NigelTufnel said:

1. Yes, I understood that. I was explaining why a pit (token, which does 1 damage) is not the same thing as a Spiked Pit (Trap card, which does 2 damage (+ trapmaster)). To revisit a normal pit is not in fact a trap. It is an obstacle and a prop. A Spiked Pit card is a trap.

2. Err, specious?
The problem is you have a fundamental error in your reasoning chain. Dark Charm does not do damage *. Dark charm creates an attack . Damage may (or may not) result from that attack, but the creation of damage is one step removed from the actual trap card.

You write above, "If that attack causes damage, then the card caused damage". I utterly disagree. If the attack caused damage then the attack caused damage. The card caused the attack. That is an extra step which you are arbitrarily deciding to lump together.
The damage (if any) is done by the attack which is created by the Trap. That is one step removal.
The example of Mimic also gives damage, but the damage is two steps removed from the trap card.
The damage is done by the attack which comes from the monster which is created (and immediately activated) by the Trap.

*Further, it is still not sure that an attack will do damage. Even if the Dark Charm is not avoided (ie no blank) and the attack goes off there are still ways it can fail to do damage. An X is the obvious one. A miss due to lack of range. A zero damage result due to a weak weapon and a bad roll (BY Ranged, for example), a very bad roll with damage penalties (eg WY or RY with -1 damage/range for uphill target).
If you insist that an attack is damage then you not only must give trapmaster bonus damage to a missed dark charm attack (ie, roll an X but target takes 2 damage anyway), but you are also contrary to the rules for Burn, Knockback, Stun, Web and similar effects which require damage from the attack to activate (having an attack is not enough, you must also do damage as a result of the attack - therefore an attack is not damage)..

Note also that there is a difference between damage done which can be prevented (eg by rolling lots of surges for a pit trap IIRC) - ie the damage is done, but may be prevented, and not doing any damage at all (eg not falling in the pit or dodging aside from the crushing block). A Poisoned Spiked pit (with Trapmaster) which does 4 poison damage (all prevented with surges, or an Item effect) + 2 damage, still does the 2 damage - the 4 poison damage was done, it just didn't take effect. However if the hero dodge a crushing block then he never takes any damage at all and the Trapmaster bonus has no effect.

Antistone said:

Ok, my bad. That's the parsing I couldn't get. I can now see the counter argument.
It was Antistone all the time, I just couldn't see properly with the enormous stick in my eye.

And I have to say, no strait face here at all!

Corbon said:

The extra step is no more arbitrary than the step involved in a spiked pit trap card--and it's no further removed, in my mind. The spiked pit trap card indicates that the hero falls into a pit and suffers damage, unless the pit is avoided. The Dark Charm card indicates an attack is made and the hero suffers damage, unless the attack fails. That is the exact same level of attenuation between card and damage, imo. Both cards create an immediate threat that can possibly result in damage. Your statement above:

"Damage may (or may not) result... but the creation of damage is one step removed from the actual trap card." I fail to see how this statement isn't equally applicable to other trap cards, such as spiked pit and crushing block. If those cards caused damage immediately without any intermediate step (i.e., rolling dice), then I would be inclined to agree with you. As it is, I see no mechanical difference between rolling dice to see if the hero escapes a pit and rolling dice to see if an attack is successful.

That's why I used the term "specious." What you're saying sounds correct, and looks good, but it isn't right (imo).

NigelTufnel said:

Ahh good. Then you have stated you will agree with me - once you read the cards correctly.
Note that many of the traps, including dark charm, have a first step which is rolling a single dice to avoid the trap all together. I assume you don't include that roll in your statement since it is clearly an 'avoid the trap completely' roll - separate from an attack roll (which may create damage - note the damage is created by the attack roll, not the card) or a 'prevent damage' roll (crushing block's 4 power die - note the damage has already been created by the card).

