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.

If I shoot a vehicle in cover, it will get it's cover save. That get's resolved. Next, the haywire effect happens. Will the vehicle get a cover save from this secondary effect as it doesn't require line of sight, in fact it isn't even a shooting attack it just goes off?

I can't think of any weapon that has a Haywire effect that also has another 'normal' effect.

So If you shoot the Haywire, you then roll the Haywire effect to get Glancing and Penetrating Hits, THEN you roll cover saves.

If there is such a weapon then you would get the Cover Save as Cover Saves are made against Glancing and Penetrating Hits.

The Haywire Blaster that Dark Eldar scourge have are Str 4, so if shooting against Armor 10 it could glance. That would be the primary effect, and the Haywire Secondary Effect states that it happens after the primary effects are resolved.

You get to take cover saves from the firing model; shooting a weapon at someone most certainly is a "shooting attack", literally by definition....

So yes, you would get cover saves from both the Strength based attack of the weapon AND the Haywire effect. Oh, and youre wrong - the Haywire affect DOES require LOS, as you cannot fire the weapon unless you have LOS.

Well I know that you would need to hit first, but the Haywire effect is resolved separately. That's where the main part of my curiosity comes from, as it IS a separate effect and in itself not reliant on line of sight.

I don't think you would get a cover save from the haywire effect.

The haywire blaster rule says that if the blaster hits a vehicle you resolve the effects as normal.

Then you roll an additional D6 and apply the result.

If you make a cover save against the first hit, then no additional die roll is made.
But if you fail the cover save and take the hit, why would you take an additional cover save?

time wizard wrote:I don't think you would get a cover save from the haywire effect.

The haywire blaster rule says that if the blaster hits a vehicle you resolve the effects as normal.

Then you roll an additional D6 and apply the result.

If you make a cover save against the first hit, then no additional die roll is made.
But if you fail the cover save and take the hit, why would you take an additional cover save?

You don't save hits, you save glance/pen results.

Cover saves apply against glancing and penetrating hits caused by shooting attacks. Haywire blasters are a shooting attack. Just because they have 2 chances to cause glancing or penetrating hits doesn't make things any different or an exception.

Dez wrote:Well I know that you would need to hit first, but the Haywire effect is resolved separately. That's where the main part of my curiosity comes from, as it IS a separate effect and in itself not reliant on line of sight.

So there isnt a firing model? I beg to differ.

time wizard wrote:I don't think you would get a cover save from the haywire effect.

The haywire blaster rule says that if the blaster hits a vehicle you resolve the effects as normal.

Then you roll an additional D6 and apply the result.

If you make a cover save against the first hit, then no additional die roll is made.
But if you fail the cover save and take the hit, why would you take an additional cover save?

Because you have a penetrating or glancing hit you need to deal with? You are NOT making an "additional" cover save - you are making A cover save against An effect, the haywire effect, which is 100% separate from anything that may or may not come from the first shots strength based attack.

That's the other thing, it says to resolve the first shot ie a cover save is made fine. Then, make an additional d6 roll and consult the shot. To me, that reads no matter what happens with the first shot, you are going to roll a d6.

I see where you are coming from, time wizard. I hadn't thought of it that way before, hence why I posted this question. To get other peoples thoughts, and explain where my train of thought was going. Though it often get's derailed....

Dez wrote:That's the other thing, it says to resolve the first shot ie a cover save is made fine. Then, make an additional d6 roll and consult the shot. To me, that reads no matter what happens with the first shot, you are going to roll a d6.

I see where you are coming from, time wizard. I hadn't thought of it that way before, hence why I posted this question. To get other peoples thoughts, and explain where my train of thought was going. Though it often get's derailed....

I don't see how it's confusing.

You roll to hit.
If hit, roll to glance/pen.
If glance/pen, roll for cover.
If failed, roll result.
Roll for haywire glance/pen.
If glance/pen, roll for cover.
If failed, roll result.

You use cover saves on glance/pens, not on hits. iirc Haywires only require hits.

Because you have a penetrating or glancing hit you need to deal with? You are NOT making an "additional" cover save - you are making A cover save against An effect, the haywire effect, which is 100% separate from anything that may or may not come from the first shots strength based attack.

And this is exactly my train of thought on why there might not be a cover save from the Haywire Effect, because it is a separate from the first shot. I said above I realize there is a firing model, but isn't that taken out of the equation once the actual Haywire Effect resolves?

Dez wrote:

Because you have a penetrating or glancing hit you need to deal with? You are NOT making an "additional" cover save - you are making A cover save against An effect, the haywire effect, which is 100% separate from anything that may or may not come from the first shots strength based attack.

And this is exactly my train of thought on why there might not be a cover save from the Haywire Effect, because it is a separate from the first shot. I said above I realize there is a firing model, but isn't that taken out of the equation once the actual Haywire Effect resolves?

Why would it be?

It's not magic. You shot a gun. Your gun has two effects. If either glance/pen and the vehicle has cover, it gets a cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:You don't save hits, you save glance/pen results.

Page 62 of the main rulebook says otherwise. "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hi, it may take a cover save against it..."

So you take the cover save against the hit.

