Noob Questions Revisited

[computerking]

Can a Block be specifically created to stop Maneuvers?
Or does a Standard protective block cover this?

[UmbraLux]

Can a Block be specifically created to stop Maneuvers?

Per the book, yes.  However putting it in narrative terms can be somewhat difficult.  One narrative method I use is phrasing the block as a boost to your awareness allowing you to see and avoid maneuver attempts.

[computerking]

Range on Evocation spells: 1 Zone? 2 Zones? Varies per combat? As far as the eye can see?

I may have missed a reference to this in the book.

[Sanctaphrax]

Blocks block maneuvers if the maneuver is in the class of things that the block blocks. So a Weapons block aimed at keeping people away from your friend would stop an attempt to put a DAZED aspect on him with Fists but not an attempt to put an ANNOYED aspect on him with Intimidation.

So blocks do apply to maneuvers, but you probably can't choose maneuvers as what your block blocks.

Does that make sense?

And I think that evocation has range equal to line of sight.

[devonapple]

And I think that evocation has range equal to line of sight.

I hope so, because I've been very bad about enforcing range modifiers for my Wizards.

[UmbraLux]

Yes, evocation is line of sight.  Which is often extremely short range in a city. 

...you probably can't choose maneuvers as what your block blocks.

See YS210 under "Resolving Blocks".  Mechanically two things are important:  target ("who it's intended to affect") and what type of action it's trying to prevent ("attack, block, maneuver, move"). 

Personally, I want the narrative to match the mechanics as much as possible...even to the point of narrative trumping mechanics when it seems appropriate...hence my comment above on putting it in narrative terms.  That's just my hang up though. 

[zenten]

Personally I ignore the range limits in the book as being *way* too short, and just go with what makes sense at the time.

[Sanctaphrax]

That's a bit silly, given that a bunch of punches to the face can be either an attack, a maneuver, or a block depending on the player's whims.

[computerking]

OK, case in point:
Wizard McFee and Scion Sleestak are fighting.

McFee puts up an Evocation 5-Shift Spirit Block vs. attacks.
Sleestak says, "Hmm, I brandish my Venomous Claws, roll my poisoning Maneuver, +4."
McFee rolls Athletics, oops, a +0

Does the Block stop the poisoning, or not?

As Umbralux pointed out in RAW, McFee would have to make a special, anti-Maneuver block to prevent that.

Does that make sense, or is Sanctaphrax's  concept better?

[Watson]

Personally I ignore the range limits in the book as being *way* too short, and just go with what makes sense at the time.

Hmm, the range limit is basically "as-long-as-you-can-see-it-you-can-affect-it-with-Evocation".

... you can’t use evocation to affect anything beyond your line of sight...

[zenten]

Sorry, I meant too short for regular weapons.

[UmbraLux]

Does the Block stop the poisoning, or not?

As Umbralux pointed out in RAW, McFee would have to make a special, anti-Maneuver block to prevent that.

This is one of those areas where I think the narrative should trump the mechanics.  I see the evocation block essentially as a shield so McFee is blocking anything which looks like an attack and the poisoning maneuver logically requires touch of some form which will be subject to the shield (block).  On the flip side, pulling the rug out from underneath McFee to put "Off Balance" on him doesn't require contact and wouldn't be subject to the block.

Just my 2 cents.

Edit:  Just for clarity, you can block multiple action types from a single target.  So if your spirit evocation block was phrased as a "stasis field holding Sleestak in place" it would potentially block anything Sleestak attempted.

[devonapple]

Edit:  Just for clarity, you can block multiple action types from a single target.  So if your spirit evocation block was phrased as a "stasis field holding Sleestak in place" it would potentially block anything Sleestak attempted.

And it could conversely be overcome by any skill check the Sleestak thinks to justify.

[UmbraLux]

Agreed, that's the major downside to "universal" blocks.   

[Sanctaphrax]

My concept is definitely better. It makes infinitely more sense.

If you find yourself wanting to have narrative trump mechanics (or vice versa) there's probably something wrong with either narrative or mechanics. In this case, I think it's the mechanics that are problematic.