Foul Appearance and Dump Off

[Loki]

Dauntless specifically states the player "must block" if the roll is failed, whereas FA makes no such statement.

This is wrong, I can’t find where it says Dauntless means block must be done, can you remember where it is?

[dode74]

Loki -

you have yet to show how you make your semantic arguement work in the practical mechanics of the game

I thought I had, but ok.
Declare block action.
State "I want to block your FA player - let's roll to see if I can"
Make FA roll
If FA roll passes then "I will block your FA player - you can dump off if you wish"
IF FA roll fails then "I will not block your FA player - the criteria for Dump Off have not been met so the skill cannot be used"

The wanting to block and declaration of blocking are to all intents and purposes the same within the mechanics of the rules

Declaring you want to block and declaring you will block are not the same thing, as demonstrated above. DO triggers whenyou declare you will block, not that you want to.

So it’s my turn and my tackle wardancer has leapt into your cage next to your Dump Off Foul Appearance Skaven Thrower. I’ve declared a blitz and rolled and passed my leap... What next?

See above, I guess.

As for where it says "must" for Dauntless, it's in the LRB6 skill description, my bold:

Dauntless (General)
A player with this skill is capable of psyching himself up so he can take
on even the very strongest opponent. The skill only works when the
player attempts to block an opponent who is stronger than himself. When
the skill is used, the coach of the player with the Dauntless skill rolls a D6
and adds it to his strength. If the total is equal to or lower than the
opponent’s Strength, the player must block using his normal Strength. If
the total is greater, then the player with the Dauntless skill counts as
having a Strength equal to his opponent’s when he makes the block. The
strength of both players is calculated before any defensive or offensive
assists are added but after all other modifiers.

BB2106 wording, particularly the "must", is the same. FA has not been FAQ'd outside of the interaction with Dauntless - there has been no skill rewording.

Darkson -

I declare I 'want' to Block your FA/DO player - at the point of declaration DO kicks in

Except DO doesn't kick in until you declare you will block the FA/DO player. You don't know if you will or not until after FA - if you fail the FA roll then you will not.

[Loki]

So it’s my turn and my tackle wardancer has leapt into your cage next to your Dump Off Foul Appearance Skaven Thrower. I’ve declared a blitz and rolled and passed my leap... What next?

See above, I guess.

Not good enough you’ve gone back to your semantics. this is where the rubber meets the road.

What next?

[dode74]

Ok, if you want to be like that:

• it’s my turn and my tackle wardancer has leapt into your cage next to your Dump Off Foul Appearance Skaven Thrower. I’ve declared a blitz and rolled and passed my leap... What next?

You've already declared an Action and moved into position. You say "I want to block your Thrower but Foul Appearance may prevent it. Let's roll to see if I can". One of three things then happen:

1. You pass the roll, meaning you can block.
1a. If you choose to do so then you declare "I will block your Thrower". At this point the Dump Off criteria have been met and the skill cannot be used.
1b. If you choose not to do so (for whatever reason) then you declare "I will not block your Thrower". At this point the Dump Off criteria have not been met and the skill cannot be used.

2. You fail the roll, meaning you cannot block. There is therefore no opportunity to declare that you will block, so the Dump Off criteria have not been met and the skill cannot be used.

[Loki]

There we go...

I’m the active player I say, “I declare my WD will block your Thrower” not what you said I would say.

What next?

[dode74]

I say "You can't say you will yet because FA may prevent it. Shall we see if it does or not?"

[Itchen Masack]

In a related question regarding the individual player's desire over that of the coach (ignoring Dump Off), does a Frenzy player make 1 or 2 Foul Appearance rolls if the first Block Result was Pushed?

[Loki]

Sorry No, I’ve declared a block, that’s triggered your DO choice do you want to dump off before I roll any dice.

What now? This isn’t magic there’s no stack here

[Loki]

I hope you can see where this is going I sit not rolling dice and you sit saying nothing, stalemate. We ask the TO for a ruling three independent TO’s have already told you what they think.

I grant you that I’m sure you could verbally make some people roll the FA before you declared DO but that doesn’t help with your question regarding the rules they leave it open to interpretation. I go back to my point that you can’t unlock the Want and Declare, as for the purposes of BB they happen at the same time. Let JTY or GW know and they can do an FAQ one way or the other.

