![[-me_di-]](./images/smilies/me_di.png "Direct Influence"){kind=small}
vs Dwarves and Dwarf Factions vs Elves and Elf Factions +3 against Dwarves), do I still have +3 against Dwarf Factions? 
You have right to say that it does not apply here. Blue Mountain Dwarves is not race, but proper noun.CRF, Turn Sequence, Organization Phase, Followers wrote:A character cannot use a bonus to direct influence against "Blue Mountain Dwarves"
to control characters with the home site Blue Mountain Dwarf-hold. The bonus only
applies to the faction.
Bonuses to direct influence against characters apply only once, not for each character.
...since the normal DI is for characters...dirhaval wrote:ICE did try to make things clear like with "Traitor" but it fizzles on its own. ICE could of just
stated "+3 vs. Dwarf characters" which is similar to have zero direct influence in the icon and
we will know that this bonus is for characters and/or factions since the normal DI is for characters.
Thorin II has normal +6 DI against Blue Mountain Dwarves, has normal +4 DI against other Dwarf Factions, has normal +4 DI against Dwarves (Dwarf characters?), has normal +2 DI against anything else.CRF, Rulings by Term, Influence wrote:Restricted direct influence is limited in its use, usually to characters and/or factions of
specific races. Unrestricted influence has no use restrictions.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Normal wrote:Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that
this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
Underline mine.Webs of Fear & Treachery 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. 'For Boromir was loyal to me and no wizard's pupil. He would have remembered his father's need...'-LotRI
This is not set in stone, but the example says nothing about the DI being increased vs. characters. This would suggest that ICE intended these as separate bonuses rather than as a pool which must be divided between characters and factions.MELE Rules wrote:Example: During your site phase, you have Lieutenant of Morgul in play a company at Lossadan Cairn. You also have Ice-orcs in your hand, and your opponent has Wargs of Forochel in play. Lieutenant of Morgul has no followers, so his unused direct influence is 2.
You tap Lieutenant of Morgul to attempt to bring the Ice-orcs into play. You make your influence check roll (2D6), and the result is 5. This roll is modified by:
· Lieutenant of Morgul's unused direct influence: +2.
· +3 - Lieutenant of Morgul has a special ability: his direct influence is increased by +3 against Orc factions.
· A standard modification of +2, because the Wargs of Forochel are already in play, as listed on the Ice-orcs card.
So the modified result is 11 (=5+2+3+1). Since this is greater than 10 (the number required by the faction card), the Ice-orcs are successfully brought into play and the site taps.
If you had rolled a 3, your modified result would have been 9 (=3+2+2+1), and you would have had to discard the faction card and Lossadan Cairn would not have tapped.
) The question is whether those who wrote the rules were actually native English speakers.Mordakai wrote:So... as I understand, if Thráin II controls Balin, he still have +3 vs Dwarven factions?
Sorry, but I'm not native English speaker, and sometimes I get lost in such lawyer rules interpretations...
vs Dwarves and Dwarf Factions" is a one bonus with dual use, or two separate bonuses. my answer is: this is a one bonus with dual use.Bûthrakaur wrote:Unique. Balrog specific. Leader. Manifestation of Bûthrakaur the Green. Discard on a body check result of 9. +3 direct influence against Trolls, Orcs, Troll factions, and Orc factions. +3 direct influence against Balrog specific characters. A huge arm and shoulder, with a dark skin of greenish scales, was thrust through the widening gap.-LotRII Home Site: Moria, The Under-gates
Also there is no "saving an ink" convention in cases of faction cards that enumerate multiple Standard Modifications of the same value and in cases of Under-Deeps site cards - adjacent sites are listed separately, even if moving to the sites requires a modified roll of the same value.Song of the Lady wrote:At the end of the organization phase, each company at Lórien that wishes to move must (or draw a #). This roll is modified by: -1 if company contains any Men, -1 I company contains any Hobbits, +2 if company contains any Dwarves. If the result is less than 7, the company may not move this turn. '...Rich are the hours, though short they seem, in Caras Galadon...'-LotRII
It has been proven that witness of a defence is innumerate. Therefore his statement cannot be treated by court as opinion of expert. Additionally what he says is not unambiguous. As the defence admits "This is not set in stone,..".[/Lawyer Mode]Example: During your site phase, you have Lieutenant of Morgul in play a company at Lossadan Cairn. You also have Ice-orcs in your hand, and your opponent has Wargs of Forochel in play. Lieutenant of Morgul has no followers, so his unused direct influence is 2.
You tap Lieutenant of Morgul to attempt to bring the Ice-orcs into play. You make your influence check roll (2D6), and the result is 5. This roll is modified by:
· Lieutenant of Morgul's unused direct influence: +2.
· +3 - Lieutenant of Morgul has a special ability: his direct influence is increased by +3 against Orc factions.
· A standard modification of +2, because the Wargs of Forochel are already in play, as listed on the Ice-orcs card.
So the modified result is 11 (=5+2+3+1). Since this is greater than 10 (the number required by the faction card), the Ice-orcs are successfully brought into play and the site taps.
If you had rolled a 3, your modified result would have been 9 (=3+2+2+1), and you would have had to discard the faction card and Lossadan Cairn would not have tapped.
