Foul Appearance and Dump Off

[dode74]

Look at it the other way, I assume you are wanting FA before DO so you can see if the block would take place before rolling for DO. If active coach says I’m going to block your player - you only know he WANTS to block your player when he DECLARES the block. You say roll FA - he does and passes, you now say I want to use my DO. He says No, i’ve already rolled a dice which is part of the block, you needed to do DO when I declared, you said roll one part of the block action so I assumed you didn’t want to do DO.

I assume you wouldn’t ask someone to roll the block dice before deciding if you use DO.

Except FA *isn't* part of the block. Nothing anywhere says it is. It is to do with *wanting* to block: that is the trigger in accordance with the rule as written. The trigger is not knowing that the other coach wants to block, but the coach wanting to block.

Having declared a Block Action or Blitz Action the coach should decide "I want to block player A who has FA and DO" and roll FA to see if he can. He should *then* declare he is blocking and you have the choice to DO.

Consider it the other way: if the opposing player is not going to block me (either through choice or through disgust) why am I Dumping Off at all?

Lunchmoney - it is a question that was asked on Reddit and I got curious, that's all.

[lunchmoney]

Which did the redditers go? 'Cos, so far, here you have 4 people involved in the conversation and 75% of them say Dump Off first.

[dode74]

About 50-50. And tbh appeal to popularity isn't really an answer, is it? I'm more after a cogent argument for one way or the other, or a ruling from someone involved in rules making at some point. I'll happily take an argument for using DO first if someone can explain why a player would declare a block before they want to block.

[lunchmoney]

I show I want to block by declaring a block.

[dode74]

You do. But you *know* you want to block before you make that declaration. The want therefore comes before the declaration.

[Itchen Masack]

The Coach is declaring the Block, it is the Player that 'wants' to make the block in the Foul Appearance description. Does that make a difference to the way you are reading it?

I'd say that that the Player doesnt know he Wants to Block until after I've told him to

[dode74]

The coach declares the Block Action, but in both skill description cases it references "player".

This skill allows the player to make a Quick Pass when an opponent declares that he will throw a block at him

The player’s appearance is so horrible that any opposing player that wants to block the player

It might be possible to argue that "opponent" in the case of DO references the coach, and the player doesn't "want" to block until the block has been declared by the coach playing them. But that just makes it more ambiguous rather than less.

For example, Player A is next to Players X and Y. He declares a Block Action, which allows him to throw a block against either X or Y (or not at all, if he so chooses). Coach A decides Player A will try to block X - the "want" is established. Coach A then declares Player A will try to block X - he can't say he will block X because FA needs to be rolled. Therefore the "declares that he will throw a block at him" from DO is not yet established. Only after FA is rolled can you reasonably declare that Player A will block Player X, and only then is the trigger event for DO achieved. Because if FA fails then A will not block X, so no DO.

[Itchen Masack]

It's not ambiguous in the least to me, but there you go

Couldnt read your example, but the fault lies with me there. Gonna let the circles continue with others instead for now. Have fun

[Wagz]

You do. But you *know* you want to block before you make that declaration. The want therefore comes before the declaration.

But the want is only apparent to the opponent when the declaration is made, at least rules-wise. Presumably I could trigger DO by announcing out loud that I want to block a player with it no matter the board state, if simply wanting it to happen is enough?

For me it seems like the rules are slightly poorly-worded and both essentially trigger on declaring the block. I could accept either way round depending on your view of what you imagine is happening:

1) If FA means someone pulls out of a block last second because they're too disgusted (but they did already move to hit) then DO should trigger first because the player being blocked doesn't know if the punch will be followed-through with.
2) If FA means someone can't summon the courage to make the block at all then the FADO player doesn't even notice and would never think to use the DO ability (i.e. FA triggered first).

My interpretation would be number 2 because that's how I feel FA is more likely to work, but I think your interpretation of what FA represents is ultimately going to decide which one you think happens first.

