Talk Fantasy Football

Just a quick question (have not found any answers with the search).

Can Pro used to (try) re-roll a block result like double skulls? I found some messages that say yes but as non-english native speaker i am puzzled by

"... Pro is allowed to re-roll any one dice roll he has made..."

reads a little like only rolls that use one die are allowed to reroll (dodges, leaps, one dice blocks). I better ask this now because I know it will come up in my league sooner or later.

Yes, you can use pro to reroll your doubleskulls.

Note that the plural of "die" is "dice". That should help understand the rule a bit better.

You can use pro to reroll block dice - all of those that were rolled.

You could use pro to reroll tentacles or shadowing rolls too

Are there any other multiple dice rolls that pro can be used on?

i'm wondering about shadowing and tentacles: both are opposed rolls, with each coach rolling a die and adding various modifiers

are they considered single rolls made by the player with the skill, or 2 rolls, one made by the dodger, the other made by the player with the skill?

great, just like I thought - good to have a thread to point upcoming opponents to if they don't believe.

khudzlin wrote:i'm wondering about shadowing and tentacles: both are opposed rolls, with each coach rolling a die and adding various modifiers

are they considered single rolls made by the player with the skill, or 2 rolls, one made by the dodger, the other made by the player with the skill?

They were supposed to be considered a single two-dice roll, so only the active coach could use Pro and that would cause both dice to be rerolled. But it seems like only about 80% of the BBRC and 1% of the BB community knew that that was the intention, so the two later versions of the rules have changed the mechanic so that the active coach rolls both dice, thus eliminating the confusion.

Thanks, Tenwit, that expresses it very neatly.

Although I see it more as a retroactive change to the rules interpretation for the purposes of rules consistency. But I have no axe to grind.

All the best.

thank you for that answer, it's very clear

Smeborg wrote: Although I see it more as a retroactive change to the rules interpretation for the purposes of rules consistency. But I have no axe to grind.
.

I think that's accurate, even if it doesn't sum up everyone's intentions, it certainly sums up the effect.