For the purposes of the Trapmaster Power card, is "Dark Charm" a trap that deals damage? It's a trap, and it deals damage, but our group was torn. Thanks!

I thought Dark Charm was an Event card, not a Trap card?

Dark Charm is a trap card.

Whether it should deal increased damage due to Trapmaster has been debated in the past. I think the majority opinion was that it shouldn't, and I think it's probable that was the intent, but no one presented any line of reasoning that I thought was solid (as far as I can recall). There were arguments regarding whether it was "the trap itself" doing the damage or some indirect effect and such, but looking at other trap cards does not inspire confidence that FFG was that careful about the wording.

Seems like every group hits this and as it was stated above, there is no clear answer. Until FFG rules one way or the other, our group has compromised. Trapmaster reduces the cost to play Dark Charm but does not increase the damage.

edroz said:

That's actually one of the best compromises I've seen.

Not that I object to that ruling, but I fail to see how that constitutes a compromise. I don't think I've heard anyone argue that Trapmaster shouldn't reduce the cost. Dark Charm is clearly labeled as a Trap card, and the cost-reduction effect has no restrictions on the types of traps it applies to.

It would also benefit from master kobolds' Trickster ability.

Antistone said:

qft.

The cost is not debatable.

The way me and my brother are playing it, Trapmaster doesn't affect damage (although I'm pretty sure we have it affecting the cost). on the other hand, the feat card disarm isn't viable for dark charm or animate weapons. He (OL) decided it didn't make sense, and I agreed, largely because that seems like such a cheap ass way to use that feat card, when we've already decided they're pretty overpowered for the heroes.

Hammerdal said:

Those are pretty much my main reasons to use a disarm. It makes it a bigger risk to play animate weapons when there's a possibility it will get disarmed. It's such a powerful card, with only a blank's chance per hero to avoid it...that I wouldn't do that. Even though disarm is one of the best feats, I still don't think it's really that powerful, given how many trap cards are out there, especially in vanilla where you can hide master kobolds all over the place for super-cheap traps.

As to the main debate, we have always played that it's cheaper since it's clearly a trap, but that the card itself does not deal damage--it allows an attack to be made if a blank is not rolled. This attack deals damage, the card does not. But that's just my $.02

Feanor said:

Yeah, that's pretty much how the reasoning went among our group. But, then, how is that different from any other trap card? It's not the card that causes the damage for a pit trap, after all--the hero falls in the pit if he fails his roll. Falling in the pit causes the damage, not the card. Same for a crushing block. The trap cards create situations where the hero might take damage if he fails to avoid the trap... Dark Charm doesn't seem any different, on a mechanical level (aside from dealing out much more damage than your average trap).

DC is a bit different, since it can be Dodged, Guarded, Aimed which is not true for the rest of the Traps.

NigelTufnel said:

Not so. Falling in a pit causes 1 damage (normally). A Pit Trap Card , causes 2 damage, unless the target evades the effect. While the thematical representation may be the pit, the damage is actually done by the card (that is, the trap, rather than the obstacle/prop). The same applies to the crushing block. Although the block thematically causes the damage, the damage is actually dealt by the card, unless the effect is evaded. As an example of other 'crushing blocks', being crushed by a block thrown by a Boss in one of the RtL levels doesn't do 3 damage - it kills outright (as does crushing boulder, analagous to a crushing block).

The difference is that the card (the trap itself) specifically tells you to do damage - damage is the direct result of the card. Therefore something (Trap Master) that adds extra (ie, indicating that there is already damage resulting from the trap) damage to traps increases the damage done by Spiked Pits, Crushing Blocks, Exploding Doors/Chests etc. However it doesn't create damage where damage was not already being done by the trap (eg Gas Door whatsit, Monster in the Chest whatsit, etc, including Dark Charm.)

Dark Charm does not have the effect of doing damage. It has the effect of allowing an attack. Even if the attack inflicts damage, the damage is an indirect effect of DC and not a direct effect, therefore is not increased by Trapmaster.
This is similar to chest turning into a Beastman/Ogre - if the Beastman/Ogre attacks, it may do damage. That damage is indirectly coming from the trap card, so if you are going to allow a DC to get Trapmaster damage bonus, you have to allow teh Beastman/Ogre to get Trapmaster damage bonus.
Then you get the next layer down of indirect effects. The Skeleton who survived because the Spiked pit killed the hero that was about to cut down the Skeleton. The skeleton shoots and does damage which is indirectly the result of the trap... It becomes an endless an ungovernable mess.
The only feasible solution which is not entirely arbitrary is to allow the Trapmaster damage bonus to only affect the direct results of the trap. As above, DC's direct result is an attack, not damage, so DC doesn't get the Trapmaster damage bonus.

Since Dart Field and Scything Blades are noted as Trap props, do they get the Trapmaster damage bonus?

Thundercles said:

Not sure about Dart Fields. Scything blades do, as the card (trap) tells you to do damage as though the hero had just walked into the prop (or something similar) - so it is the card itself (the trap) which deals the initial damage. Later figures walking onto the prop would not suffer the additional trapmaster damage.

Not so. Falling in a pit causes 1 damage (normally). A Pit Trap Card , causes 2 damage, unless the target evades the effect. While the thematical representation may be the pit, the damage is actually done by the card (that is, the trap, rather than the obstacle/prop).

I thought the difference there was the fact that pit traps are spiked pits, whereas normal pits do not feature spikes.

This is similar to chest turning into a Beastman/Ogre - if the Beastman/Ogre attacks, it may do damage. That damage is indirectly coming from the trap card, so if you are going to allow a DC to get Trapmaster damage bonus, you have to allow teh Beastman/Ogre to get Trapmaster damage bonus.

