Wild Animal + Jump up

[Bakunin]

So this is from Garion on fumbbl, but would like a ruling on it.

"another one that is contentious and has been cleared up is - when a Wild Animal players is Prone and they have the Jump Up skill they can use block to stand up (the JU roll is required as normal). Their WA is a 2+ because you made a block as normal but this can be done even if there is no one to block"

Is this legal?

[dode74]

Block Action (from page 7):

Block: The player may make a single block against a player in an adjacent square. Players that are Prone may not perform this Action.

My italics. This suggests that a player is required to be in the adjacent square in order to declare the action. It does not specify that it needs to be an opposing player: that comes on page 9 where the requirement is that "a player may throw a block at an opposing player who is in an adjacent square". This suggests you can declare against a team-mate but not throw the block.

Jump Up skill (page 65):

Jump Up (Agility)
A player with this skill is able to quickly get back into the game. If the player declares any Action other than a Block Action he may stand up for free without paying the three squares of movement. The player may also declare a Block Action while Prone which requires an Agility roll with a +2 modifier to see if he can complete the Action. A successful roll means the player can stand up for free and block an adjacent opponent. A failed roll means the Block Action is wasted and the player may not stand up.

Again, my italics. This is slightly ambiguous. If we accept that the player can declare a Block Action and passes the WA roll then if the Jump Up roll succeeds he can (i.e. optional) "stand up... and block an adjacent opponent". The use of and suggests he must do neither or both, which suggests there must be an adjacent opponent. If the intent were that he could stand up without blocking I would have written that as "A successful roll means the player can stand up for free and may then block an adjacent opponent." I realise there were word count limitations though, so I may well be misreading the intent there and it could well be that he could stand up without blocking.

I read this one of three ways:
1. The WA player may declare a Block Action regardless of the disposition of other players. He then makes the WA roll at 2+ then the Jump Up agility roll but cannot block as there is no target.
2. The WA player must have a player (of any sort) adjacent to him (validates the Block Action). If he does then he must make the WA roll at 2+ then make the Jump Up agility roll. He is then not required to throw a block even if there is an opposing player next to him: he can declare the Action but not carry out the act.
3. The WA player must have an opposing player adjacent to him (validates the Block Action and allows the use of the neither/both interpretation of Jump Up). If he does then he must make the WA roll at 2+ then make the Jump Up agility roll. He then must throw a block at an adjacent opposing player.

Which one is correct depends on two things:
- Do you require a player next to you in order to declare a Block Action?
- If you use Jump Up in combination with a Block Action are you required to throw the block?

I would lean towards answers 1 or 2 above. A Witch Elf, for example, may declare a Block Action, make the AG roll, stand up and choose not to block (although she gains nothing from it), which would seem to invalidate 3.

[GalakStarscraper]

Which one is correct depends on two things:
- Do you require a player next to you in order to declare a Block Action?

Yes ... you have to have an opposing player next to you to declare a Block Action. In order to declare a Block Action you must be throwing a legal block and per the rules on throwing a block on page 9 ... a block has to be done against an opposing player (unless rules like Ball & Chain allow otherwise). IE A Block action stating throwing a block at an adjacent player is clarified on page 9 ... so the lines in the Block action don't allow you to declare a teammate.

- If you use Jump Up in combination with a Block Action are you required to throw the block?

You cannot refuse to throw a block if you declare a Block Action. This is part of the FAQ where it asks if you can cancel a block after declaration and it says no.

[GalakStarscraper]

If you want a Minotaur to stand up for a 2+ (even if he has Jump Up) and not hit anything ... you have to declare a Blitz which is a movement that comes with an optional block.

Tom

[dode74]

Thanks Tom - I missed the FAQ bit, which itself would have answered all of my queries.

So in answer to the OP it seems that no, it is not legal.

[Steam Ball]

I must be blind, because I am unable to find the "Block action declared means block die must roll" in the FAQ page. I see a mention that once you declare the block against someone (not the Block, but the block) it must be completed. The Block action description says may, not must. But nowhere else says action declaration must declare everything in it. You declare a Pass, not a Pass that will move here here and here, pick up the ball, the move there and finally throw to that guy over there.

