Influence check vs. influence attempt (Flatter a Foe)

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Influence check vs. influence attempt (Flatter a Foe)

Post by miguel » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:26 pm

This post was inspired by the discussion here.

What's the difference? Rulesbooks are in no way clear about this, but they use both terms. MELE Rulesbook doesn't have a definition for influence attempt, but it does for influence check:
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.
So it would seem the actual dice roll is always an influence check.


Example of two very similar cards, using both terms:
Lordly Presence wrote:Diplomat only. +5 to an influence check against a faction. If the influence check is successful, draw a card.
Gifts as Give of Old wrote:Provides +3 to an influence attempt against a faction.
Surely both cards modify the roll (influence check), regardless of the different wording.


Does this mean Foolish Words should affect Flatter a Foe's dice roll, even though they use different terms (emphasis is mine):
Flatter a Foe wrote:Flattery attempt. Playable on a character whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below. Character makes an influence check (modified by his unused direct influence and +2 if a diplomat). If successful, the attack is cancelled and the hazard limit for the character's company is decreased by two. This influnce check is successful if the result is greater than: 10 against a Dragon; 11 against Men or Drakes; 12 against Trolls, Orcs, Elves and Giants.
Foolish Words wrote:Playable on any character. Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by target character is modified by -4. If placed on-guard, it may be revealed and played when a character in the company declares such an attempt. During his organization phase, the character may tap to attempt to remove this card by making a roll (drawing a #)-if the result is greater than 7, discard this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given character.
I think both terms actually mean the same thing, so Foolish Words should be fine.

There are some relevant rulings regarding this:
CoE Digest #13 wrote:1. I previously thought that after a Flatter a Foe (and such) any hazards could be played in response except creature cards. However, since corruption cards must start a chain of effects, wouldn't they be prohibited from responding to a Flattery attempt as well?
*** Yes, you cannot respond to a Flatter with a corruption card because corruption cards must start a chain of effects.
A corruption card revealed from on guard to interrupt a chain of effects is an exception due to the on guard rules. Flatter a Foe is a "flattery" card that also causes an influence check/attempt so it does trigger Lure of Power

5. Can you respond to Flatter a Foe during the M-H phase with a Foolish Words?
*** Yes.
CoE Digest #31 wrote:i want to add another question to flatter a foe.
though you are not tapping, it is still an influence attempt. if lure
of power is in play, will this card be triggered, when you are
successfully flattering a foe?
*** Yes.
So far so good, digests were even written by different NetReps...
CoE Digest #52 wrote:Does Flatter a Foe trigger Lure of Power?

*** No. Flatter a Foe is a Flattery Attempt, not an influence attempt.
Eh? That would also mean Foolish Words has no effect. Since this is the latest ruling on the subject, it's also the current one. I don't really get the benefit of making an unclear distinction between influence check and influence attempt. I'm actually inclined to agree with the previous rulings. What do you think?

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:22 pm

Each influence attempt leads to influence check, likewise each attack leads to strike, but not in reverse direction.

Note that distinction between influence check and attempt was without any practical implications until introducing of Dragons, even if some earlier cards was refering to check aswell as to attempt. Similarly references to offering attempt on cards from Dragons was without practical implications until introduction of Dark Minions.
Definition is the key and distinction between attempt and check is there. I agree with CoE Digest #52.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:06 pm

MELE Rulesbook: Starter rules: Influence wrote:BRINGING A FACTION INTO PLAY
In order to play a faction card, you must tap one of your characters that is at the "site" indicated on the faction's card. Then you must make an influence check. Make a roll (2D6), add your character's unused direct influence, and add any appropriate modifications (any applicable standard modifications from the faction card and from any other cards played). All influence check modifier cards must be played before making the roll (2D6).
No mention of the term "influence attempt" and this is the very basic example of what it supposedly means. According to the quote, you couldn't use Gifts as Given of Old, since it gives +3 only to an influence attempt, not the check. Unless the two terms are synonymous, of course...