Spiked pit card directly indicates damage is made (wounds actually, but that is a clear error on FFG's part since there are multiple trap cards which indicate wounds but none which indicate damage). The exact quote is " Unless the hero rolls a blank on one power die, he falls into the pit and suffers 2 wounds..." It does not say the pit does 2 wounds to the hero. It says, directly from the card, that two effects happen to the hero. One is falling into the pit, the other is suffering 2 wounds (damage, for the purposes of trapmaster). That is the card (trap) doing damage (wounds) directly.
The same applies to Crushing block ("... Place a one space rubble token on that space. The hero suffer 4 wounds (ignoring armour), reduced by..." ) Again, the card itself does the damage directly, not the block.
Explosive Rune is the same. "...The Hero that opened the chest, as well as every hero adjacent to the chest, suffers 6 wounds..." Thats wounds directly from the card, not indrectly from the effects of the card.

Contrast this with Dark Charm. " ...If the result is not a blank the hero must make one attack that you declare. This attack may target any hero, including the attacking hero, but is subject to the normal attack rules, including range and line of sight." No mention of wounds/damage.
Now can you see why the 'one step removed' is not equally applicable? Some trap cards do damage (wounds) as a direct effect of the trap. Others do damage (wounds) as an indirect effect of the trap. That indirect effect may be one step removed (Dark Charm) or more than one step removed (Mimic) but it is not directly mandated by the trap (card).
The Dark Charm card indicates an attack is made. It does not indicate damage is suffered unless the attack fails. The nature of attacks may indicate that, but the card does not.

Note the wording of Trapmaster. " ... Trap CARDS that deal damage deal an additional 2 wounds." (my caps, cards bold). That is the card itself, not an effect that is the result of the card, but the card itself must do that damage.

Corbon said:

How exactly would they put in Dark Charm that the hero takes damage from the trap? It would look really dumb if they stated "This attack generates damage which is then dealt to the hero". Not only would most people think the statement is extraneous, since that's what attacks do, but that would probably cause more confusion as people would potentially be arguing about dealing the damage twice- "The attack causes wounds naturally, but then we take those wounds and let this card deal it as well". There aren't really many better alternative phrases either: "This card deals these wounds to the hero/ This attack doesn't deal damage to the hero, instead this card does/Negate the damage from the attack and add it to the effects of this card instead" - these all sound really bad, and I doubt anyone had even considered putting it on the card, even if that was the intent.

I don't think it's on the card because it doesn't need to be said. I'm not really sure myself of what the intent is, or what an official ruling would say, but using the logic that a card must say IT deals the damage to receive the bonus makes for some awkward card text (if they did intend for Dark Charm to receive the bonus).

To use a similar argument as Antistone's - do you really think their editing is good enough to have detected that the card itself did not explicitly state that it is doing the damage rather than the attack caused by the card? I don't, and personally, I think if Dark Charm was to receive this exemption from Trapmaster, that is more likely to have been stated rather than the opposite.

Corbon said:

Pinky Madigan responded to this better than I can, so +1 for him.

I will add only that I think you are continuing to create hairs simply for the sake of splitting them. Can you honestly say that where a card tells you to make an immediate attack that the resulting damage is "indirect"? If so, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, the only reason the damage value isn't explicitly stated on the Dark Charm card (which seems to be the focus of your argument) is that damage from hero attacks can vary wildly. As PM points out, the fact that damage is applied after a successful attack is implied--it shouldn't have to be spelled out.

For the record, I suspect that an official ruling would likely run counter to my argument, but--in the meantime--I think that a plain reading of the card and rules supports my position.

NigelTufnel said:

The problem with PM's argument is that it really supports my position rather than yours. It boils down to saying "If they intended Dark Charm to count as direct damage inflicted they would have said so, which is difficult, so they didn't bother." I'm calling the bull on that one!
PM makes this argument in this way (even though it really supports my case) becuase he is pre-supposing that the intent is for Dark Charm to gain the benefit of Trapmaster. Rule number 1 in technical reading (rules interpretation). Don't pre-suppose! Trapmaster is clearly not supposed to affect every trap (in the damage component at least) because it places an additional specification on which traps it causes to do additional damage. So each trap must be examined to see if it meets the specification. No 'pre-supposing', just check each trap. Does it meet the specification? Dark Charm does not.