[dode74]

I say that declaring a block isn't the trigger, declaring you "will throw a block" is the trigger and you can't say that you will yet. You want to, but we don't know if you will. When we know that you will then DO is triggered.

And if you continue to argue I show you the specific quote in the rules which states that FA triggers when you "want to block the player" and DO triggers when you declare that you "will throw a block at him". I then ask if you want to block, and whether you *will* block or if there is something which might prevent that.

I hope you can see where this is going I sit not rolling dice and you sit saying nothing, stalemate. We ask the TO for a ruling three independent TO’s have already told you what they think.

At least one of those TOs has quoted the rule incorrectly. I mean, you can sit there and play by house rules if you like, and TOs can implement house rules if they like. The point is that it's not what the rulebook states.

I go back to my point that you can’t unlock the Want and Declare, as for the purposes of BB they happen at the same time.

And I have demonstrated that "wanting" and "declaring that you will" are not the same thing. You seem to think it's declaring that you want, for some reason, and it's not.

[lunchmoney]

In a related question regarding the individual player's desire over that of the coach (ignoring Dump Off), does a Frenzy player make 1 or 2 Foul Appearance rolls if the first Block Result was Pushed?

2

Screenshot_20190721_235344_com.dropbox.android.jpg

[dode74]

In a related question regarding the individual player's desire over that of the coach (ignoring Dump Off), does a Frenzy player make 1 or 2 Foul Appearance rolls if the first Block Result was Pushed?

That one was FAQ'd.

Q. Do I have to make another Dauntless or Foul Appearance roll
on the second block of a Frenzy, or do I stick with whatever I
rolled before the first block?
A. Yes, you must make a second roll for both of these skills,
regardless of what you rolled for either before the first block.

[Loki]

I do see what you mean but I don’t think it’s as simple as you are presenting, you are concentrating on Will and I get what you are saying FA triggers on want but until the block is assured its an aspiration. I still think you are being a touch blasé on Declares. The DO rule is assuming that the declaration means it will happen, you have highlighted an interaction which basically has not been factored in. Its just as easy for me to stick to my guns and say that rolling FA is an integral part of the blocking mechanic and there is nothing in the rules to say it isn’t, yes it is a different roll but why else would you be rolling a FA other than part of a block. The will in DO could be seen as a reflection of the future tense rather than a certainty. Again you have nothing in the rules to contradict this.

You can argue until you are blue in the face but in a real environment there’s not enough corroboration in the text.

[Itchen Masack]

That one was FAQ'd.

Q. Do I have to make another Dauntless or Foul Appearance roll
on the second block of a Frenzy, or do I stick with whatever I
rolled before the first block?
A. Yes, you must make a second roll for both of these skills,
regardless of what you rolled for either before the first block.

Excellent. How does that tally with the FA rule requiring the player to "Want"? On the 2nd block there is no want, there is a must.

[dode74]

The DO rule is assuming that the declaration means it will happen

Citation needed, I think.

The rule says what it says, and it says "will", not "might" or "could" or "may", but "will". We don't know if you will until after FA is rolled.

Its just as easy for me to stick to my guns and say that rolling FA is an integral part of the blocking mechanic and there is nothing in the rules to say it isn’t

There's nothing in the rules which states it is, though. The difference between you saying that and me saying what I am saying is that I can point to the rules to back the statement up.

why else would you be rolling a FA other than part of a block

To see if you can block. It's not part of the block itself. In fact, the FAQ support the fact that it's not part of the block when it talks about rerolls and FA:

• Q. If I re-roll a block that my player throws, do I need to re-roll
  Dauntless or Foul Appearance as well?
  A. No, a re-roll affects only one result. The Dauntless or Foul
  Appearance roll is a separate result from the block.
  

The will in DO could be seen as a reflection of the future tense rather than a certainty. Again you have nothing in the rules to contradict this.

There are many ways of expressing future tense with both certainty and uncertainty. "Will" expresses it as a strong assertion of future events or is an expression of certainty. With FA to come you cannot assert strongly or claim with certainty to know that the block will happen.

You can argue until you are blue in the face but in a real environment there’s not enough corroboration in the text.

And there is no corroboration to claim that DO should happen first. At best you've made a case (which I don't accept) that they happen at the same time, which only creates ambiguity.