ignoring or acting against a block

[Rubycon]

Hi,
I've just read through the "block"-rules an the question came to my mind what characters could do to act against a block or what would happen if they choose to ignore it.
Acting against a block has a number of obvious applications like pushing against a door which is held from the other side. But what happens if, in the example with a bullet curtain, a character declares "I give it a try and run. They still have to hit me."?

[Fenrir423]

They roll against the block. If they fail, they don't do whatever they were trying to do. If they succeed, they do it and if it's an attack, the shifts over the block are what the target defends against. That's kind of how blocks work. To clarify, in the bullet curtain example, they aren't trying to get a free attack. The roll the blocker makes represents the difficulty of trying to find an opening to run through the cover fire.

[Rubycon]

In the case of rolling against a block I would interpret it as an opposed roll. If the blocker succeeds, the block stands firm and if the opponent succeeds, the block breaks.
And if I got you right, if the block is an attack, after rolling against the block you can still defend against the shifts? That would be two rolls against one attack. I would prefer to roll against the block and any shifts gained by the blocker would be stress (with additional stress when weapons are used).
For the example with bullet curtain, I'm not sure I got it...

[Tsunami]

If i understand the OP correctly, the question posed here is:

What if the character says :"I run through the hail of bullets, not caring if they hit me." How does a suppression fire Block play out in that situation?

Answer:
A Block is a Block is A Block. It does not suddenly turn into an attack.
So unless you do something not covered by the Block, you have to overcome it. Overcoming a suppression fire movement block can play out in a lot of different ways in the narrative.

1. I run and make a lot of dodging movements, evading all the bullets.
2. I throw something to create a diversion, then run past the shooter.
3. I run and simply don't care if they hit me. Relying on blind luck to survive.

All of those options require the same roll, an Athletics roll (because its a movement block) to overcome the Block.
Failure always has the same result rules wise, you do net get past the Block, meaning you don't get to perform the action you wanted to perform. There is no Stress inflicted from failing to get past a block.

Failed Roll examples:
1. As you jump and dodge you trip and fall, scrambling back out of the line of fire you fail to get bast the blockade of bullets.
2. You aim your diversion badly, not giving yourself enough time to get bast the shooter, so you stay where you are.
3. As you start to run, a Bullet hits right in front of you, and you flinch back. This wasn't such a good idea after all.


There are many more examples. Limited only by your creativity.

[Rubycon]

Your third example isn't exactly my definition of "ignoring" but who said ignoring a bullet is easy...? So the character at least tried...

Thank's for the clarification! Still, I could think of a couple of situations where a failed contest against a block could lead to infuries (stress). Alternatively, failing to oppose a block could put an aspect an a character. Maybe that's more in line with the overall philosophy of the system.

[Tsunami]

Your third example isn't exactly my definition of "ignoring" but who said ignoring a bullet is easy...? So the character at least tried...

Thank's for the clarification! Still, I could think of a couple of situations where a failed contest against a block could lead to infuries (stress). Alternatively, failing to oppose a block could put an aspect an a character. Maybe that's more in line with the overall philosophy of the system.

You could of course let a Character spend a Consequence to enhance the Roll to get past the block.

Hail of bullets (Block:6)
Athletics roll of 4 to overcome, that's not enough. The Player can now invoke an aspect or spend a tag, so why not let him take a mild consequence instead. maybe something like "Bullet graze" and raise the result to a 6.

I would not however, under any circumstances, let a Character make up the difference in stress. In consequences maybe, but not in Stress.

This is not strictly by the RAW, but i think it would fit the system.

[ways and means]

I would let someone with toughness powers use endurance rather than athletics to bypass that block and possibly give their natural armor rating as a bonus to the roll as someone with mythic toughness can just walk through a storm of bullets. 

[Rubycon]

Good point. It might even be possible that someone with great powers could literally ignore the block (like the loup-garou in the example in the rules...)

[Tsunami]

Good point. It might even be possible that someone with great powers could literally ignore the block (like the loup-garou in the example in the rules...)

Maybe, but that seems kind of unfair.
Also, if you go that step, then it's only a small step to ignoring certain maneuvers if you have enough power... and then the game balance goes out the window.
Physical Immunity (as in the case of the loup garou) does not grant the ability to ignore weapon based blocks or maneuvers, and there's good reason for that.

If you really need a block to be totally ineffective, using the compel system is the way to go.
Have Fate points change hands. Either from the loup garou (to use your example) to the GM for being able to ignore the block, or from the GM to the Player creating the Block for it being useless. Maybe even both.

[UmbraLux]

Maybe, but that seems kind of unfair.