Thematically, I wouldn't expect Trapmaster to affect Dark Charm (damage wise). Trapmaster means someone is good at setting traps. They do it easier and more efficiently, and because they have a more refined trap-setting technique, physical effects (spikes/pits/falling blocks etc) do more damage. Dark Charm is a psychic/spell effect. How does being more effective at setting up a trap (trigger) make the spell or psychic effect better?
I have to admit that thematic reasoning is utterly worthless IMO, because every thematic reason can be supplanted by a different thematic reason that reverses the result. I do like it though when you can look at the thematics after parsing a rule and say "well, duh! Of course that's how it should be..."

I can honestly say that if a card tells me to make an attack I do not consider that the card tells me to do damage. I expect that some damage will probably result from the attack but is is clearly, and definitively, not damage from the card , it is damage from the attack. Note that Trapmaster specifically requires damage from the card .
Further, I can't see the difference between saying damage from an attack mandated by the card is different from damage from an attack from a mandated activated (which means can attack immediately) monster. And if the monster gets additional damage on it's first attack, then it surely gets additional damage on subsequent attacks. A can of worms is opened here. The only option is to play strictly as written and note that, as written on Trapmaster, the trap card must tell you to do damage.

I find your last paragraph quite hilarious. Because we are precisely opposite here too.
I would not be at all surprised if an official ruling said that Dark Charm attacks get the damage benefit of trapmaster. Largely because often (not always) FFG's answers are basically random and bear no relation to the rules in question. Take the recent FAQ change for Sorcery vs Ironskin. After 10 pages of detailed discussion, in which prettty much the only thing agreed by all parties was that any benefits Ironskin gave against Sorcery did/should not benefit other figures, the FAQ come out with a wierd ruling that fails all sides arguments and then tacks on the end of it that Ironskin's benefit vs Sorcery extends to other monsters (which implies that it's benefits vs Pierce etc also apply to others, since they are exactly worded as Sorcery is (part of the same list)).
Anyway, I am utterly certain that the RAW do not provide a Trapmaster damage benefit to DC (just as you are utterly certain they do), and would not be at all surprised to find a counter ruling from FFG (just as you wouldn't).

Corbon said:

BTW, what happened to this?

You stated "If those cards caused damage immediately without any intermediate step (i.e., rolling dice), then I would be inclined to agree with you. As it is, I see no mechanical difference between rolling dice to see if the hero escapes a pit and rolling dice to see if an attack is successful."

I proved they did cause damage and there is a mechanical difference. Where is your agreement?

Again...
Most Trap cards, including Dark Charm, Spiked Pit and Crushing Block, have a single dice roll to avoid the trap completely. If you fail this roll then the trap takes affect. This is the same single dice roll to escape the pit or avoid the charm (note that there is no such roll to dodge the block - it always hits and displaces the hero, though after hitting, if lucky the hero may prevent some of the damage by turning it into a glancing blow). It cannot be equated with other rolls to prevent damage or make a successful attack - which you seem to be doing in your second sentence.
Once the trap takes affect there is no intermediate step (rolling dice) for damage to be caused directly by Spiked Pit or Crushing Block. There is a post-damage step to reduce the damage for Crushing Block, but that is post damage - preventing the damage (which cannot be prevented unless it is being inflicted already).

So, by your own statement, you should be agreeing with me???

Corbon said:

I've numbered the relevant portions of your post for easy reference to my replies:

1. Simply saying Dark Charm does not meet the specification does not make it so. The 'trigger' has two elements: (1) It must be a trap card, and (2) it must cause damage. My position is that both of the elements are met by Dark Charm--no pre-supposition is necessary.

