Webs and Influencing Away

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
zarathustra
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Webs and Influencing Away

Post by zarathustra » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:46 pm

Webs wrote:Except for unused general influence and unused normal direct influence (including influence modifications given in a character’s card text), all modifications to each influence attempt are reduced to zero.
MELE wrote:To attempt to influence one of your opponent’s non-follower characters you must make an influence check. You make a roll (2D6) and:
• Add the influencing character’s unused direct influence.
• Subtract your opponent’s unused general influence points.
• Subtract the result of a roll (2D6) made by your opponent.
• Add any other modifications (from cards and special abilities). All modification cards must be played before making the roll.
Joe Bisz raised the following question to me via email: does Webs reduce the modification from the opponent's roll as well as other modifications? We already know that such modifications as Foolish Words, I'll Report You, High Helm, Tempering Friendship, etc. are reduced to 0. The question now, however, is whether the opponent's roll is also eliminated by Webs.

To me, it seems like it must be, but that would mean that influencing away is incredibly easy with webs in play....

On the other hand, to use Webs in this way you need to set up a difficult combo: playing Webs during your opponent's turn, hoping he doesn't MT it, and then get yourself in a position to steal something....

Well, any thoughts?
http://www.alfanos.org

zarathustra
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:47 pm

Also, what about the -5 for influencing across alignments?
http://www.alfanos.org

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:25 pm

Yes. Funny side effects. Hazards will make your life easier...

EDIT: Changed "live" :oops: to "life"...
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:16 am

What if we ruled that the modifications that Webs refers to are only those written in card texts? That keeps the roll and the cross-alignment penalty. I expect that was meant to be the scope of the card in the first place.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:52 pm

What is meant in the scope of the card, and what the rules say often conflict, and we need to go with what the rules say no? Otherwise we open a whole host of well I bet they meant this to do such and such, etc.

zarathustra
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:32 pm

I would like to agree with Chad but I'm afraid Brian is right. This makes influencing resources away from your opponent incredibly easy!

Are there any arguments to be made in favor of Chad's position? :?
http://www.alfanos.org

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:39 am

Well, there was no -5 modification for cross-alignment influence checks when this card was written so maybe that can be kept. As far as the roll goes, since the card does talk about unused general influence it recognizes the possibility of influencing an opponent's resources I think you have to say the opponent's roll is reduced to zero.

However, I think you might not be able to reveal an identical faction/ally/character to reduce the necessary roll to 0 because wouldn't that also be a modification?

zarathustra
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:43 am

Well, there was no -5 modification for cross-alignment influence checks when this card was written so maybe that can be kept.
Eh? Webs is from MELE, and the -5 modification is also introduced in MELE....
http://www.alfanos.org

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:51 am

Oops. Guess I was misremembering. I thought that rule came later, but you're right.

zarathustra
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:35 pm

So uh... are we just gonna sit here and never rule on this one, or are we gonna admit that the card is broken? :?
http://www.alfanos.org

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:27 am

I said I think it's broken sadly :(

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix » Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:59 pm

The only argument I have is that we've done this before when cards are clearly broken. One interpretation is reasonable. The other means you'll be changing the metagame dramatically, and probably for the worse. The game will become one where nobody carries items, they just get them and store them. Your site choices are limited to what's unreachable by opponents' companies, and you still have to worry about characters popping up at sites.

If this is ruled that absolutely every modification is zero, I'm going to make a Lidless Eye deck that will make the game no fun at all, and I'll win every time. And I'm sure people like Mark could do even better.

Sometimes you have to rule on an issue because it breaks the game not to. This is one of those times. We've done it before. I'm sure we'll have to do it again.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:15 pm

It's not like there's no counter to this kind of deck. You can voices / marvels it away. Use wizard's laughter, etc.

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:31 pm

After reflection I'm not so sure it is broken. Let's say you have 4 normal unused DI and your opponent has 5 free GI and you are trying to influence away a faction that has a roll of >7. Since revealing a identical faction doesn't change what you need to roll you'll need to roll a 9 or better. That's hardly a sure thing. Influencing away a low-mind character would be considerably easier, but wouldn't get you much and you'd have to chase down your opponent who will know you are after him. And as Brian says there is always Marvels Told.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:53 pm

Lidless Eye, Standard Rules, Influence, Influencing an Opponent's Non-follower Character wrote:If you reveal an identical character card from your hand before making the roll for the influence check, the target character's mind attribute is treated as if it were zero.
It is not written that mind of revealed character is added to influence check. Mind is modified, not check.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”