVA's standard has been pretty reasonable and what I have experienced at many events:

Vehicle Explosion Results – In order to ensure fairness and equal play on all
tables, when a vehicle is destroyed and explodes perform one of the following:
o Replace the vehicle with a crater or similarly representative terrain piece
of nearly identical size to the destroyed vehicle
o In the absence of an appropriately sized terrain piece, bracket the vehicle
with spare dice, creating an outline of its former position; the area within
this outline should be considered area and difficult terrain, per the rules
o An area of difficult terrain *MUST* be represented in this case at all
times – players may not be forced to remove their vehicle in place of
an area of empty/clear ground simply b/c they did not bring perfectly
sized craters/terrain pieces with them

believe it or not, a few at my FLGS use 2d rectangular cut-outs to mark where the explosion occurred and you just have to apply the rules when moving over it.

Crablezworth wrote:Well assuming it was a smaller tournament that was semi-competative and didn't have judges/mediators.

Who's running the thing, then?

nkelsch wrote:Most events determine what to do with craters, and almost all of them seem to say you MUST mark the area as difficult terrain crater terrain or not. There is no choice or option. All players must mark craters and be impacted equally by them.

Then in those events, you don't have a problem. In other events, you'll simply need to clear it up with a judge if you and your opponent can't reach an agreement.

But if you take the rulebook to the extreme, does this mean that I only have to put a crater when it benefits me? What if my opponent explodes and I know the crater will trip him up and be a disadvantage, can I force a crater on him? What if I don't want a crater as it will slow down my unit, can I refuse a crater?

All of these questions have the same answer: if the player whose vehicle has been destroyed has a suitable terrain piece, he substitutes it for the destroyed vehicle.

bY RAW does 'if you have one' mean the owner of the vehicle must own the crater for it to be used or does an opponent providing a crater model fill the RAW of 'if you have one'?

Yes.

I personally read it as the owner of the vehicle needing to supply the terrain piece, but YMMV.

This seems like way too much abuse based upon having or not having a crater model.

Which is only really going to be a problem in a tournie that doesn't have a written house rule to handle it... and in that situation it is, as I already pointed out, easily sorted by calling on a judge.

In friendly games, if you're having serious issues agreeing with your opponent on how to play it, and are taking the game seriously enough to think it's worth arguing about, you're probably better off just finding a new (and more malleable) opponent than wasting time arguing about it.


For what it's worth, if I was running a tournie I would supply a bucket of 'destroyed vehicle' markers for each table, and simply remove it from possible contention.

Is replacing the vehicle with a crater new to 5th edition? We've always just pulled the vehicle until someone pointed this out last week. Now apparently we are supposed to replace exploded vehicles with craters. IMO it just clogs the board with a bunch of unnecessary terrain, when the board already has plenty to begin with.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Is replacing the vehicle with a crater new to 5th edition? We've always just pulled the vehicle until someone pointed this out last week. Now apparently we are supposed to replace exploded vehicles with craters. IMO it just clogs the board with a bunch of unnecessary terrain, when the board already has plenty to begin with.

I couldn't agree more. I wish they had left the crater concept to just a suggestion not a rule. It could be a cool idea in some instances but for the most part it's just tacky and annoying.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Is replacing the vehicle with a crater new to 5th edition?

Nope. It was introduced in 4th edition. In 3rd you just removed the vehicle.

I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

If i was playing someone that is that big of a dick, id just point out the many things in his codex that dont actually work by RAW, and break half his army. (By break i mean render inoperable, not literally smash his minis .... i know theres some people out there who woulda saw this ....)

kill dem stunties wrote:

I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

If i was playing someone that is that big of a dick, id just point out the many things in his codex that dont actually work by RAW, and break half his army. (By break i mean render inoperable, not literally smash his minis .... i know theres some people out there who woulda saw this ....)

Technically, it sounds like 'craterboy' was following RAW.