2. As you correctly point out, thematic justifications are pointless. So, no need to respond here--although, I will point out that it's the thematic component of this issue that makes me think an official ruling would not be in my favor.

3. Trapmaster requires a trap card that causes damage. It does not require a trap card that specifies a precise amount of damage on the card itself (which is the distinction you keep trying to create). Use of terms like "clearly" and "definitively" is ineffectual when used solely to bolster your own opinion. Your interpretation is not clear nor definitive from my reading of the card. Besides, you're sidestepping the question. You originally said that damage from the Dark Charm trap was an "indirect" effect of the card. I think you're being intellectually dishonest if you really maintain such an argument. The card mandates an immediate attack, the clear result of which is to cause damage. Nothing "indirect" about that, at all.

4. The difference seems clear to me, at least. Dark Charm, in effect, says " Attack, right now. " The damage resulting from that mandate is caused directly by the call of the card. Mimic, in effect, says " Turn this chest into a monster and activate it. " Nothing about an attack. No requirement that an attack be made. At that point, the OL is stepping in and deciding what to do, and that is the point where (imo) the card is no longer "causing" damage. It may be creating a potential situation where the OL can choose to cause damage, but it's not dictating an immediate chain of events that culminates in damage.

Corbon said:

The initial roll to avoid the trap entirely is the intermediate step I was talking about. If it weren't there, that's when I might be inclined to agree with you. In other words, if there were any traps that said " Play this card, then deal X damage, no matter what ," then your position would make more sense to me. As it is, every trap in the game has hurdles to jump through and dice to roll just to see if the trap is successful in causing damage. Given that, I see no mechanical difference between a spiked pit trap (for example) and Dark Charm.

Sorry if that wasn't clear to begin with.

I'm sorry to jump right into the middle of an ongoing discussion, but i think FFG has indirectly answered the question already, let me explain:

(Just to recap that i didn't miss an important point: The question is about whether an attack triggered by Dark Charm deals an additional 2 damage or not. All other questions have been settled, right? Like the Threat reduction for example or the Mimic Chest dealing no additional 2 damage.)

So IIRC there is a part in the FAQ that states Dark charmed hero gets bonus from the Command of Master Beastman and the like. What am i trying to say? You cannot have the cake and eat it. The damage can only come from one source, it is either the hero or the Dark Charm card. And by being affected from command, it seems logical to me that the source of damage is the hero not the card. Cards are not eliglible for a command bonus, right? It is the same with the Mimic. Damage from command? Yes. Damage from trapmaster? No. The source of the damage is clearly the Beastman/Chest not the card and i think the same applies to Dark Charm.

have a nice day.

Corbon said:

I believe there is another way to look at this statement though - there are traps which deal damage, and traps which have alternate effects entirely. I believe the intent of the qualifying statement on Trapmaster is to avoid giving +2 damage to cards like Paralyzing Gas, which do no damage naturally. For example, if they had just said " All traps now deal an additional 2 damage" we'd be having this discussion over whether Paralyzing Gas gains the damage or not because of the word "additional".

Therefore, when they went to limit the extra damage to only cards which naturally cause damage already (which is the end result of a fully successful dark charm), they added the qualifier which is the source of disagreement. I don't believe the extra steps remove the damage any more from the card itself than say the roll from the Elven Cloak to avoid pit damage.

As for arguing thematics in Descent, don't we know better than that by now?

plueschi said:

Hey, don't apologize! All input is valued input.

I see where you're coming from, but it doesn't convince me. I'm not arguing that the source of damage is the card and not the hero (at least, not in a physical sense). I agree with you that the source of damage is the hero. But, that doesn't mean the card didn't cause the damage (which is all that's required for Trapmaster to apply). As an example:

If I were to shoot a deer, then the gun I'm using is clearly the source of the damage. I don't think anyone would argue, however, that I didn't "cause" the damage. Or, in Descent terms: When a spiked pit trap is played, the hero falls into a pit. In that case, the pit is the source of the damage, but the trap card created the pit and is, thus, the cause.

