Harrying House Rule

[ways and means]

Traditionally block are a all or nothing affair overcoming a block does not effect the value of any non-attack action at all. So as a house rule I was thinking of allowing Harrying Actions, actions that do not attempt to stop something but just make it harder to achieve. For example an 8 shift smoke spell to obscure peoples locations in a fog could by a 6 shift area block against seeing or it could count as 3 shifts suppression of sight (using the half armour values) which lowers the alertness skill of everyone in the fog by three whilst there in the fog. Do you think such a house rule would be game breaking? 

[polkaneverdies]

It shouldn't be a problem for you. As a recent thread pointed out some of us already interpret a broken block as having a suppressive impact on a roll. It hasn't been a problem in our games so i would imagine that halving the suppresive impact of a blocks value wouldn't be a problem in yours.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Nope.  I think it provides a great choice between "I'm trying to stop it completely" and "I'm just trying to slow it down."  Half value probably works well (as it could "stack" with blocks by other players or previously established).  I would just put in a caveat that only the highest harrying action has any effect (they, like armor, do not stack with other harrying actions).

[UmbraLux]

Traditionally block are a all or nothing affair overcoming a block does not effect the value of any non-attack action at all.

I don't think this is a house rule.  The sidebar on YS252 suggests using Block mechanics whenever they fit your intent.  The mechanics don't change though - the first action piercing a block is reduced by the block's value.  YS210 also states a block gives a character a second chance to "resist" an action and that the higher of block and defense roll is used to "mitigate" the effects.  I read that as directly reducing the action which pierced the block.

So as a house rule I was thinking of allowing Harrying Actions, actions that do not attempt to stop something but just make it harder to achieve. For example an 8 shift smoke spell to obscure peoples locations in a fog could by a 6 shift area block against seeing or it could count as 3 shifts suppression of sight (using the half armour values) which lowers the alertness skill of everyone in the fog by three whilst there in the fog. Do you think such a house rule would be game breaking?

This is pretty much the way I've modeled it.  Though you'll need to pay for a zone wide effect or limit it to one target.  And I don't phrase it as "lowering" a skill so much as an obstacle to the skill.  That's just semantics though.

[wyvern]

There was a big discussion on this over in the grapple rules.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that Ways&Means' interpretation is "traditional", but there's some evidence that it was intended to function that way - see my post here.

Houserule or not, though, making blocks function as "harrying actions" without being half strength, is something that doesn't break game mechanics at all - as polka points out - so simply allowing harrying actions at half strength shouldn't be an issue either.

[ways and means]

Nope.  I think it provides a great choice between "I'm trying to stop it completely" and "I'm just trying to slow it down."  Half value probably works well (as it could "stack" with blocks by other players or previously established).  I would just put in a caveat that only the highest harrying action has any effect (they, like armor, do not stack with other harrying actions).

I agree with you there and I also have the caveat that like blocks it can't be used on defences as this would blow manoeuvres out the way as useful tools for boosting comparative accuracy 8 shift mega gravity spell blocking movement (athletics) would equate to a -4 to an enemies roll which considering it could be extended is more than twice as powerful as manoeuvring.   

[UmbraLux]

There was a big discussion on this over in the grapple rules.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that Ways&Means' interpretation is "traditional", but there's some evidence that it was intended to function that way - see my post here.

Hmm, not sure we're reading it the same way.  Harry states the spell would be more difficult for him to cast because of the block.  Doesn't this directly back up blocks as reducing actions?

Houserule or not, though, making blocks function as "harrying actions" without being half strength, is something that doesn't break game mechanics at all - as polka points out - so simply allowing harrying actions at half strength shouldn't be an issue either.

Agreed.

@Ways and Means:  Good point but...maneuvers still have a flexibility advantage (can be used offensively or defensively as required) and the advantage of being useable after a roll to get that 'extra' bit needed for success. 

[wyvern]

Hmm, not sure we're reading it the same way.  Harry states the spell would be more difficult for him to cast because of the block.  Doesn't this directly back up blocks as reducing actions?

