Webs and Influencing Away

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:34 am

The thing about Webs is that it says "Except for unused general influence..." which to me means that either
  • (1) ICE took into consideration influencing stuff from your opponent.
    or
    (2) ICE already had the mechanism for Prophet of Doom ready.
If (1) is true, then perhaps what we are discussing now is exactly what the designers had in mind for this card.

As for how broken Webs is, well, there are certainly counters for this type of deck, Marvels Told and Voices of Malice being the obvious ones. However, with Webs in play, certain across alignment influencing situations would become ridiculously easy, e.g. Orc/Troll factions. :?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:58 am

miguel wrote:
  • (1) ICE took into consideration influencing stuff from your opponent.
    or
    (2) ICE already had the mechanism for Prophet of Doom ready.
If (1) is true, then perhaps what we are discussing now is exactly what the designers had in mind for this card.
Assuming that reduction to zero may be done even if value is less than zero...
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:08 am

Right. Here is a ruling on that:
CoE Digest #103 wrote:I am wondering about the effect of Webs of Fear and Treachery upon Old Road, Hour of Need, and Prophet of Doom. In the case of Hour of Need, you would subtract nothing? In the case of Old Road, would it allow direct influence to be used? In the case of Prophet of Doom, would Webs allow Pallando to use both his unused general AND his unused direct? If not, how does it affect Prophet?
*** Hour of Need: Yes, you would subract nothing. Old Road: You do not get to use your direct influence, because that is not changing a modifier to zero. Prophet of Doom: Pallando may use half of his unused general influence as stated on the card, and the region modifier is reduced to zero. As with Old Road, Pallando does not get to use his direct influence.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:11 am

And another, more specific one:
CoE Digest #75 wrote:In a recent game with Nigel Buckle, we had a disagreement over the power of Webs to nullify negative influence modifiers. On this list, it hadpreviously been ruled that webs nullifies all cards like Foolish Words, Scatha at Home, etc. because they are "influence modifications". However, Nigel pointed out that Webs says "... are REDUCED to zero", which, according to one way of looking at it, can only move the modifactions DOWN. So positive modifications go down to zero, but negative modifications cannot go down to zero, so they stay where they are. I argued that Webs should be read as either "... are SET to zero," or that the absolute value of modifications "are reduced to zero," either of which would mean that negative modifications would be nullified by Webs. Any ideas?

*** I do not have conclusive evidence to overrule the current ruling, so it stands that negative modifications are also "reduced" to zero by Webs of Fear and Treachery.
Do we now have that "evidence"?

Just for reference, the ruling related to this:
CoE Digest #68 wrote:I've never quite understood the card webs of fear and treachery: I'm unclear on what exactly a character's "unused normal direct influence (including influence modifications in a character's text)" includes. I'd assume that if a character has followers, they would decrease his DI (since it would be "used" on them). I think it's pretty clear as well that Webs cancels the effects of cards like threats, gifts given, lordly prescence, etc. Does it also cancel the effects of, say, foolish words, lord of the carrock, and scatha at home? What about a ringwraith in some kind of mode? Does he not lose 3 DI in Fell Rider mode? Does he not gain DI in heralded lord mode? What if he gets a bonus for being in heralded lord mode (since that is a modification on the character's text)? What about leaders using command cards? Say I have lt of angmar controlling no one but with I'll report you on him -- does he still get +5 against orcs and trolls if webs of fear is out?

*** In all the cases above, the modifications are reduced to zero for influcence attempts, except for DI changes printed on a Ringwraith card or being in a mode. Note that this is for attempts only, and not for controlling characters.
We could rule that negative influence attempt modifiers are not affected by Webs. That would take care of the issue at hand, and it also reduces the cheezy ways people can use Webs.

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

Post by Wacho » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
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.
This is still a modification to the check. The check is not simply the roll you make it is a combination of the roll and the target number you need to roll to succeed. If the roll necessary is changed that is a modification to the influence check.

I don't think we should change the current interpretation of this card. A negative modifier can be reduced to zero.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:21 pm

Wacho wrote: It is not written that mind of revealed character is added to influence check. Mind is modified, not check.
This is still a modification to the check. The check is not simply the roll you make it is a combination of the roll and the target number you need to roll to succeed. If the roll necessary is changed that is a modification to the influence check.
[/quote]

So "So You've Come Back", "Palm to Palm" effects should be reduced to zero too?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

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

Post by Wacho » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:31 pm

No, because those cards actually change the mind of a character. Revealing an identical character/faction/etc. only allows you to treat the mind/roll as zero for the purpose of the influence check. This is clearly a modification of the normal influence check.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:47 pm

Lidless Eye wrote:Influence Check: A dice roll you make when your character is attempting to influence a faction or an opponent's card. Influence checks are called for in other situations also.
Underline mine.