[dode74]

It's not ambiguous in the least to me, but there you go

Certitude is no indication of accuracy

But the want is only apparent to the opponent when the declaration is made, at least rules-wise. Presumably I could trigger DO by announcing out loud that I want to block a player with it no matter the board state, if simply wanting it to happen is enough?

There's no need for the want to be apparent, although clearly it needs to be made apparent at some point. The trigger action is the want, not the target knowing about the want. It's a passive skill, after all...

For your second sentence, quite possibly. There doesn't seem to be a need for a block to be possible in order to trigger FA. So you could declare from across the board (having previously declared a Block or Blitz Action, ofc) and trigger FA, which you will either fail or pass. Regardless you won't be able to actually block unless the relevant conditions are met, so it would effectively be a pointless FA roll.

both essentially trigger on declaring the block

Except that's not what it says. I do agree with your interpretation though.

[Loki]

FA is most certainly part of the blocking process as otherwise you could your FA roll then not block, you can’t, once FA is rolled you have to roll block dice same as Dauntless. You are rolling dice for blocking which to my interpretation would mean you have passed the ‘declaration’ of blocking whether your opponent is psychic and can read your mind or not. DO is clear that it’s done before blocking, FA is part of the block mechanic, therefore DO must proceed FA.

I can see how rules writers could FAQ it the other way but if this (in the very unlikely event that someone did put Dump Off and Foul Appearance on the somewhat limited pool of potentials) in its current wording came up in a tournament I was TO’ing that’s how I would rule.

Your blind adherence to a semantic argument around ‘want’ while there is quite clearly no practical avenue to follow in the game outside some rather sketchy examples above is admirable. Good luck with whatever you’re trying to achieve you haven’t and without some fairly fundamental new evidence will not convince me that it reads some other way because you want it to.

[lunchmoney]

Stuff.

+1

[dode74]

FA is most certainly part of the blocking process as otherwise you could your FA roll then not block, you can’t, once FA is rolled you have to roll block dice same as Dauntless. You are rolling dice for blocking which to my interpretation would mean you have passed the ‘declaration’ of blocking whether your opponent is psychic and can read your mind or not. DO is clear that it’s done before blocking, FA is part of the block mechanic, therefore DO must proceed FA.

You are not rolling dice for blocking, you are rolling dice to see if you are even able to block. Again, the rule:

The player’s appearance is so horrible that any opposing player that
wants to block the player (or use a special attack that takes the place of
a block) must first roll a D6 and score 2 or more. If the opposing player
rolls a 1 he is too revolted to make the block and it is wasted (though the
opposing team does not suffer a turnover).

Note that you "must first roll a d6". That means it happens before the block.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that once you've rolled FA you can't choose to not block. Why not? Dauntless specifically states the player "must block" if the roll is failed, whereas FA makes no such statement. I see no reason why you can't declare the block target, pass FA, and then choose to not block. Nothing compels you to block.

FA is part of the block mechanic

Citation needed.

a semantic argument

It always makes me chuckle when someone, in a discussion about rules, tries to dismiss an argument as "semantic". Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, and we are trying to ascertain the meaning of the rules. Semantics is completely relevant here.

and without some fairly fundamental new evidence will not convince me that it reads some other way because you want it to

You are (or anyone else is) yet to provide any rules-based evidence that DO should come before FA.

[Darkson]

DO before FA.
And would have ruled that way when I was ref (and Head Ref) for GW.

Reason?

I declare I 'want' to Block your FA/DO player - at the point of declaration DO kicks in. Then, before I get to roll the block dice I need to roll to see if I pass FA or not.

[Loki]

Thank you for making my point, you can semantically argue all you like but you have yet to show how you make your semantic arguement work in the practical mechanics of the game. The wanting to block and declaration of blocking are to all intents and purposes the same within the mechanics of the rules, you have not to anyone’s satisfaction shown how you will decouple wanting and declaring. I have given you a clear example of how the process between two players would work. How are you making the active player ‘want’ to block without him declaring the block, in a real world environment.

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?

(Oh and I’ll have to double check but I think FA was FAQ’d to be same as dauntless)