Talk Fantasy Football

Foul yes, hand-off no.

Yes to both according to LRB6 page 7.

The way I see it, you declare the Block action (or Blitz action, then move into contact) - that's when Dump Off kicks in.

Not according to theskill description: "This skill allows the player to make a Quick Pass when an opponent declares he will throw a block at him,..."
To me that means the opponent must say "I am now going to block you" (or equivalent) as opposed to "this will be a block/blitz action".

Nichren wrote:Dode why aren't Block action and block interchangeable? There are only 5 actions to be declared for each player (mini) in the game, pass, hand off, move, block, and blitz (combo move and block). I don't see block and block action as two separate orders/declarations.

dode74 wrote: And you forgot Hand-off and Foul

Darkson wrote:

dode74 wrote:And you forgot Hand-off and Foul

Foul yes, hand-off no.

dode74 wrote:

Foul yes, hand-off no.

Yes to both according to LRB6 page 7.

Yes to both what?

dode74 wrote:

Foul yes, hand-off no.

Yes to both according to LRB6 page 7.

Yes, they're both in the book.
No, he didn't forget both of them.

The way I see it, you declare the Block action (or Blitz action, then move into contact) - that's when Dump Off kicks in.

Not according to theskill description: "This skill allows the player to make a Quick Pass when an opponent declares he will throw a block at him,..."
To me that means the opponent must say "I am now going to block you" (or equivalent) as opposed to "this will be a block/blitz action".

And you may be right, but as I said, regardless of the literal reading OR the intention, I'd allow it, and I gave my reason why.

Yeah don't foul much, slipped the mind.

Yep, my bad that I didn't see that Hand Off was said. Apologies.

And you may be right, but as I said, regardless of the literal reading OR the intention, I'd allow it, and I gave my reason why.

Well to be fair you said what you'd do but not why. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just curious as to your reasons.

Not sure that "the way I see it" isn't a "why", but hey, I'm sorry my grasp of English isn't precise enough for your discussions - I'll bow out now before my lack of clarity offends you more.

Fair enough - not trying to get into an argument here Darkson but "the way I see it" isn't a reason for me, it's a statement of opinion. For me a reason has a justification rather than simply being a statement of belief/intent. I guess I was asking why you see it that way. Each to their own

The intent was that the declare a block has to happen in order to be replaced by Stab or Chainsaw. So you declare the block, Dump Off happens and then you have the option to replace the actual throwing of the block (rolling block dice) with Stab or Chainsaw.

Cracking. Thanks Tom.

If I had a player with DO and a bloke with a saw or a dagger hit him I would dump off. When they tried the "You cannot because this is not a block but REPLACES a block" I would tell him to stop being a mis-spelt Anglo Danish king from the 11th century. If he did not I would get the rest of the club to tell him to stop being a mis-spelt Anglo Danish king from the 11th century. The intent is to run up to a guy and flatten him into the dirt. Don't matter to me if you use a fist, a foot, a pointy stick or a big damn saw. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is by definition a duck.