NigelTufnel said:

Actually, you are wrong (I think, see below). There are traps that effectively say "Play this card then deal X damage no matter what" (ignoring damage prevention from items like special shields, ghost armour, special armour (cloaks) etc).

Crushing block does damage immediately, with no hurdles to jump through. It does then have some 'damage prevention' rolls, but the damage is still done first. It is also clear that even if 4 surges are rolled, the hero does not completely avoid the Trap (because, with no roll possible to avoid, he hero is always moved one space by the OL), so these rolls are not 'trap avoidance rolls' in the same way that the not-blank rolls are for DC and SP. Anyway, I'm sure that won't count for you because I'm sure you equate damage prevention with trap avoidance, despite a clear difference in both naming/description and style/mechanic.

BUT, check out the exploding traps. Only 99% sure about this, because I'm not holding them in my hand to check as I type. However there is a reason I wrote "most trap cards..." above - because when I was checking them I found that there was no dice anywhere involved in the exploding trap I had (IIRC there is a door and chest, not sure which one I was reading).

Further, you wrote "But, that doesn't mean the card didn't cause the damage (which is all that's required for Trapmaster to apply)."
This is incorrect. Trapmaster's damage bonus apply to Trap Cards that deal damage, not to Trap cards the cause damage.
Dealing is always a direct effect only, 'causing' includes indirect effects as well as direct effects.

However, I don't expect to convince you. Nor will I be answering this thread again unless new evidence is brought*.

*New evidence does not include claiming different terms mean the same thing.
- attacks are not the same as damage
- avoiding a trap is not the same thing as preventing damage from a trap
- dealing and causing are not the same

Corbon said:

Do you really expect to get away with this argument?

By the definition you've set forth, Trapmaster doesn't apply to any cards then. No Trap cards "deal" damage. The traps do say that the hero in question "suffers wounds", but if causing =/= dealing then dealing =/= causing a hero to suffer.

You can't split hairs on a bald man.

Corbon said:

1. If that's how you're choosing to define the term "deal," then it's synonymous with how I've been using the term "cause." Please feel free to replace all instances of the term in my posts, if you like. Either way, my position remains the same. Rather than continually splitting hairs and delimiting everyday terms of common usage, it'd be fun if you responded to the actual argument.

2. If you have exploding traps without dice referenced to avoid damage, then you are a lucky OL. Mine allow dice rolls to prevent damage.

3. You're correct that I equate damage prevention (in the case of traps) with trap avoidance. I don't see the "clear difference" that you mention in any of the cards--unless you're talking about impliedly synonymous terms that you've decided have some special, distinct meaning to bolster your own argument.

If a hero is walking through a dungeon and triggers a trap, resulting in a giant rock plummeting from the ceiling to the space where he is standing, my impression is that he will try to avoid the trap. To do so, he jumps out of the way. If he completely avoids taking any damage in the process (due to rolled surges), I would certainly say he avoided the trap. He also prevented the damage. I see no difference between the two--either thematically, or in the structure of the cards. Since we disagree fundamentally on this point, I conceded that there's not really much point to continuing the discussion.

so....

the argument comes down to:

1) Traps that deal damage = traps that hurt the target hero or the heroes in the spaces targeted by the trap, not including attack rolls made as a result of the trap.

or

2) Traps that deal damage = all traps which result in damage being dealt to heroes

Assuming 2 is true, then Dark Charm, Animate Weapons, and the 3 different Mimic Chest traps all receive the +2 bonus from trapmaster.

Personally, I believe that Dark Charm and Animate Weapons deal the "charm" effect to the target hero (like brother vs Brother), which is then resolved in a specific way (overlord declares attack, etc). However, since the cards use quotidian language instead of legalese, I don't see a way to "prove" that one of the two possible readings is the correct one.

