Talk Fantasy Football

I block a player with both FA and DO. Which roll happens first?

A DO may happen as soon as a block is declared, whether it happens or not.
I would say the DO interrupts immediately that a block is declared, fully resolved, then carry on with the block (in this case by rolling FA)

A DO may happen as soon as a block is declared, whether it happens or not.

Sure, but FA happens when you *want* to block. You have to want to block before you declare it: declaring something you haven't decided you want simply doesn't make sense. To that end it could be argued FA happens first.

The 2nd part of the Foul Appearance description mentions the block being wasted in a roll of a 1. To me that indicates a block must have been declared and so Dump Off occurs first.

Dump-Off (Passing)
This skill allows the player to make a Quick Pass when an opponent
declares that he will throw a block at him...

Foul Appearance (Mutation)
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).

Relevant parts. FA states "any player who wants to block the player". Nothing about declaration. DO, however, states that it happens "when an opponent declares that he will throw a block at him". Sequencing would be declare Block Action (which satisfies neither requirement), choose target (satisfies a "want"? This is the question, really) and declare target (satisfies DO) then roll dice.

Think you're dwelling too much on Want. Assigning an emotion to a playing piece which is governed by strict rules doesnt do it for me.

As the coach I jokingly say my snotling wants to 3d uphill block the Foul Appearance ballcarrier 20 squares away. Do I then need to make a foul appearance roll? And how is the 'Block' wasted as my snotling was really going to take a move action?

I'm not assigning emotion: the rule states "want" so it needs to be defined. I'm asking for that.

For your snotling, you would have to declare the type of Action before anything else. So RAW you'd declare a Block Action and then make an FA roll even if you can't actually block him; the block is lost if you fail it and cannot be taken if you pass it (bit of a waste of time if you ask me as the result is the same). The "really going to take a move action" is a red herring since you can't "want" to block if you are making a Move Action. It'd work on a Blitz Action, though, but he would move before blocking, therefore wants to move before wanting to block.

Ok.

As long as you continue to ignore the 2nd half of the FA description then I guess we'll never get a suitable answer

How do you lose a block without declaring a block in the first place?

Ps please forget the snotling. I forgot that saying silly things can deflect the discussion down meaningless paths.

Based on text above I would say...

1. Active player declares be will Block player with DO and FA
2. Opponent then declares if he will use DO - resolve DO if required.
3. Active player then rolls for FA - resolve block if required

Itchen Masack wrote:Ok.

As long as you continue to ignore the 2nd half of the FA description then I guess we'll never get a suitable answer

How do you lose a block without declaring a block in the first place?

I've not ignored it. You lose the block which is allowed when you declare a Block Action. Declaring a Block Action allows you to block; failing an FA result prevents you from doing so.

Loki - why?

How do you make a Foul Appearance roll without declaring an action? It really does appear that simple to me.

“Want” doesn’t come into it. The things that happen are... active coach says what his player is doing - “Blocking”, he says who his player is blocking - ‘player with DO’ the DO players controller then decides if he will use DO or not as per the rules. Once the DO is resolved the Block then continues starting with FA roll.

Where do you have a problem with that?

Itchen Masack wrote:How do you make a Foul Appearance roll without declaring an action? It really does appear that simple to me.

You *do* declare a Block Action. That is not the same thing as a block. A Block Action means you *may* block, but do not have to.

Loki - not sure how you can say "want" does not come into it when the rule literally states "any opposing player that wants to block the player..."

The things that happen are... active coach says what his player is doing - “Blocking”, he says who his player is blocking - ‘player with DO’ the DO players controller then decides if he will use DO or not as per the rules. Once the DO is resolved the Block then continues starting with FA roll.

Active player should first declare which Action he is taking. In this case it is a Block Action (although it could be a Blitz Action for this). Active player then decides who he wants to block (having moved if necessary) and declares who the target will be. You will note that he decided who he wanted to block before he declared who would be the target. Want comes before declare, therefore FA comes before DO.

Where do you have a problem with that?

Because it does not appear in your situation that FA is triggering at the point at which it should as per the wording of the rule. It triggers when your player "wants to block" my player, not after I have declared.

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.

I'm interested what brought this question up?