To be clear: I think that Bûthrakaur can control 3 mind Balrog Specific character and still have 3 DI that against Trolls, or Orcs, or Troll factions, or Orc factions.Mordakai wrote: On the other hand, maybe you are right, it would be quite broken if Bûthrakaur could control a 3 mind Orc, a 3 mind troll, a 3 mind Balrog Specific character and still keep his bonus vs orc and troll factions...
Hmm . . .Konrad Klar wrote:
Seems like I did not understand the question before. I thought that question was: whether +3 DI against Dwarves is cumulative with +3 DI against Dwarf Factions (while influencing a Dwarf Factions).
If question is whether "+3
There is no "saving an ink" convention in case of other cards that enumerate multiple modifiers of the same value to the same stat or roll.
Bûthrakaur wrote:Unique. Balrog specific. Leader. Manifestation of Bûthrakaur the Green. Discard on a body check result of 9. +3 direct influence against Trolls, Orcs, Troll factions, and Orc factions. +3 direct influence against Balrog specific characters. A huge arm and shoulder, with a dark skin of greenish scales, was thrust through the widening gap.-LotRII Home Site: Moria, The Under-gatesAlso there is no "saving an ink" convention in cases of faction cards that enumerate multiple Standard Modifications of the same value and in cases of Under-Deeps site cards - adjacent sites are listed separately, even if moving to the sites requires a modified roll of the same value.Song of the Lady wrote:At the end of the organization phase, each company at Lórien that wishes to move must (or draw a #). This roll is modified by: -1 if company contains any Men, -1 I company contains any Hobbits, +2 if company contains any Dwarves. If the result is less than 7, the company may not move this turn. '...Rich are the hours, though short they seem, in Caras Galadon...'-LotRII
This suggests that without the clarification of "applied only once," there would indeed be a -2 penalty for each Orc faction currently in play.Uruk-Hai wrote:Standard Modifications: Any other Orc Faction (-2; applied only once).
Does the strike have to be both Orc and Elf, or is there a +1 to prowess against any Orc strike and also a +1 to prowess against an Elf strike?Broin wrote:+1 prowess against Orcs and Elves.
What, considering the cards that were actually released at the time, would "multiple instances of restricted direct influence" refer to? Is it unreasonable to believe each item of the list on a character card is an "instance of restricted direct influence?"If there is no unrestricted influence and there are multiple instances of restricted direct influence, the player may choose which restricted direct influence the minus is applied to.
This does not bear the expected phrasing "Dwarves, Men, Dwarf Factions, and Man Factions" that are present on the various Lidless Eye leaders.Bearer receives +3 direct influence against Dwarves/Men and Dwarf/Man factions.
Speaking a somebody who's rewritten most of the cards in the game for a project, I offer this interpretation:Konrad Klar wrote:To be clear: I think that Bûthrakaur can control 3 mind Balrog Specific character and still have 3 DI that against Trolls, or Orcs, or Troll factions, or Orc factions.Mordakai wrote: On the other hand, maybe you are right, it would be quite broken if Bûthrakaur could control a 3 mind Orc, a 3 mind troll, a 3 mind Balrog Specific character and still keep his bonus vs orc and troll factions...
But if "saving an ink" would be a reason to list all separate + 3 DI bonuses in fashion " against Trolls, Orcs, Troll factions, and Orc factions", it is hard to explain why "+3 direct influence against Balrog specific characters" deserves on separate sentence. Then it should be rather "+3 direct influence against Trolls, Orcs, Balrog specific characters, Troll factions, and Orc factions".
Thorin II's +2 DI against Blue Mountain Dwarves and +2 DI against Dwarves and Dwarf Factions. Two instances of restricted DI. The two are listed separately, despite of having the same value.Bandobras Took wrote:What, considering the cards that were actually released at the time, would "multiple instances of restricted direct influence" refer to? Is it unreasonable to believe each item of the list on a character card is an "instance of restricted direct influence?"
Possibly too.Bandobras Took wrote:Or was ICE trying to tell people that when Gloin has an Elf-stone, he can choose whether a penalty to DI comes from his "dwarf and dwarf faction" total or his "elf and elf faction" total?
Third possibility is that it is a single +1 to prowess bonus that can be used against Orcs, or against Elves.Bandobras Took wrote:Does the strike have to be both Orc and Elf, or is there a +1 to prowess against any Orc strike and also a +1 to prowess against an Elf strike?
In the same vein the entity in question have to be an Orc, or Troll, or Orc Faction, or Troll Faction, but Bûthrakaur does not have a four instances of restricted DI, but one of four different uses.Bandobras Took wrote:In the same vein, when a card says "+3 DI against Orcs, Trolls, Orc Factions, and Troll Factions", does the card in question have to be an Orc, a Troll, an Orc Faction, and a Troll Faction? Or does it actually mean "+3 DI against Orcs and also Trolls and also Orc Factions and also Troll Factions?
Right. But what does it prove or disprove? If it would be intended as -2 penalty for each other Orc faction currently in play, how it would be written?Bandobras Took wrote:This suggests that without the clarification of "applied only once," there would indeed be a -2 penalty for each Orc faction currently in play.Uruk-Hai wrote:Standard Modifications: Any other Orc Faction (-2; applied only once).
No. One instance of restricted DI with many uses.Bandobras Took wrote:Side note: is there a difference for Hero Necklace of Girion?