Thundercles said:

+1

Thundercles said:

Absolutely - I completely agree that the ruling would make sense either way, but you can't claim that RAW is either way, as far as I can see.

pinkymadigan said:

That was already covered way back. Since no traps at all deal damage and several traps directly deal wounds, it is abundantly clear that this is a simple misprint, probably in fact a remnant from an earlier (pre-release) version in which wounds and damage were not differentiated. Descent is truly horrendous in this respect. There are numerous examples (particularly in examples, ironically) of things that are flat out wrong in the rules. Hellhounds with Aura, Jaes with Armour 1, etc etc....

NigelTufnel said:

Gotta come back here because I screwed up. Yes., the exploding traps have damage prevention rolls.
(Incidentally, thanks to www.descentinthedark.com/index.php I never need to make that mistake again - thanks fellas)

1. I cannot think of any usage where my dealing something to you, or being dealt something by you does not mean a direct interface between you and me. 'Deal' is a direct relationship with no links. I am only 'dealt' to by the final link. Anything or anyone higher up in a causal chain did not 'deal' with me.
'Causing' however, has no direct relationship implication. Causing may or may not include any number of links. Anything that happens can be 'caused' by something else through any number of links.

Maybe this is a cultural difference? I speak English (NZ), not American.

2. My bad.

3. Here is the difference. If the trap has one roll, and based on that roll nothing at all happens to the hero, then that is 'trap avoidance'. The hero simply avoided the trap. This happens in Dark Charm. Something similar happens with Spiked pit. Although the hero moves, the hero retains control of the move and may even use it beneficially (which means to me he avoided it). If the Trapmaster damage bonus applied to these traps, then, based on the mechanics, you would expect the hero to suffer no damage at all because he has avoided the trap. Trap Avoidance.
Since the OL controls where a Crushing Blocked hero moves to, the hero has not avoided the trap. In fact, he is specifically hit for damage. He may prevent that damage with successful rolls (or damage prevention effects), but he has been affected by the trap. If the Trapmaster damage bonus applied to these traps you would expect the hero to take the extra damage even if he rolled full prevention. The damage is done by the trap, increased by 2 for Trapmaster, then the hero gets some rolls to prevent damage. Damage Prevention.

I can't see how you can claim RAW for you interpretation when you change terms. That isn't what is written. R ules A s W ritten.

" Deal damage? That's the same as Cause Damage isn't it? So RAW if I cause damage I dealt damage ." Sorry, no. Not as Written
" Deal damage? That's the same as Make an Attack isn't it? So RAW if I make an attack then I dealt damage ." Sorry, no. Not as Written

Corbon said:

(I re-numbered your post for easier reference)

1. I completely agree that an indirect cause is not the same as a direct cause. However, the effect that "deals" damage also directly causes that damage. Surely you must agree with that? You can't deal damage without also causing it, right? That is why I used the terms interchangeably--I'm not talking about instances of indirect causation. From the beginning, I've maintained that the trap cards affected by Trapmaster are those that directly deal (i.e., "cause") the damage. That is why I think cards like Mimic do not get the bonus.

The crux of the disagreement between us, as I see it, has been that you see the hero attack in a Dark Charm scenario to be a new link in the causal chain--resulting in a degree of separation that invalidates application of Trapmaster. I, on the other hand, feel that the Dark Charm card requires an immediate attack, the result of which is to deal damage. Because the card is requiring the attack and the damage is the direct result, it's my contention that the card deals damage.

2. Neither italicized statement that you've made represents any argument I've put forward.

It's clear that we're not going to agree, here, and that's completely fine.

NigelTufnel said:

1. Yes I agree that an effect that 'deals' damage also 'causes' damage. But you are claiming the reverse is true, which is a logical fallacy. Being an Oak makes me a Tree. Being a Tree does not make me an Oak. 'Dealers' are a subset of 'causers', not the reverse.