The exact words there are that, because there's a five shift block in place, he needs a +5 total to control the spell that'd normally need +3.
By my interpretation / houserule, it would instead require +8 - five to overcome the block, and another three to actually control the spell.  ...Now, I suppose you could read that as, he needs a 5 to get any control at all, and could still eat backlash or fallout for the last three.  In which case we're back to there being no evidence for any interpretation over another.

[UmbraLux]

It looks like it may be interpreting any attempt of breaking through the block as an attack and everything it was trying to accomplish as a 'defense roll'. 

Not exactly intuitive.  That does make it more consistent though.

An attack needs to beat the higher of defense roll or block for weapon power to be effective.
Casting through a block needs to beat the higher of the discipline roll or block for the spell power to be effective.
So it follows that...
Moving through a block needs to beat the higher of movement difficulty or block to move normal distance.  (Increase in difficulty but no decrease in distance.)
Seeing through a veil needs to beat the higher of stealth roll or block to see normally.
Acting through a grapple needs to beat the higher of action's difficulty or block to act with normal effect.

Only blocks built as armor (paid for at 2:1) appear to reduce the actual effect vs the action's roll.

I'm beginning to think the only reason attacks look different is because the attack roll adds to the effect.  Need to think about that for a bit.  Don't know if I like it or not but it does change how I thought of blocks.  Have I missed any ramifications? 

[ways and means]

I think the only reason attack seem different is because it is the only roll that has gradients of success rather than just succeed or fail.

[devonapple]

Only blocks built as armor (paid for at 2:1) appear to reduce the actual effect vs the action's roll.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. If not, I'm happy to be corrected.

Evocation Blocks are supposed to reduce the shifts of any action they are intended to block, AND if a given action roll produces shifts in excess of the Evocation Block, that Evocation Block goes down - this is a special limitation of Evocation Blocks. It still reduces the shifts of the action which broke it. The motivation to cast an Evocation Block as Armor (2:1) is that, as Armor, the Evocation Block does *not* go down when a given attack exceeds it. Per YS 252: "Block: Shielding effects are another very common application of evocation; the next best thing to causing damage to others is avoiding it yourself. In game terms, this is a block action. Shifts of power on the spell can be allocated as follows: 1 shift of power adds 1 to the block strength of the block action. Three shifts of power create a block strength of Good (+3). Any attack that bypasses the block cancels it out."

Mundane Blocks not only reduce the shifts of any action they are intended to block, but when a given action roll produces shifts in excess of that Block, the Block does not go down. It still reduces the shifts of the action which exceeded it, and it remains in place until the character decides to do another Action. The Block has been nullified for the character who exceeded it, but not anyone else.

Edit: YS 210:
"To perform a block, declare what specific type of action the block is intended to prevent and roll an appropriate skill. The total of that roll is called the block strength. During the exchange, any time a character wants to perform the action that’s covered by the block, he must roll against the block and meet or exceed the block strength to be able to perform that action. If he fails, he cannot perform the action in question. If he meets or exceeds the block strength, the action resolves normally, with benefits for extra shifts if the roll beats the block strength by a wide margin."

A visual example of this is when a Mercenary is laying down cover fire (rolling Guns) to make a Block:Movement action to keep a group of intruders from reaching a critical locale. When one intruder exceeds the Guns Block with an Athletics roll, that intruder successfully makes the desired Move action (minus the shifts it took to meet the Block), but the Guns-based Block:Movement is still applying to the intruder's companions. This is an expansion of the example on YS 210: "For example, if your character is in a gunfight against a group of goons, you could say, “I want to pepper the exit door with gunfire and make sure no one leaves.” That is a block against multiple characters, so it can only prevent one type of action, which in context is any move action—no one can leave without running up against the block."

So, per this understanding of the rules, a Harrying action is redundant.

This would seem to make Mundane Blocks more effective than Evocation Blocks, and in some ways they can be, but Mundane Blocks still need to have some plausible narrative basis, while Evocation Blocks are narratively self-justifying. Per YS 211: "Keep in mind that there are some blocks that just won’t work in some situations. (Trying the “keep them pinned down with gunfire” trick on a loup-garou isn’t going to really help you much, given that they’re immune to bullets.)"

