Foul Appearance and Dump Off

[dode74]

Excellent. How does that tally with the FA rule requiring the player to "Want"? On the 2nd block there is no want, there is a must.

He is compelled through being a "slavering psychopath" so "wants" to make the block. Any confusion about that has been clarified by the FAQ.

[Itchen Masack]

Funny how things can be read

[daloonieshaman]

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.

I agree with Darkson on this one

you would also get the choice to use DO (if you still had the ball) on the second block of a frenzy
Declare who is blocking whom
DO
FA
block dice

frenzy is a form of declaring because you must block and by simple definition the rule is declaring it for you

[Itchen Masack]

Unfortunately it states in the description of Dump Off that you cannot use it on the 2nd block frenzy.

The exact wording of skills is hugely important to this thread, except where it isn't (as above) and we are told to listen to the conscious individual desire of a playing piece over the wishes of the coach. BB is after all, a RPG.

[Loki]

The DO rule is assuming that the declaration means it will happen

Citation needed, I think.

What, can you hear you yourself? it's there in the text, the only rule we've got, the black and white you want to religiously follow - declaration you 'will'

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...

The rule says what it says, and it says "will", not "might" or "could" or "may", but "will". We don't know if you will until after FA is rolled.

ah yes, thank you - see comment above

Its just as easy for me to stick to my guns and say that rolling FA is an integral part of the blocking mechanic and there is nothing in the rules to say it isn’t

There's nothing in the rules which states it is, though. The difference between you saying that and me saying what I am saying is that I can point to the rules to back the statement up.

why else would you be rolling a FA other than part of a block

To see if you can block. It's not part of the block itself. In fact, the FAQ support the fact that it's not part of the block when it talks about rerolls and FA...another quote

You just confirmed what I said FA is part of 'block' mechanic not part of the DO mechanic which interrupts the block mechanic.

The will in DO could be seen as a reflection of the future tense rather than a certainty. Again you have nothing in the rules to contradict this.

There are many ways of expressing future tense with both certainty and uncertainty. "Will" expresses it as a strong assertion of future events or is an expression of certainty. With FA to come you cannot assert strongly or claim with certainty to know that the block will happen.

I think (an at least) 83.3% chance is a fairly strong assertion - again you can't black and white dispute this from the BB rules. Your back to your semantic justification

You can argue until you are blue in the face but in a real environment there’s not enough corroboration in the text.

And there is no corroboration to claim that DO should happen first. At best you've made a case (which I don't accept) that they happen at the same time, which only creates ambiguity.

In the context of this discussion we are sill sitting at the table, I still haven't rolled FA, you still haven't declared DO or not - you got your rulebook out and started pointing at it but we have got nowhere. You say FA isn't part of the 'block' section but you have no rules to show whether it should take place before or after DO, you just said as much, but you don't accept that. I've made my return case that the DO mechanic interrupts the block and therefore FA mechanic prior to the roll. I've made my case that the DO rule triggers on the declaration that you will block (with all its addition such as FA) but you say no FA happens first. We're back to calling over the TO...

4/4 TO's so far are telling you that they would rule that the DO mechanic interrupts the blocking mechanic including the FA.

[dode74]

The *trigger* is the declaration that you will. You *cannot* declare that you *will* until FA is rolled for. So DO *requires* that you declare that you will rather than assuming it.

You just confirmed what I said FA is part of 'block' mechanic not part of the DO mechanic which interrupts the block mechanic.

No I did not. I confirmed that it *allows you to or prevents you from blocking*. The rule itself states it happens *before* the block. It is not part of the block mechanic at all: it is a potential hindrance to it.

For reference, it's not part of DO either. They are each their own mechanism.

I think (an at least) 83.3% chance is a fairly strong assertion - again you can't black and white dispute this from the BB rules. Your back to your semantic justification

The whole discussion is semantic - we are trying to ascertain the meaning of the rules! You can't dismiss it as "semantic" when that's the whole point!

you have no rules to show whether it should take place before or after DO, you just said as much

A lie. The rule is clear that you cannot declare you *will* block that player until after FA is rolled for. I have stated it many times but you seem intent on ignoring it

I've made my case that the DO rule triggers on the declaration that you will block

And this is where you are wrong. It's the declaration you will block that player. You *can't make* that declaration until FA happens.

4/4 TO's so far are telling you that they would rule that the DO mechanic interrupts the blocking mechanic including the FA.

Then 4/4 TOs either have not, will not, or can not read and parse the rule correctly. This is nothing more than an appeal to popularity, which is irrelevant.

At this point, with us sat at that table and with you intent on cheating we roll off or stop playing and clarify before playing next time; if you insist then we don't play. If it's in a tournament setting I politely disagree with the TO but accept his house ruling on the matter.