Also, can you declare a Blitz and not move (nor block)? The Move action is the only that says 0 squares is fine, all others that involve motion do not say anything about 0.

I am not a lawyer.

[GalakStarscraper]

There is no such creature as a Block action without a block being declared. That is a 0 space Move action.

The very nature of the difference between a Block and a Move is that there is a block as part of the Block action.

The reason it says May is that things can happen that prevent the block (ie it is not an absolute that the block will occur) (for example, Really Stupid, Bonehead, Wild Animal and Foul Appearance) can all prevent a block from occuring from a Block action ... but part of declaring the Block action is the target of the block you are going to throw.

There is no such creature as a Block without a block. Does it say that that plainly in the rulebook ... no ... its is devired from the path described above.

The FAQ works because part of the Block action is declaring the block which cannot be cancelled.

Tom

[GalakStarscraper]

The other way to put this ... a move 0 that involves a block not thrown (since it would be optional then) is a Blitz Action. So what is being asked is yes you can do it as a Blitz ... not as a Block.

Tom

[Bakunin]

So GalakStarscraper, when you take a block action, you have to try and throw a block?

But with all the other actions, doing something with your player is optional?

You can move 0 on a move action

You dont have too foul on a foul action

You dont have too block on a blitz action

You dont have too pass on a pass action

You dont have too hand-off on a hand-off action

[GalakStarscraper]

Block is already the exception. All the other actions require there to be a Move component of 0 or higher. Since things can happen during a move the item at the end of the move is optional. The Block Action is the only action that has no Move component at all. You can be player with a stat of MA 0 and still throw a block and follow up per the wording of the rulebook. As a result it is already the exception to the rule. So yes ... all the other actions have their end result be optional ... the Block does not. If a Block action had a Move component ... than a Treeman would not be able to take a Block Action when Rooted but it can. Likewise with Take Root when you fail it, you can still throw a Block but not a declared Blitz. Again ... this is because the game designers considered a Block to not have a Move component (it is the exception of all the actions in this regard).

This is my take. If we used the words MUST in the Block action text ... then folks would be asking if it is a turnover if you fail Foul Appearance. This is where the layering of skills in the game causes the rulebook to be impossible to cover every context. We tried to cover this answer in the FAQ ... that is the point of that FAQ. Once a block is declared it must be followed through and you cannot have a Block action without declaring who the target of the block will be.

Tom

[GalakStarscraper]

However ... I will point that if this is how FUMBBL is designed ... it is not the end of the world as it is one of those skill cross over that is very rare. If someone really wants to blow a double on a Mino to get this ... that is almost in an of itself a penalty.

However I definitely know this was the game design intent as it came into discussion when redesigning the wording for Take Root and the FAQ on following through on a declared block.

Tom

[Steam Ball]

There is also the word "should". And also longer wordings like "Block action requires to declare a target at the time of declaring the action" or "there must be an standing enemy player adjacent".

Could you paste the FAQ section in question?

[GalakStarscraper]

There is also the word "should". And also longer wordings like "Block action requires to declare a target at the time of declaring the action" or "there must be an standing enemy player adjacent".

Understood ... consider this in the category of better wordings suggestions that if it was re-written would be on the list.

Tom

[spleggy]

You dont have too block on a blitz action

Does that mean that if you REALLY need to move a Wild Animal you can declare a Blitz action for +2 on the WA roll? Obviously you'd use up your Blitz action in the process. This might be useful if the WA is trying to score. (I don't usually try to handle the ball with big guys but they have been known to get their hands on scattering bounces )

[Loki]

You dont have too block on a blitz action

Does that mean that if you REALLY need to move a Wild Animal you can declare a Blitz action for +2 on the WA roll? Obviously you'd use up your Blitz action in the process. This might be useful if the WA is trying to score. (I don't usually try to handle the ball with big guys but they have been known to get their hands on scattering bounces )

Correct