[wyvern]

For what it's worth, I completely agree with Devonapple's interpretation.

I do think it's at least partially a houserule, but, imo, it's a good one that makes sense and makes the game work better.

[devonapple]

Traditionally block are a all or nothing affair overcoming a block does not effect the value of any non-attack action at all. So as a house rule I was thinking of allowing Harrying Actions, actions that do not attempt to stop something but just make it harder to achieve. For example an 8 shift smoke spell to obscure peoples locations in a fog could by a 6 shift area block against seeing or it could count as 3 shifts suppression of sight (using the half armour values) which lowers the alertness skill of everyone in the fog by three whilst there in the fog. Do you think such a house rule would be game breaking?

I not only don't think this would be game breaking, I don't even consider it a house rule. This sounds like a standard Evocation Block (as Armor) against a single or narrow group of actions (perception, or Alertness/Investigation) in a zone.

[Mr. Death]

Personally, I would allow some Evocation blocks to remain up after one character beats it. Not things like shields to prevent damage (since it makes sense for me if Harry can't hold up the shield if a barrage of bullets blows through it), but things like veils, as blocks against perception, should be treated differently. If Murphy's aware enough to detect Molly through her invisibility veil, that doesn't mean she's suddenly visible for all to see. Unless Murphy does something to make her visible or points out to someone else how she detected it, Molly ought to still get the benefits of the block against other characters.

[UmbraLux]

Had to join a meeting in the middle of responding.  Hopefully this isn't too disjointed. 

I think there may be a misunderstanding. If not, I'm happy to be corrected.

The discussion here is making me re-think blocks so I'm not going to correct anyone at this point.    I do think I, and possibly a couple of others, went off on a bit of a tangent about the nature of blocks.   

Evocation Blocks are supposed to reduce the shifts of any action they are intended to block, AND if a given action roll produces shifts in excess of the Evocation Block, that Evocation Block goes down - this is a special limitation of Evocation Blocks. It still reduces the shifts of the action which broke it. The motivation to cast an Evocation Block as Armor (2:1) is that, as Armor, the Evocation Block does *not* go down when a given attack exceeds it.

My understanding (currently):

• All blocks reduce the action they're blocking.  This usually means increasing the difficulty of a roll.
  
• A block does nothing else.  If broken/pierced/exceeded the action's effects proceed normally.
  
• "Armor" blocks, paid for at 2:1, do the same but don't go away once pierced.

I'm differentiating between action and effect because the blocks themselves seem to do so.  Some action types (such as attacks) add the action's success to the effect for a final result.  The result from those will be affected by a normal block.  Other actions (such as another block or a maneuver) don't add the action roll to the effect.  A standard block becomes a binary pass/fail situation and the effect (block or maneuver strength) is not affected by the pierced block.

So a damage block reduces the Guns roll but not the resulting damage.  A movement makes moving harder but doesn't shorten distance below the basic one zone per exchange.  A perception block makes sensing something harder but doesn't change what you see if it's pierced.  A block against casting an evocation spell makes the act of casting harder but doesn't change the spell's power.

Basically, blocks only affect actions.  They don't affect spell power, weapon power, base movement distance, etc - the 'effect'.  When the action shifts add to the effect power it seems like armor but blocks never act as (colloquial) armor in reducing an effect's power.  They only effect the accuracy / action.

Mundane Blocks not only reduce the shifts of any action they are intended to block, but when a given action roll produces shifts in excess of that Block, the Block does not go down. It still reduces the shifts of the action which exceeded it, and it remains in place until the character decides to do another Action. The Block has been nullified for the character who exceeded it, but not anyone else.

I think the blocker has to maintain (re-roll) the block every action, is that what you mean by "until the character decides to do another Action"?

You do bring up a good point on the difference between mundane and magical blocks.  I'm not sure you'd ever want to model a mundane block as "armor" (2:1) because it will require your next action to keep up.  So magical blocks are better in the action economy but mundane blocks give you a better single round effect.