[dode74]

Unfortunately it states in the description of Dump Off that you cannot use it on the 2nd block frenzy.

The exact wording of skills is hugely important to this thread, except where it isn't (as above) and we are told to listen to the conscious individual desire of a playing piece over the wishes of the coach. BB is after all, a RPG.

I think you've misunderstood my previous answer. The "slavering psychopath" answer is a justification I give for the FAQ being as it stands. Without the FAQ it is not clear at all that there is a want for the second block.

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.

I agree with Darkson on this one

Why? The declaration that you *want* to block is not the trigger for DO - the declaration that you *will* block is the trigger.

[Loki]

The *trigger* is the declaration that you will. You *cannot* declare that you *will* until FA is rolled for. So DO *requires* that you declare that you will rather than assuming it.

The rule is clear that you cannot declare you *will* block that player until after FA is rolled for. I have stated it many times but you seem intent on ignoring it

I've made my case that the DO rule triggers on the declaration that you will block

And this is where you are wrong. It's the declaration you will block that player. You *can't make* that declaration until FA happens.

This is where you have the problem in my eyes, you are conflating DO and FA together. DO triggers on the declaration, you are trying to semantically argue that will means must be able to, it doesn't. We don't even get to looking at FA. That's the point I keep repaeating to you, in the real world you have no way to disengage the declaration from the want. As much as you keep repeating 'wanting to' must come before 'being able to' you have no way to do that in the black and white of the rules. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Nowhere have I contradicted THE RULES, just YOUR INTERPRETATION of What, Will and Declaration mean - unfortunately not everyone wants to play by your house rules.

[Itchen Masack]

I understand it all now. It's a simple misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word Will

There you had me thinking you were obsessed with Want (and if anything I'd say FA rolls never happen as playing pieces are unable to Want) but it turns out this was a complete decoy

[dode74]

This is where you have the problem in my eyes, you are conflating DO and FA together.

Not even slightly. I've been very clear in my quotations of the rules.

DO triggers on the declaration,

No, it triggers "when an opponent declares that he will throw a block at him". There is more than just a declaration there - there is a target and a statement of certainty.

you are trying to semantically argue that will means must be able to, it doesn't.

Will = "is going to". You can't say he *is* going to until FA is rolled. Semantics is the point.
Even if we accept it's a statement of intent rather than a statement of restriction then it still works: you have a desire (want) to block before you declare you are going to do so. Once you've established the desire you should roll FA, even if that means before declaring the target. That this means stating "I want to roll FA against your player" before stating you will block him.

We don't even get to looking at FA.

You don't. But you should, because until FA is resolved you can't say you will throw a block. You do want to, though, and that is the trigger for FA.

That's the point I keep repaeating to you, in the real world you have no way to disengage the declaration from the want.

Except you can: you can want to and not be able to because of FA preventing you. You can also want to do it before you declared you would do it, therefore the want came first and so should FA.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.

Now there we agree!
quote]Nowhere have I contradicted THE RULES,[/quote]Except you have. You've established a want to block and not rolled FA. You've not established that you will block but want to roll DO. Both of those are contrary to the trigger statements in the rules.

just YOUR INTERPRETATION of What, Will and Declaration mean

I don't think either of us disagree on what "declaration" means, just whether there is a want to do something before you say you will do something (if we assume your meaning of "will"), or even whether you will be able to do it at all.

unfortunately not everyone wants to play by your house rules.

Unfortunately the wording in the rulebook, which I have quoted multiple times, supports my statement. It is therefore not a house rule. But hey, you and your TOs house rule it all you like

I understand it all now. It's a simple misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word Will

There you had me thinking you were obsessed with Want (and if anything I'd say FA rolls never happen as playing pieces are unable to Want) but it turns out this was a complete decoy

[/quote]Either meaning of the word "will" works: you establish the want to do something before you declare you will (either meaning) do it.

[Loki]

Will = "is going to".

Will

verb
1.am (is, are, etc.) about or going to:

2.am (is, are, etc.) disposed or willing to:

3.am (is, are, etc.) expected or required to:

4.may be expected or supposed to:

5.am (is, are, etc.) determined or sure to (used emphatically):

Why one over another? - Your interpretation - House Rule from semantics

[dode74]

Any one of them works, as I said above. Want comes before declare if you choose a "non certain" version.

[Loki]

"I am expecting my Wardancer to Block your Skaven thrower" - I have met the bar for DO - I have declared that that my WD "will" block your thrower - DO triggers.

You now want me to do FA brfore your choice because it benefits you but you can't argue that timing wise it 'precedes' the DO declaration, the want and declaration happen at the same time.

[dode74]

"Did you decide you wanted your wardancer to block my thrower before you told me?"

[Loki]

Within the black and white rules of Blood Bowl - it doesn't matter