influence attempt and influence check....

Ask any question regarding the game's (official) rules

Moderators: Jambo, Moderators

Post Reply
Haldalam
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: Western PA

influence attempt and influence check....

Post by Haldalam » Tue May 10, 2011 11:38 am

Ok... I have notticed the wording on these cards has changed.
In METW when you read the rules, it refers to bringing in an faction as an influence check....

Yet, later sets of the rules really try to distinguiish between the two. I understand the symantics of attempt and check:
attempt: you attempt to bring them in
check: you much make a check when a card dictates

Are the two really universal though? Because all of the METW "context" refers to attembting to bring a faction in play as a "check"...

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue May 10, 2011 12:36 pm

NetRep 122 wrote:The terms "influence check" and "influence attempt" are not synonymous. In general any card that modifies an attempt will affect whatever dice-roll is made in that attempt. A card that affects a check or roll will only modify checks or rolls of the appropriate type.

Haldalam
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: Western PA

Post by Haldalam » Tue May 10, 2011 1:19 pm

Yes, but in the METW rules....
The only verbiage for getting a faction was to make a "check":
Beorning:
Unique. Playable at Beorn's House if the influence check is greater than 7. Standard modifications: Men (+1).

And then the cards:
A Friend or Three
For every character in the influencing character's company, A Friend or Three gives a +1 modification to an influence check or to a corruption check made by a character in the same company.

Lordly Presence
Diplomat only. +5 to an influence check against a faction. If the influence check is successful, draw a card.

Muster
Warrior only. An influence check against a faction is automatically successful; no roll (or draw) is necessary.

By definition, these are all influence "attempts" as you are attempting to bring them into play...

So, is an attempt then only when someone tries to influence soemthing away from another player?

Haldalam
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: Western PA

Post by Haldalam » Tue May 10, 2011 1:23 pm

And then, in Lidless eye, they change the verbiage to:

Gifts as Given of Old C  Short-event
Provides +3 to an influence attempt against a faction
Is this for influencing an oponents faction away only then? or can it be used to bring a faction into play?

or:

Crooked Promptings C  Short-event
Diplomat only. +3 to any one influence check by a character in a diplomatÕs company or +2 to a corruption check by a character in his company.

by the definition in LE....
an attempt is what brings a faction into play while a check is what keeps them in play... as in the cited example.... corruption check...

The definition seems to be reversed form the original intent...

What am I missing?

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed May 11, 2011 12:47 pm

METW Standard Rules, Influence
9 · Influence
Influence is the only way that your characters can directly affect your opponent's resources. During your site phase, one and only one of your characters may tap to attempt to influence away one of your opponent's characters, followers, allies, factions, or items. This may only take place if the influencing character and the target of the influence are at the same site. If you successfully influence the target, it is discarded. In some cases, you may reveal an identical card and attempt to play it (i.e., he convinces the target to join his side).
Such an influence attempt may not be made on the first turn, and a Wizard may not make such an attempt on the turn he is revealed.

Influencing an Opponent's Character
To attempt to influence one of your opponent's non-Wizard characters you must make an influence check.
The separation existed in METW; as with many things, though, the terminology was not always as tight as they made it in later sets.

The NetRep at www.councilofelrond.org has access to the discussion with all the reasoning and examples; if you need further clarification, the best course is probably to contact him.

Haldalam
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: Western PA

Post by Haldalam » Thu May 12, 2011 5:58 pm

ahh, OK and thanks!!! That makes it much clearer.
The reason I was having so much trouble was because of the wording in METW...

Thanks for being on the boards and checking on me, LOL!!!!

Post Reply