1. He *HAD* craters which means he gets to use them. You can't stop him from doing so.
2. His opponent did not have craters which means he is not entitled to them. (though it is a friendly thing to share)
3. Craters are not decorative at all and have rules which means asking for them to have no impact isn't fair at all.

The only discussion point is the cover provided. This is the tricky part as GW craters I can see providing 4+ but I use some very flat craters designed for standing on and TRUE LOS doesn't give one smidgen of cover... There is no intervening models part of the crater and being in area terrain doesn't give cover so 50% of your unit would need to have thier feet hidden by the edge of the crater which is easily done with a GW crater.

Does this mean people can bring craters purposefully designed to function like explosion bunkers?

Pika_power wrote:Then your scenario is inherently flawed. Consider the following problem at the same tournament:

My opponent starts to measure from front to back when moving, and moves the ruler with the model, gaining an extra 2" of movement. When I point it out to him, he refuses to acknowledge the problem. What do I do?

If there are no judges, then you can do nothing here either. Hell, even if the opponent starts claiming 2++ saves for being in those craters, you can't do anything.

Craterboy is a bad example, for the above reason.

nkelsch wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:

I play my first game at a tournament. My opponent and I go over the board and agree on what each piece of terrain is (clear, difficult, dangerous, impassable, area terrain) and what saves they will confer or if all cover will simply be 4+ or what have you. We forget to discuss what craters will count as and how they will function. I shoot his rhino and it explodes. He replaces it with a much larger gw crater and now claims his squad receives a 4+ cover save and is now in area terrain. I object as we had not discussed what craters would count as and I myself do not have any. I agree he may place a crater to conform with the rules but it is only decorative. He takes issue with that so as a compromise I agree to how the crater will function (4+ cover, area terrain, difficult terrain) but ask that in the spirit of fair competition I be allowed access to his craters in the event one of my vehicles explodes. He says I should have brought my own craters.

That situation is entirely fictional and has never occured. What would you do in that situation?

If i was playing someone that is that big of a dick, id just point out the many things in his codex that dont actually work by RAW, and break half his army. (By break i mean render inoperable, not literally smash his minis .... i know theres some people out there who woulda saw this ....)

Technically, it sounds like 'craterboy' was following RAW.

1. He *HAD* craters which means he gets to use them. You can't stop him from doing so.
2. His opponent did not have craters which means he is not entitled to them. (though it is a friendly thing to share)
3. Craters are not decorative at all and have rules which means asking for them to have no impact isn't fair at all.

The only discussion point is the cover provided. This is the tricky part as GW craters I can see providing 4+ but I use some very flat craters designed for standing on and TRUE LOS doesn't give one smidgen of cover... There is no intervening models part of the crater and being in area terrain doesn't give cover so 50% of your unit would need to have thier feet hidden by the edge of the crater which is easily done with a GW crater.

Does this mean people can bring craters purposefully designed to function like explosion bunkers?

A wreck has very specific rules as defined on page 62, craters like any other terrain feature don't have specific rules and need to be defined and agreed upon before the game by both parties. In the example I gave, that discussion had never taken place. pg 13 "it is important that you and you opponent agree what class of terrain each feature falls into before starting your game" "you should discuss all such terrain features with your opponent before the game and agree exactly what everything counts as and where boundaries of terrain features lie. When the game is underway, it will be harder to discuss quite so impartially" pg 21 "before deploying their armies, it is a very good idea for players to go through all terrain pieces on the battlefield quickly and agree what kind of cover each will offer" pg 88"before continuing you should agree with your opponent how to define each piece of terrain you are using (see page 13 and 77 for more details). This doesn't take any more than a few minutes, but it is important to do BEFORE THE BATTLE STARTS - otherwise it has a tendency to cause confusion and arguments in the middle of the game."

Oh FFS.

Just put down a crater and play, or let your opponent do the same. The GW craters work fine, I like having the huge ones for when a vehicle blows up 6" or something else suitably epic happens.

If that unit having a 4+ cover save undoes all of your tactics you're in a dire situation in the first place.