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:15 pm

Or unless bringing a faction into play is influence attempt against faction by itself.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:29 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:Or unless bringing a faction into play is influence attempt against faction by itself.
Nope. The roll would still be influence check. The +3 needs to target the roll. Gifts would not be playable. And that doesn't make sense.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:50 pm

Increasing prowess of attack effectively increases prowess of strikes. Not in reverse direction. This makes sense even if attack is single strike.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:03 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:Increasing prowess of attack effectively increases prowess of strikes. Not in reverse direction. This makes sense even if attack is single strike.
Why do you keep bringing up attack/strikes? We're not discussing about those, they are explained in the rules. You can't make assumptions about influencing based on attack/strikes. Let's stick to the subject.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:05 pm

This is ilustration of my view on relathionsip between influence attempt and influence check.
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 6:02 pm

I think what Konrad is saying is that an influence attempt always includes an influence check, but an influence check doesn't always come from an influence attempt as per Flatter a Foe. So a +3 to an influence attempt would provide +3 to your roll when you make the check, however a card that did this couldn't be used to affect Flatter a Foe since it isn't an influence attempt. This is analagous to playing a card that gives -2 to the attack, this will cause all strikes to be at -2.

However, I'm not sure if influence attempt and influence check shouldn't be considered synonymous. In my opinion ICE left us a bit of a mess here. They tried to introduce flattery, offering, riddling in Dragons & DM but they abandoned the idea and didn't do anything with it afterwards. I'm not sure that they even knew whether there was a distinction or not.

As far as I can tell this is really the only card where this would be a problem. Either position has some merit. It makes sense to me that Foolish Words would affect Flatter a Foe, but the attempt/check distinction also makes sense.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:15 pm

Wacho wrote:They tried to introduce flattery, offering, riddling in Dragons & DM but they abandoned the idea and didn't do anything with it afterwards.
Note that also offering attempt in Token of Goodwill (only one known to me Offering Attempt card) does not contain influence check (only plain dice roll modified by DI).
Offering Attempt. Playable on a diplomat whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below. Target diplomat makes a corruption check. If he does not fail, discard an item from his company (as listed below), and make a roll (or draw a #) adding the diplomat's unused direct influence. If the result is greater than the listed values, the attack is canceled, and you may take one resource from your play deck or discard pile into your hand (reshuffle play deck if searched). Against a Dragon: greater item/5, against a Drake: major item/6, against men, Slayer, or any Agent: minor item/7.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:02 pm

Wacho wrote:I think what Konrad is saying is that an influence attempt always includes an influence check, but an influence check doesn't always come from an influence attempt as per Flatter a Foe.
Yeah I get it, but the fact remains the dice roll, according to the rules, is an influence check. Even if influence check is a part of something called influence attempt, the actual roll is still an influence check. For a card to target that dice roll, it should target an influence check, not influence attempt. But clearly that's not so, since we have so many cards modifying influence attempts. So...

(1) cards modifying influence attempts should be considered to modify influence checks
  • This would allow the current ruling on Flatter vs. Lure of Power to stand, but Foolish Words could target an influence check. Perhaps that's not the best possible consistency though.
(2) or influence attempt = influence check
  • This is the older interpretation. I think it's a very clear and working solution, since the rules don't really specify what an influence attempt is supposed to be.
(3) or influence attempt is a dice roll, a specific form of influence check
  • Cards targetting influence attempts would not be playable on an influence check that is not also an attempt. This seems like an easy solution, but the rules never refer to the actual dice roll as an influence attempt.

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

Post by tharasix » Wed May 23, 2007 12:48 am

or (4) Influence attempts include an influence check, but an influence check can also occur in other kinds of attempts. This is the logic behind the rulings above, and I don't see how it's wrong. As long as we claim that a modification to an attempt modifies the check, everything's cool.

zarathustra
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:55 pm

I agree with Mikko. If you look through the MELE rules, you'll notice that the term 'influence attempt' is only used in connection with influencing away an opponent's resources. If we want to make a principled distinction between 'influence attempt' and 'influence check', therefore, we have to say that an influence attempt is just an influence check against an opponent's resource. But that would mean you could only use Gifts as Given of Old to steal a faction -- not to bring into play your own. Hence, it seems clear that we have to say there is no principled distinction to be made, and that 'influence attempt' and 'influence check' are strictly synonymous.
Proposed Ruling wrote:The terms 'influence check' and 'influence attempt' are strictly synonymous. Any card or rule referring to one refers to both.
http://www.alfanos.org

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:43 am

Aye.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:48 pm

zarathustra wrote:
Proposed Ruling wrote:The terms 'influence check' and 'influence attempt' are strictly synonymous. Any card or rule referring to one refers to both.
This would mean, that Flatter A Foe would activate cc from Lure of Power.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”