And since the second D6 from a haywire blaser causes either nothing, a glancing or a penetrating hit, then according to the above rule an obscured vehicle would take a cover save against that 2nd hit as well.

As much as I hate to speak against my beloved Dark Eldar, I think you can get a cover save against the second effect of the Haywire Blaster.

The Haywire blaster states to roll the D6. It then goes on to state that if a 1 is rolled it does nothing. On a 2-5, the vehicle takes a glancing hit. On a six, the vehicle takes a penetrating hit.

Pg. 62 of the BRB states that if the target vehicle is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

So unfortunately, RAW it looks like the secondary effect of a Haywire Blaster would get a cover save.

time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You don't save hits, you save glance/pen results.

Page 62 of the main rulebook says otherwise. "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hi, it may take a cover save against it..."

So you take the cover save against the hit.

And since the second D6 from a haywire blaser causes either nothing, a glancing or a penetrating hit, then according to the above rule an obscured vehicle would take a cover save against that 2nd hit as well.

Re-read that sentence. "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit.
It confused me once as well - you don't save hits, you save glancing hits or penetrating hits.

In other words, you roll cover saves *after* your opponent rolls to glance/pen.
And since Haywire creates glance/pen results, you can cover/invul save those as well.

so you take the cover save after you find out if it is glance or Pen.. but before the Damage result table is used?

Necronmike wrote:so you take the cover save after you find out if it is glance or Pen.. but before the Damage result table is used?

Correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:so you take the cover save after you find out if it is glance or Pen.. but before the Damage result table is used?

Correct.

hmmm i prob have been playing this vehicle cover save wrong then.. not taking the save at the correct time.. this could help me out alot.. i have to remeber to let my oppont find out if he glances or Pens first then i can try and cov save from that.
thanks

Necronmike wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:so you take the cover save after you find out if it is glance or Pen.. but before the Damage result table is used?

Correct.

hmmm i prob have been playing this vehicle cover save wrong then.. not taking the save at the correct time.. this could help me out alot.. i have to remeber to let my oppont find out if he glances or Pens first then i can try and cov save from that.
thanks

I'm not a statistician, but it should lower the chance of an explode/wrecked result by some amount. Whether that amount is negligible or not I have no idea.

time wizard wrote:And since the second D6 from a haywire blaser causes either nothing, a glancing or a penetrating hit, then according to the above rule an obscured vehicle would take a cover save against that 2nd hit as well.

Why would you take another save for the second effect? It's not a hit, it's an aftereffect.

Weapon is fired
Hits vehicle <- all that's needed for secondary effect to happen
roll for glanc/pen
cover saves
roll for secondary effect
???
profit

rigeld.. a good example that seems to happen to me alot.. would be a tank full of Las Cannons hit my monoth 4 times.. i then take 4 cover saves.. 2 pass 2 fail.. so then he gets to roll for glance / pen on the 2 that fail and thus still killing my monolith..

the correct way would be to see out of his 4 hits how many glance or Pen then take cover.. i could see how this would help me out alot.. out of 4 hits he might only glance / pen 2 .. then rolling for cover on 2 vs 4 is alot better odds..

keep in mind.. this is just an example on how if i change when i take the cover save how it would increase my odds of staying alive.. so its not MathHammer by any means just logical thought process.

Necronmike wrote:rigeld.. a good example that seems to happen to me alot.. would be a tank full of Las Cannons hit my monoth 4 times.. i then take 4 cover saves.. 2 pass 2 fail.. so then he gets to roll for glance / pen on the 2 that fail and thus still killing my monolith..

the correct way would be to see out of his 4 hits how many glance or Pen then take cover.. i could see how this would help me out alot.. out of 4 hits he might only glance / pen 2 .. then rolling for cover on 2 vs 4 is alot better odds..

keep in mind.. this is just an example on how if i change when i take the cover save how it would increase my odds of staying alive.. so its not MathHammer by any means just logical thought process.

Right, but part of that might be perception. I don't care enough to work the math out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Piz wrote:

time wizard wrote:And since the second D6 from a haywire blaser causes either nothing, a glancing or a penetrating hit, then according to the above rule an obscured vehicle would take a cover save against that 2nd hit as well.

Why would you take another save for the second effect? It's not a hit, it's an aftereffect.

Weapon is fired
Hits vehicle <- all that's needed for secondary effect to happen
roll for glanc/pen
cover saves
roll for secondary effect
???
profit

Because it generates a glance/pen. And the BRB says that you roll saves against glance/pens. Therefore, you get to save.

Piz wrote:

time wizard wrote:And since the second D6 from a haywire blaser causes either nothing, a glancing or a penetrating hit, then according to the above rule an obscured vehicle would take a cover save against that 2nd hit as well.

Why would you take another save for the second effect? It's not a hit, it's an aftereffect.

Weapon is fired
Hits vehicle <- all that's needed for secondary effect to happen
roll for glanc/pen
cover saves
roll for secondary effect
???
profit

because it results in a glance pen, and you can take cover saves from a glance / pen.

In fact you are required to show why you COULDN'T take a cover save, as I can show rules that let you do so.