Haywire effect question.

Rading the Haywire Blaster rules it says:
For every roll to hit after the damage from the hit has been resolved roll an additional dice and on a 2-5 you get a glancing hit and a 6 you get a penetrating hit.

Pretty straight forward, my question has to do with cover saves. Since the haywire effect is an "additional" effect on the target, based solely on being hit. I would think that enemy vehicles would get a cover save vs the damage from the S4 Blaster shot but not from the haywire effect roll, since it's based on hitting the vehicle and the cover save doesn't change the fact that the vehicle was hit. Does this sound right? Is this FAQ'd somewhere that I missed?

the cover save is considered an invulnerable save, so it can be used to negate the "damage" effects from being hit. its more about saying the shot would have hit if it hadn't been been for that pesky column the tank was behind.(spirit of the rules, not rules as written).

Funny, I just thought of this last night and was going to post about it today.

Ebonhart, I think Rybnick is wondering if there would be a cover save at all for the secondary effect, the d6 roll.

My LGW had this conversation when the book came out (I was a big supporter of Haywire Blasters until GKs came out and became so popular) The way we figured it out is a cover save negates the damage results of the shot, so yes, the effect is negated.

ah, still though i would think that it was meant to have a save as having cover makes something harder to hit, the cover save doesn't take into effect having something intervening and the chance to hit the object in between, other wise it would effect the BS of a unit and make it higher, instead they simplified it to giving you an option of an additional save. so, SOTG wise yes they'd get a save to symbolize the chance that you hit the object instead. RAW wise no, that effect of the haywire is about on par with the hexrifle's effect (DE), the trickster's death effect(SW), and the bolt of change(CD/CSM).

in essence it comes down to if your playing competitively or for fun. if this is for a tournament ask the rules judge before the game starts.

P.S. this is my $0.02. I'm not a rules monger nor have i ever i ever been an official, this is just how my meta plays it and what makes since to me.

Oh yeah, I always have allowed a cover save. But sometimes I get these questions in my head and I can't stop thinking about them

Ebonhart wrote:

the cover save is considered an invulnerable save, so it can be used to negate the "damage" effects from being hit. its more about saying the shot would have hit if it hadn't been been for that pesky column the tank was behind.(spirit of the rules, not rules as written).

This was my thinking too until I looked at the rulebook this morning. The rule states that you take the invulnerable save if you suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, not after being hit. I tend to lean towards the spirit of the rules, which would have me lean towards not making the roll. It feels wrong, but appears to be correct to also have to take a save for the effect roll also.

Hmm...GW grey area? the Hell you say!

I play in friendly games mostly so giving a cover save for the extra d6 is fine with me, this question just cropped up in my head this morning and I had to get some outside oppinions.

I can definitely see how the case could be argued either direction though.

Pro:
Cover save is an invulnerable save so negates any damage from the attack

Con:
Since cover saves are rolled after damage is caused and the rules for the Haywire Blaster states (if I remember right) that you determine the results of the s4 shot first then after those are resolved an additional d6 is rolled for the haywire effect. So it's an effect of the hit and not actual damage cause.

Against a av10 vehicle there is a chance of the oddity of a glance from rolling 6 to pen and a glance from haywire, then making 1 save. The vehicle was a little bit hit? It would make more sense if cover was taken before rolling penetration/to wound, but it isn't, so weirdness may result. The rule is worded "takes a glancing hit" (or pen. hit) so it would still get a cover save even if its an "effect" since the effect causes a hit the cover can negate.

abjectus wrote:

Against a av10 vehicle there is a chance of the oddity of a glance from rolling 6 to pen and a glance from haywire, then making 1 save. The vehicle was a little bit hit? It would make more sense if cover was taken before rolling penetration/to wound, but it isn't, so weirdness may result. The rule is worded "takes a glancing hit" (or pen. hit) so it would still get a cover save even if its an "effect" since the effect causes a hit the cover can negate.

I am with this.

abjectus wrote:

Against a av10 vehicle there is a chance of the oddity of a glance from rolling 6 to pen and a glance from haywire, then making 1 save. The vehicle was a little bit hit? It would make more sense if cover was taken before rolling penetration/to wound, but it isn't, so weirdness may result. The rule is worded "takes a glancing hit" (or pen. hit) so it would still get a cover save even if its an "effect" since the effect causes a hit the cover can negate.

Our thoughts exactly. So like your situation of the AV 10 getting both a glance and a pen, they would get two cover saves, one for the glance caused by the strength, and one for the "effect" which caused a pen.