Blocking the Defense

[Haru]

Something just occurred to me, that I am not sure if it is viable, so I thought I'd get your opinions.

There's an example in the book, that I will use. It's about the thief who wants to pick a lock in the middle of a battle. He rolls discipline to place the aspect "focused" on himself, to get a better shot at the pick. However, an opposing gunslinger sees him and wants to keep him from placing the aspect, defending with guns against the maneuver.

So far so good. Now to add one element:
The thief has his own gunslinger with him, who put up a block prior to the thief trying to focus.

Now let's say the opposing gunslinger succeeded in defending against the maneuver, so the aspect would not be placed. The block though is even higher, so the thief could have used it to block a similar guns attack.

But could he use it to block the defense roll?

On the one hand, it would make sense, so I'm inclined to allow it. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's intended that way.

[Tedronai]

You cannot block defense rolls.

[Taran]

I guess the block would only work if the Opposing gunslinger was trying to remove a pre-existing maneuver.

So theif uses concentration to place the maneuver "focused" and succeeds with a 5 shift roll

Enemy gunner fails to defend

Ally Gunner places a 6 shift block against incoming gun-fire.

Enemy gunner shoots at the theif with the purpose of removing the "focused" aspect.  He has to beat a 6 shift block.  If the block STR was lower, he'd have to beat the maneuver str.

Right?

Or Does the block reduce the shifts?  If the enemy gunner got 8 shifts vs the "focused" maneuver, it'd only count as 3 because the block was 6? 

[Sanctaphrax]

You can't use a block to prevent someone from making a defence roll.

[Tedronai]

Right?

Right

Or Does the block reduce the shifts?  If the enemy gunner got 8 shifts vs the "focused" maneuver, it'd only count as 3 because the block was 6?

A block only 'reduces shifts' where the defense roll (or target number) it supercedes would do so.  In this case and most other cases, no, it does not.

[Haru]

You can't use a block to prevent someone from making a defence roll.

That's what I was missing. Thank you, case closed.

[Taran]

That's what I was missing. Thank you, case closed.

Since the case is closed, can I ask another question about blocks?

Can you block a spellcasters ability to control his spell?

example 1

I set up a block against a spell-caster at 5 shifts.  He casts a Power 5 spell and blasts an ally with a discipline of 7.  The ally dodges at 2 and uses the block of 5 as his defense instead.  Therefore, the damage is 5 (weapon 5) +2 (7target role -5block str).

So I understand that:
Here's what I want to know:

I try to block his Control roll (maybe the block is something that is completely distracting him.  I know that the control roll and the target role are the same roll, but they'd have different effects.

Example, same as above:

I set up a block against a spell-caster at 5 shifts.  He casts a Power 5 spell and blasts an ally with a discipline of 7.  Because the block was aimed at his control, it would reduce the effective control to 2.  Meaning he'd have to take 3 shifts of backlash/fallout.

or a better example:  he wants to cast a spell on himself (no targeting roll) just a control roll.  If he beats the block, is there any detrimental effect on the spell at all?

Is there any way to make a wizard fail his control? (other than a compel)

[Tedronai]

Because the block was aimed at his control, it would reduce the effective control to 2.  Meaning he'd have to take 3 shifts of backlash/fallout.

See my post above.  The block does not reduce the effect of the roll unless the roll or value it supercedes would do so.  The Power of a spell does not reduce the Control of a spell, so even if you managed to get a block against the Control of a spell, that block would not reduce that Control for the purpose of comparing it to the Power.  Moreover, you do not compare a roll both to a block and to the value the block supercedes.  You compare only to the higher of the two values.

[Haru]

Under the same logic as above, isn't the control part of the discipline roll basically a defense roll by the wizard against his own spell?

[Taran]

Under the same logic as above, isn't the control part of the discipline roll basically a defense roll by the wizard against his own spell?

Meaning since you can't block a defense neither can you block the control.  Makes sense.

It seems like there's no way to reduce the power of a spell(other than a threshold) nor is there a way to make a wizard "miscast" his spell.

I'm good.  Thanks.

[Mrmdubois]

Under the same logic as above, isn't the control part of the discipline roll basically a defense roll by the wizard against his own spell?

Is it?  I mean excess shifts go into targeting which translates to damage which is offensive.

[Tedronai]

Is it?  I mean excess shifts go into targeting which translates to damage which is offensive.

Not excess shifts.  ALL shifts of the control roll also go into targetting.  Because they're the same roll.

[Mrmdubois]

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the targeting is an offensive action.

[Haru]

It's both, that's the problem. Part of the discipline roll goes towards control, the other part goes towards targeting. You can block the targeting part, you can not block the control part.

[Mr. Death]

It's both, that's the problem. Part of the discipline roll goes towards control, the other part goes towards targeting. You can block the targeting part, you can not block the control part.

The text of the Grapple section implies otherwise. Harry muses that under a grapple, him casting even a low power spell would be a difficult to control as a high powered one, implying that a grapple would, indeed, block his control roll.