So what is exactly modified by revealing identical card/manifestation for oposing side? Dice roll or number againt which roll is made?

BTW. How about interaction between Webs and Threats?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

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

Post by Wacho » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:46 am

There is a clarification in the rules that states:
If you reveal an identical character in order to nullify the target character's mind attribute for an influence check, you must discard the character if you do not play him.
Sound like a modification of the influence check to me. Also here's this quote:
Instead of a mind attribute the influence check uses the value required to bring the faction into play...
A check can't simply be a roll. It has to be compared to something. That's what the word check means. You take something and compare it to something else. Affecting the roll or affecting the number you compare the roll to both modify the check.

As far as Threats & Webs go, Threats would take away your ability to use direct influence, but Webs would prevent you from adding your prowess to the roll. So you'd get the worst of both cards.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by miguel » Fri May 06, 2011 9:43 am

Ok we should get the ball rolling on this one...

I agree with Konrad that revealing a character to treat target's mind as if it were zero should not be considered a modification in game terms. Same of course applies for revealing factions and allies. Even though this is clearly some sort of modification, I just don't think it's such within the scope of the term "modification" in MeCCG.

Opponent's roll and the -5 across alignment penalty are modifications within game terms, and as such would be reduced to zero because of Webs.
Proposed Ruling wrote:When influencing an opponent's resource or character, Webs of Fear and Treachery reduces the opponent's roll to zero. Same applies for the -5 across alignment influencing penalty.

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

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by Sauron » Fri May 06, 2011 12:52 pm

Give me time to do some reading and research on this please.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by marcos » Fri May 06, 2011 1:37 pm

miguel wrote:Ok we should get the ball rolling on this one...

I agree with Konrad that revealing a character to treat target's mind as if it were zero should not be considered a modification in game terms. Same of course applies for revealing factions and allies. Even though this is clearly some sort of modification, I just don't think it's such within the scope of the term "modification" in MeCCG.

Opponent's roll and the -5 across alignment penalty are modifications within game terms, and as such would be reduced to zero because of Webs.
Proposed Ruling wrote:When influencing an opponent's resource or character, Webs of Fear and Treachery reduces the opponent's roll to zero. Same applies for the -5 across alignment influencing penalty.
in my oppinion, this should be treated as modifications:
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 either player makes a roll.
· (METW vs MELE) All influence checks are modified by -5; i.e., it is harder for evil characters to influence the Free Peoples and vice versa.
and this, shouldn't:
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
in other words, i agree with the proposed ruling :lol:

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by Shapeshifter » Fri May 13, 2011 6:22 am

The proposed ruling is also supported by the example on p.66 of the MELE rules (underlines mine):
Example: Wendy moves her company to the same site as Nick’s company. During her site phase, Lieutenant of Morgul attempts to influence Radbug (an Orc). Wendy has 5 unused general influence, Nick has 2 unused general influence, and Lieutenant of Morgul has 2 unused direct influence. Since Lieutenant of Morgul is attempting to influence an Orc, his special ability gives him +3 direct influence for a total of 5. Finally, Wendy reveals her own Radbug card. So, Radbug’s mind is 0 for the purposes of this roll.
Wendy rolls 2D6 and gets a 6, while Nick rolls 2D6 and gets a 7. So the modified result of the influence check is 2 = 6 (Wendy’s roll) + 5 (Lieutenant of Morgul’s unused direct influence) - 2 (Nick’s unused general influence) - 7 (Nick’s roll).
This is greater than Radbug’s mind (0 for this roll), so Nick’s Radbug card is discarded.
According to this example the modified result of an influence check does not include the mind reduction. I agree that treating the mind of a character/ally or the value needed to bring a faction into play as zero is not a modification to an influence check in game terms. This means I agree to the proposed ruling.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by miguel » Mon May 30, 2011 6:18 am

Brian, are we good? 8)

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

Re: Webs and Influencing Away

Post by Sauron » Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:06 pm

I got busy, I promise to review this after my work is done today.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”