Unfair?  It's paid for as part of the power.  As mentioned on YS211, "...there are some blocks that just won't work..." it goes on to mention the loup garou's physical immunity as immune to gunfire based blocks.

To the OP:  Tsunami appears to have covered blocks well.  Just keep in mind that anything "blocked" can be used to break the block but even successfully breaking the block ends up with a reduced action (action is reduced by the strength of the block). 

[Rubycon]

Just keep in mind that anything "blocked" can be used to break the block but even successfully breaking the block ends up with a reduced action (action is reduced by the strength of the block). 

Uh? Can I have an example for that...?

[Tsunami]

Unfair?  It's paid for as part of the power.  As mentioned on YS211, "...there are some blocks that just won't work..." it goes on to mention the loup garou's physical immunity as immune to gunfire based blocks.

I stand corrected.

[UmbraLux]

Uh? Can I have an example for that...?

There's one on YS210 (goons shooting through a veil on Molly), here's another:

Situation 1:  "Desperately attempting to parry all three of his baseball bat wielding attackers, Joe attempts to keep them at bay with his staff."  This is a block against melee attacks set up with Weapons.  Say Joe does well (for him) and gets a Great result (+4) on the block.  Our attackers, in order, get a +3, +5, and +3 on their attack rolls.  The first attack is parried completely, the second is parried partially but breaks through the block (Joe has to dodge a +2 hit), and the third attack must also be dodged (vs the +3) since the block is gone.  Assuming Joe's Athetics returns a +1 both times, he'd take a 1+weapon stress hit from the second attacker and a 2+weapon from the third.

Situation 2:  "Joe puts up a Great (+4) veil and then moves past the guard..."  Too bad the guard was very alert and rolled a Superb (+5) result.  However, the guard sees Joe through a haze.  His net of +1 probably isn't enough to make out details - just that something is there.

[Tsunami]

Uh? Can I have an example for that...?

If you create a block against any and all actions, then any attemt to act at all can be used to break said block. Whether it's an attempt to move, or shoot, or dance, or whatever. If you roll high enough the Block will be broken.

If you create a block to hinder movement, then only movement will break the block. On the other hand any and all actions that aren't movement, that is an attempt to change zones, will be unhindered by the block.

The same for a block against attacks, only attacks will break the block, anything else won't break the block, but will not be hindered by it either.

There are of course countless levels and combinations between a "block against 1 kind of action" and a "block against all actions"


As for action reduced by the block:

Take movement for example.

A has established a movement block of +3 to hinder A's movement
A wants to move and rolls a +5 for that purpose.
Normally A would be able to move 5 zones with that roll. But there's a block in the way.
The roll of +5 overcomes the block easily, but the movement is reduced to 2 zones, since only 2 shifts remained after the block.

In case of an attack block.

A creates a block to prevent B from attacking. The Block is +4
B Attacks and gets a +6
A now has to contend with being hit by 2 shifts plus the damage from whatever weapon B was using.

A can still roll defense against B's attack. However The defensive measures do not stack you always use the higher defense, while the lower has no effect at all.
Attack +6
Block +4, Defense Roll +3 -> Total defense +4 -> Shifts suffered from the attack 2+Weapon
Block +4, Defense Roll +5 -> Total defense +5 -> Shifts suffered from the attack 1+Weapon

[Tsunami]

Situation 1:  "Desperately attempting to parry all three of his baseball bat wielding attackers, Joe attempts to keep them at bay with his staff."  This is a block against melee attacks set up with Weapons.  Say Joe does well (for him) and gets a Great result (+4) on the block.  Our attackers, in order, get a +3, +5, and +3 on their attack rolls.  The first attack is parried completely, the second is parried partially but breaks through the block (Joe has to dodge a +2 hit), and the third attack must also be dodged (vs the +3) since the block is gone.  Assuming Joe's Athetics returns a +1 both times, he'd take a 1+weapon stress hit from the second attacker and a 2+weapon from the third.

Yes it breaks through the block, but this does not reduce the Attack for the purpose of dodging. If Joe dos not Roll high enough to avoid the attack on his own he will get hit with a +2 effect.
The Block will reduce the effect of the attack, not the difficulty to avoid it if it breaks the block. So to avoid the second attack completely, Joe will still have to roll a +6.
If he rolls the +1 as in the example (or anything lower than the block) against the second attack, then his own defense will have no effect, and he'll take a 1+weapon stress hit.

Ok, the result stays the same, but that is due to a typo/miscalculation in the example.
The Second attack Joe would have to dodge would not be reduced to +2, but to +1, and then the result would be weapon damage only, not 1+weapon damage.

However, this is not about actual values but about defense stacking in general, which does not occur. See my post above :-)