3 Questions about Influencing. One for Netrep.

[the JabberwocK]

Prior to combat, Token of Goodwill attempts to influence the would-be attacker to instead accept an item and leave his company alone. It must be made by a diplomat... the card states that unused D.I. will be added as a bonus. Everything about this card refers to an influence attempt.... not a combat trick that takes place during the strike sequence.

Where is there a rule that states a race specific bonus for D.I. for an influence attempt cannot be used towards an attack type if it occurs in the proper context of a card?

[Bandobras Took]

Prior to combat, Token of Goodwill attempts to influence the would-be attacker to instead accept an item and leave his company alone. It must be made by a diplomat... the card states that unused D.I. will be added as a bonus. Everything about this card refers to an influence attempt

Well, everything except, you know, the actual card text.

Which says Offering Attempt.

That's something different.

Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by the target character is modified by -4.

Emphasis added. An Offering Attempt is not an influence attempt. Compare Scatha at Home with Times Are Evil. Scatha will not affect Token. Times Are Evil will affect Token. Offering Attempts do not have any specific rules about them, so far as I know.

On the other hand, for influence, we have the following:

Restricted direct influence is limited in its use, usually to characters and/or factions of specific races. Unrestricted influence has no use restrictions.

Token of Goodwill has been ruled as using unrestricted influence to modify the roll. Because restricted influence is, after all, restricted.

[the JabberwocK]

Well, everything except, you know, the actual card text.

Which says Offering Attempt.

That's something different.

Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by the target character is modified by -4.

Emphasis added. An Offering Attempt is not an influence attempt. Compare Scatha at Home with Times Are Evil. Scatha will not affect Token. Times Are Evil will affect Token. Offering Attempts do not have any specific rules about them, so far as I know.

Ok, yes, Influence attempts and Offering attempts are technically different, albeit similar. Is there a rule that forbids the use of race specific restricted D.I. for an Offering Attempt? If so, I rest my case.

On the other hand, for influence, we have the following:

Restricted direct influence is limited in its use, usually to characters and/or factions of specific races. Unrestricted influence has no use restrictions.

Token of Goodwill has been ruled as using unrestricted influence to modify the roll. Because restricted influence is, after all, restricted.

You are making an assumption here that is most likely not correct. Restricted influence is just that - restricted to a particular race/faction, etc. So long as it is being used only towards that race it shouldn't be considered anymore restricted than unrestricted D.I.
The quote above is just a generalized statement explaining the difference between the two. I don't see how it applies to this conversation.

Token of Goodwill states to add the diplomats unused direct influence. It doesn't say to add his unused unrestricted direct influence. If the restricted D.I. can apply (based on race) then it should apply.

[Konrad Klar]

"+1 direct influence against Men and Man factions."

does not specify influence attempts, or controlling.

Emphasis added. An Offering Attempt is not an influence attempt. Compare Scatha at Home with Times Are Evil. Scatha will not affect Token. Times Are Evil will affect Token. Offering Attempts do not have any specific rules about them, so far as I know.

I do not say that an offering attempt is an influence attempt. And there are no any specific rules for offering attempts.
There is only text of Token of Goodwill.
The text says that a dice roll is made, the roll is modified by unused DI of target diplomat, and the its result is compared to given value depending on against which type of attack the roll was made.

There is no need for rule for every situation, or type of card. How to handle the situation or use the card may be concluded from existing text (of rules and cards).
If some restricted DI is restricted to given race it is restricted to given race, not more.
If a roll modified by DI is made against an entity and the entity has race I do not see a reason for not using the DI restricted to the entity's race.

[Bandobras Took]

Again, though, this relies on the assumption that the roll is against the attack in question -- which is reasonable to assume, but it's (in my mind, at least) as reasonable to believe that the roll is not against the attack, but rather just a roll that is then compared to values listed on Token to describe what effect the card has.

As I said before, I'm not arguing that the ruling is valid so much as saying that I can see the reasoning that led to it.

[Konrad Klar]

Trying to recreate a lost post (and to add something more):

"+1 direct influence against Men and Man factions."

If "+1 direct influence against Men" would apply to any entity of race/type Man/Men against which the attempt using influence is made, then " and Man factions." is redundant.
Maybe ICE had at mind "against Men character(s)" when they wrote "against Men".
Nevertheless they wrote what they wrote. And since introduction an other type attempts using influence, a new applications for DI restricted solely to race/type has appeared.

Until a rule like:
"DI restricted to given race and that does not specify a type of entity, may be used only against characters of the race"
will be made I will support the opinion:
If some restricted DI is restricted to given race it is restricted to given race, not more.
If a roll modified by DI is made against an entity and the entity has race I do not see a reason for not using the DI restricted to the entity's race.

[...] but it's (in my mind, at least) as reasonable to believe that the roll is not against the attack, but rather just a roll that is then compared to values listed on Token to describe what effect the card has.

I would agree I the roll would be made "Against 7: Men, Slayer, or any agent (minor item).
But the roll is "Against Men, Slayer, or any agent: minor item/7.

[Theo]

Until a rule like:
"DI restricted to given race and that does not specify a type of entity, may be used only against characters of the race"
will be made...

Ah right. And I think I had said something about this being such a rule for me:

Restricted direct influence is limited in its use, usually to characters and/or factions of specific races. Unrestricted influence has no use restrictions.

At least, when lacking indications of being contrary to this "usually".

[the JabberwocK]

Restricted direct influence is limited in its use, usually to characters and/or factions of specific races. Unrestricted influence has no use restrictions.

Personally, I think this is just making a general statement and one shouldn't read too much into it. It's a basic explanation of one aspect of the game.

And... "Usually" is just, ummm, "Usually"....

[Konrad Klar]

I'm not arguing that the ruling is valid so much as saying that I can see the reasoning that led to it.

In this case, "against" whatever refers to the attack type the Diplomat's company is facing.

+1 prowess against Orcs and Elves.

I don't think anybody's going to claim this applies during influence attempts.

I think that it may be applicable if an influence attempt is being made using Threats.

[Bandobras Took]

That would be consistent with your interpretation, yes.