I'd argue there's a big difference between a card that mandates an immediate attack (i.e., Dark Charm), and a card that simply adds another monster to the board (i.e., Mimic). Accordingly, I'd have no problem allowing Trapmaster damage for one and not the other. In the tradition of reading cards as written, literally, I think Trapmaster damage is indicated for Dark Charm (the more I think about it). It says it applies to trap cards that deal damage, and Dark Charm is a trap card that deals damage.

FWIW, this position is a turnaround from the opinion I had when the issue came up during our game. I (the OL) thought the extra damage wouldn't apply, but the heroes overruled me.

Edit: Okay, I can't get the quote formatting to work on that one, at all. I also couldn't figure out how to delete it.

Trapmaster applies specifically to trap cards , so scything blades or dart fields that are drawn onto the quest map are out.

Many people seem to think that the Scything Blades trap card should get bonus damage when it is played, but that the prop created should only do normal damage thereafter.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why the damage done by the Scything Blades trap card is more "direct" than that caused by Dark Charm, however. "Any figures in the spaces filled by the scything blades are affected as though they had moved into a space containing the scything blades" sounds an awful lot like the card is creating a token that then inflicts damage.

Though I think my group still plays like Corbon's. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate.

WOD quest 4 has trapmaster in play and poison spiked pit traps that are non-card, but the text states rather matter of factly that because trapmaster is in play they receive the +2 damage. It says it in a way that implies (to me) that "on the map" or "built in" traps should receive the bonus, but I definitely feel that this implication is unsupported RAW. I would like to see this answered some day since it's the second or third time it has come up here in recent memory.

NigelTufnel said:

1. No. Firstly, a pit token, and similar tokens, is not a trap, it is an obstacle (pg 16) which is a subset of props (pg 4). Secondly, a 'spiked pit' creates a normal pit token, not a special token. It is only the action of the card (trap) that deals 2 damage.

2. There is a difference. It is a difference of degree. A card that tells you to deal damage is damage directly from the card. A card that tells you to do an attack may do damage, but it will be a secondary result of the attack. A card that creates a monster may do damage, but it will be a tertiary result. The card created the monster, the monster attacked, the attack dealt damage.
If you accept non-primary effects, then you have to arbitrarily decide how many degrees is close enough to count, with no justification n the rules in any way. Your decision to accept second degree damage has no more basis or support in the rules than my decision to accept seven hundred and sixty-third degree damage when the final boss attacks a hero which is because... <seven hundred and sixty-two degrees>... because that hero fell into a pit trap.
If you accept only primary effects, created directly by the card, then you don;t have to arbitrarily decide anything and you are strictly playing the card (Trapmaster) as written.
As written, Dark Charm card does not do damage (primary effect), it creates an attack, which may do damage (secondary effect).

Antistone said:

Who are you and what have you done with Antistone?

"as though" indicates quite clearly that it is not the token doing the damage, it is the card doing the damage. I've tried parsing up the sentence other ways, but I just can't get it to flow properly any other way.

pinkymadigan said:

I'd have to look at the quest closely. However you describe the pits as 'poison spike pit traps'. If the quest describes them that way then it is clearly a scenario specific rule and follows the RAW. The difference is that the pits are explicitly described as traps - which makes them eligible for trapmaster of course. Normal pits are obstacles (props), not traps, so are not eligible for trapmaster.

I have played that quest recently - the pits appear under certain circumstances as a replacement for an encounter marker. The hero has a chance to avoid them by a power die roll as usual, and if he doesn´t the trap does two poison damage + two for the Trapmaster in play (explicitly stated in the quest guide). I even had a second Trapmaster in play, causing a whopping 6 poison damage. Afterwards they are normal pits.

Parathion said:

Then you cheated yourself - it clearly states they do the 4 damage as a normal posioned spiked pit does then it states "(actually 6 due to the Trapmaster card in play)".

I'm just saying, the wording is suspect and makes you question whether trap props should or shouldn't get the bonus. RAW I still agree there is no evidence to support it.

Oh my memory, right, it actually were 8 poison damage after my second Trapmaster. I played it right, remembered it wrong.

Corbon said:

1. I was simply suggesting a reason why a 'spiked pit' might cause more damage than a normal pit, thematically (which is the question you seemed to be posing).

2. While I appreciate your replies, now I think you're just being specious. There is a world of difference between damage resulting immediately from an action dictated by a card and damage resulting at the end of the game (possibly influenced by a card that came earlier). Reductio ad absurdum only works if you maintain the logic of the original argument.

To make a hard-line ruling based upon RAW, I think the heroes in my group have the best argument:

- The card says "trap cards that deal damage"

- Is Dark Charm a Trap card? Yes.

- Does it deal damage? Yes.

That looks pretty straightforward to me. Further, comparing Dark Charm to something like "Mimic" doesn't really work. Dark Charm says, explicitly, to make an attack (as in, "immediately"). If that attack causes damage, then the card caused damage. Mimic doesn't say anything about making an attack--although it allows for the possibility. IMO, if the card isn't dictating an immediate action (like Dark Charm does), then it's not the same--and, accordingly, doesn't deal damage.

Corbon said:

I disagree. They are affected as though they had entered the space. The thing that would affect them if they actually had entered the space is the token; the card causes the token to take effect at a time when it normally wouldn't, just as Dark Charm allows an attack to take place at a time when it normally wouldn't. The card is not emulating the token, it is activating the token. If there were some wacky extra rule in play that changed scything blades into dart fields, that would change the damage dealt (and effect token inflicted) when this card is played.

Plus, even if you still think a close reading supports your interpretation, I doubt you can tell me with a straight face that you think such subtleties of wording are intentional on the part of the designers. Not with Descent's track record.