Trapmaster

By NigelTufnel, in Descent: Journeys in the Dark

Posted at

Corbon said:


(added 1a)

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.

1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally.

1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine.

2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote:

"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

Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance.


"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

Posted at

Does it matter what the effect/happening is on the Trapcard?

Wether it is from falling into a pit or from getting hit by another dark-charmed hero, it just adds (extra) damage when everything goes according to plan (the save-roll fails / the attack by dark charm includes a "miss-roll").

Posted at

NigelTufnel said:

Corbon said:


(added 1a)

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.

1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally.

1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine.

2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote:

"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

Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance.


"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus?

Posted at

Thundercles said:

NigelTufnel said:

Corbon said:


(added 1a)

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.

1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally.

1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine.

2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote:

"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

Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance.


"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus?

I believe that the events of the card end after the damage is dealt, encompassing the damage portions. After that, the card is done, over with. I also believe that during the initial activation of a mimic (during the card) that the bonus damage should apply. Clearly not all cards get this, just traps that cause immediate damage, and it's obvious that this is debatable. I'm not entirely convinced of my own stance, but I feel it is more accurate with my reading of all applicable rules, with limited interpretation and a focus on perceived intent where interpretation is necessary.

That's my stance.

Posted at

Thundercles said:

NigelTufnel said:

Corbon said:


(added 1a)

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.

1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally.

1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine.

2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote:

"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

Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance.


"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus?

No. My position is that only cards that deal damage directly receive the Trapmaster bonus. Hence, no Mimic, imo.

Posted at

NigelTufnel said:

Thundercles said:

NigelTufnel said:

Corbon said:


(added 1a)

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.

1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally.

1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine.

2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote:

"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

Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance.


"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus?

No. My position is that only cards that deal damage directly receive the Trapmaster bonus. Hence, no Mimic, imo.

Dark Charm deals damage indirectly. I'm not saying that this means that Trapmaster shouldn't apply to Dark Charm, just that Dark Charm's damage is indirect.

Causality is usually well-defined. Direct means that action A causes effect B with no steps in-between. For example, if I punch someone, that's direct damage. If I tell them to punch themselves, that's indirect damage. If I use a spell that forces them to punch themselves, that's still indirect damage. The damage from Dark Charm comes directly from the attack, which itself is a direct effect of the card. Even though it's A->B->C in this case, C (the damage) is still an indirect effect of A (the card).

To illustrate my point, note that Dark Charm still succeeds if the attack itself fails. The success of the Dark Charm card is defined by the first power die roll, and once the OL declares the Dark Charm attack, it's officially succeeded at its direct purpose.

Posted at

NigelTufnel said:

snip

"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

I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage.

I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins:

- Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage

- Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage

I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine.

I may owe you an apology. Possibly I have been half confusing replies between you and Pinky when ordering my arguments. Rather than check back through 4 pages, here it is. I apologise for mixing up your argument with Pinky's and mis-answering you repeatedly. happy.gif (not to mention the several mistakes I made, including the obvious damage/deal transposition and also that knockback still requires a damage, if not a wound)

I still find some confusion with your position though.
1. Dark Charm makes an attack
2. The attack (may) deal damage
3. Therefore Dark Charm deals damage, directly

its the adding 'directly' onto the end of 3, basically ignoring that fact that 3 is not 1 that I just can't get. We agree to disagree.

Interestingly, I only just noticed that Trapmaster doesn't actually do damage. It does Wounds ! It only affects Trap Cards which do damage , but it itself does wounds . How weird is that?
Oddly enough, it could then be argued (though I don't agree that could possibly be the intended meaning and they have clearly just screwed up wordings) that only Dark Charm and Mimic could get the bonus wounds (not that I think they do, as argued already!), because the other traps cause wounds not damage! (Damage is only ever caused by attacks it seems, not traps, not tokens, not terrain.)
Sigh...

Posted at

Corbon said:



Interestingly, I only just noticed that Trapmaster doesn't actually do damage. It does Wounds ! It only affects Trap Cards which do damage , but it itself does wounds . How weird is that?
Oddly enough, it could then be argued (though I don't agree that could possibly be the intended meaning and they have clearly just screwed up wordings) that only Dark Charm and Mimic could get the bonus wounds (not that I think they do, as argued already!), because the other traps cause wounds not damage! (Damage is only ever caused by attacks it seems, not traps, not tokens, not terrain.)
Sigh...

It's things like that that cause me to use intent in my readings (not that I had noticed that one, per se).