1a. It's funny. Your own writing right there indicates a degree of separation which you are at the very time denying. "...the result of which..." I can hear the linking pause just saying it. Dark Charm requires an immediate attack (pause) the result of which* does (may do, with no input from the target (unless dodging)) damage.See how they are two separate clauses with two separate subjects? A does B, B does C. A does not do C directly.
*(the attack actually, not the result - the result of an attack is (may be) damage, an attack does damage)

2. " That is why I used the terms interchangeably " (cause and damage being the terms in question). If you can use the terms interchangeably then by definition 'cause damage' and 'deal damage' are the same thing.
" the card ( I) is requiring (make) the attack and the damage is the direct result, it's my contention that the card (I) deals damage ."
=> If I make the (an) attack ... then I dealt damage
Both lines are your claimed position, differing only in the actual physical text. I cannot understand how you can possibly claim they do not represent any argument you have made. You reinforce them with your very reply.

Corbon said:

Regardless of it being covered, you've made an interpretation of the word "deal" to suit your own definition, giving it a limited definition which breaks any claim to RAW that you have.

I think, in the instance where RAW are clearly negating themselves, you have to look at the intent of the design and wording - from a design perspective, if I had written that Traps that deal damage receive a +2 bonus, I would intend for that to eliminate traps which do not cause damage, so that players can not argue "I Paralyzing Gas you for 2 damage and a stun".

I personally would clarify a situation like Dark Charm if I was writing it- but look at the intent of Dark Charm- why do OLs play it? Dark Charm is played to deal damage to a hero, that is the end goal of the card. Regardless of any intermediate steps, the damage would not be caused without playing the card, and the intermediate steps have very little (if any) benefit inherent to them without them getting to the part where they cause damage.

I think the fact that the damage is "indirect" has little bearing on the fact that dealing damage is the intent and purpose of the card, and with any degree of interpretation used with the word "deal", which we must add ourselves, since no cards say "deal" outright, I believe that the Dark Charm "deals" these wounds to a hero, whether they use an intermediary attack or not is irrelevant, because now we are arguing intent, not RAW.

pinkymadigan said:

I don't think that you can read 'deal' any other way than as a primary linkage. "Dealing' is an intimate thing with a direct connection. That's not an 'limiting' 'interpretation', it is how the word is used, as least in the language I speak.

The problem we have with your 'intent' is (as always for intent) that it is entirely subjective - and we don't happen to agree. The 'intent' of Dark Charm is to quite clearly to create an attack. I don't think anyone can dispute that! Now some people happen to automatically equate an attack with damage, but frankly that is a little unimaginative on their part. It is also an additional step, even if they refuse to acknowledge that.

A Dark Charmed attack may be used to cause damage, but also it may not. It could be used to generate other affects, such as web or stun (which require damage, but that damage can be soaked by armour, so may not be intended or require to actually create any actual wounds - notice 'trap damage' is actually always wounds, and not soakable by armour)) or even better, knockback (which requires no damage at all to work). A Dark Charm on a Water Pacted Mage with an Eagle Staff could knockback all three other heroes without doing any damage at all creating better spawn locations, bringing heroes into range of newly spawned monsters (that beastman war party that was 5 spaces away), moving heroes onto significant terrain such as ice, lava, corrupted terrain etc, moving heroes into grappled spaces, or across water obstacles, breaking Aims and probably for other things I haven't thought of yet.
Damage is not clearly the intent of the card. An attack clearly is. The two are not the same, no matter how many times you insist they are.

Finally, we do have to use 'direct'. ALL actions of ANY type the OL makes have the intent and design to cause damage somehow. Maybe not directly, but that is the OL's goal at all times. When the OL paralyzing gases the heroes opening the portal door, its not to waste time. It is in order to deal some more damage, even if indirectly, with the spawn that he otherwise could not play, or to gain another turns worth of cards and threat in order to do more damage on the next level.
Since 'indirect' covers everything, it is clearly not applicable. Therefore direct is our only option.