Talk Fantasy Football

Say someone thows a block against a REAL ugly gutterrunner and a linerat. The roll for Foul Appearance turns up a 1, does that count for JUST the ugly one or does it count for both?

Red Orc wrote:Say someone thows a block against a REAL ugly gutterrunner and a linerat. The roll for Foul Appearance turns up a 1, does that count for JUST the ugly one or does it count for both?

Just the ugly one.

It means your not multiblocking anymore, just hitting the line rat.

I'm not so sure I'd agree. Is there actual rulebook evidence to support these answers? Personally, I'd be inclined to say the whole block gets fudged.

well it just makes sense... fa prevents you from hitting THAT player, not the other one.

To back up the point that the whole block is wasted I say that you only roll once and that outcome is the effect for both players. You don't make a roll for this guy and then a seperate roll for the other one.
Are there any other skills that may have similiar concequences or alterations on multi-block?

Quoted from LRB:

Mulitple Block:

The player is allowed to block two opposing players at the same time. The opposing players must be next to the player making the block and next to each other. Their strengths are added together and both su ffer the effects of the block eequally. Both sides may use assists normally.

Foul Appearance:

...In addition, any player that wants to block the player must first roll a dice and scroe 2 or more. If the opposing player rolls a 1 he is too revolted to make the block and it is wasted.

"It (the block) is wasted." This could easily be interpreted as the block <i>action</i> is wasted, which means the player is no longer actually able to throw any block at all. This could also be interpreted as the block on the individual player is wasted.

If the latter is true, however, that means in a non-multiple block situation, if I fail to block someone because of their appearance, I can block someone else adjacent to me because my block action is still intact. Given that this is not the general interpretation of coaches over the last several years, I would be inclined to go with my original gut call, that failing a Foul Appearance roll in a multiple block takes away your block action.

Cervidal wrote:Quoted from LRB:

Mulitple Block:

The player is allowed to block two opposing players at the same time. The opposing players must be next to the player making the block and next to each other. Their strengths are added together and both su ffer the effects of the block eequally. Both sides may use assists normally.

Foul Appearance:

...In addition, any player that wants to block the player must first roll a dice and scroe 2 or more. If the opposing player rolls a 1 he is too revolted to make the block and it is wasted.

"It (the block) is wasted." This could easily be interpreted as the block <i>action</i> is wasted, which means the player is no longer actually able to throw any block at all. This could also be interpreted as the block on the individual player is wasted.

If the latter is true, however, that means in a non-multiple block situation, if I fail to block someone because of their appearance, I can block someone else adjacent to me because my block action is still intact. Given that this is not the general interpretation of coaches over the last several years, I would be inclined to go with my original gut call, that failing a Foul Appearance roll in a multiple block takes away your block action.

I think this is stretching the interpretation a bit too far. The FA rule was written assuming a normal block and made it clear that you can't just turn to another player and declare a new block on someone else.

But in the Multiple Block case you have declared a block and one of the players is not available for blocking. I can't see why this stops you making the block on the remaining player. It's not as though you're trying to include some new player in the multi-block when the FA player can't be hit.

It's not taking it too far at all. The way FA is worded now, I personally think it is to be interpreted that you lose the Block action.

On top of that, you roll for FA after you have declared your target. Botching the FA roll means my target has changed. How is that different than a Dauntless roll? In that, I choose my target then roll the dice. If I fail, I can't choose to hit someone else in my tacklezone.

No offense guys .... but I AMAZED at the names that are arguing this one ... newbies I'd understand ... but their are some long timers arguing this one.

Read the Rules Review guys ... this one was officially answered a while back:

http://www.games-workshop.com/Warhammer ... es_rev.htm

In fact its the very first Q&A.

Galak

Actually only Cervidal and Red Orc were arguing otherwise.

sean newboy wrote:Actually only Cervidal and Red Orc were arguing otherwise.

My comment was meant that A) I couldn't believe Cervidal who works as editor for the NAF was arguing this one and that B) Bevan who maintains the Oberwald didn't realize that it was part of the rules review.

Not really meant as personally slams against either ... just really surprised me.

Galak

(*shrug*) It's never been a rule that came up for me. I know what I know because of what has come up in game situations. I also don't play as the mutation teams so I've never used FA, myself.

In addition, I don't take it upon myself to memorize every QnA that comes out because it's a real chore to flip through several websites to figure out who is right and wrong. Are those QnA actually implimented into the LRB yet?

Besides, editors are humans, too! And, for the record, I disagree with the ruling. But, hey, I'm just an editor, I don't make the rules, eh?

Cervidal wrote:In addition, I don't take it upon myself to memorize every QnA that comes out because it's a real chore to flip through several websites to figure out who is right and wrong.

While I can agree with this statement entirely ... these were the offiical Q&As ... the ones that only come out once a year and get printed in the Annual.

Are those QnA actually implimented into the LRB yet?

Yes and No ... if Andy felt it required extra wording in the LRB they were added. If they didn't, then the Q&A from the official Rules Review is official. Same thing with FA working while prone/stunned .... it currently official because the 2002 Rules Review said it was ... not because it is actually stated in text in the LRB.

Galak

Teaches me to ask questions.