Jump to content

NigelTufnel

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About NigelTufnel

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Beaumont, Texas, United States
  1. Acererak said: Some guy asked this question in BGG and claimed to have answer from Designer : - If the Last Event card is drawn Investigators win if they have Clue 1 (even if Cthonian has been summoned) So that means you summoned the Cthonian just one turn too late. If this is truly a response from the designed, I find it pretty disappointing. The flavor text on the 'investigators win' objective and on the fifth event card indicate that the investigators are successful because they prevented the ceremony from taking place. That completely doesn't jive with a chtonian already being present on the board. How in heck are you supposed to tell a good story if the cards themselves don't make any sense? Here's the basic flow of what happened: Event 4 was resolved (paraphrased): "The ceremony is about to begin!" Move each cultist one space. - So, I moved the fourth cultist into the chapel. Bing! The Cthonian is summoned. Four turns pass, which triggers Event 5. - Now, after *four* turns, the investigators have prevented the ceremony to summon the Cthonian? But, didn't it appear four turns ago? It doesn't make any sense, at all. Acererak said: Your only hope at winning the scenario at that time (not bad, considering you had a Chtonian at your disposal) was to kill ALL the investigators, which is always a Keeper victory after Objective is revealed. Not possible. The Cthonian, just like all other monsters, can only move two spaces per turn. Investigators can move three. Even if they're in the chapel when the Chtonian is summoned, they just have to run away and the Keeper can never catch them. The investigators were well aware of this. After the Cthonian was revealed, they read the objective card and saw that they needed to have Clue 1 when Event 5 was resolved. So, they just walked away from the Cthonian and went to get the clue. Which makes no thematic sense, because the only thing the clue tells them is that the cultists are trying to summon a Cthonian and it must be prevented. "Uh, no, really? We just left the Cthonian in the other room." The next four rounds might as well not have been playedthe investigator win was inevitable (even though a big, honking Cthonian is sitting in the chapel, growing for four rounds). So far, I have to say that I really like the game system, but the end game in every scenario I've played has been pretty poor (scenario 1, objectives 1A and 1B, and scenario 2, with this objective). For S1.1A and this game with S2, the cards just don't make sense (in S1.1A, the objective to kill Walter was revealed, but Walter hadn't even appeared on the board yet). For S1.1B, none of the underlying story is revealed to the investigators by the text on the cards. All they know is they're looking for clues for awhile, then a shoggoth spawns and they're told they have to kill it to win. None of the backstory about alternate dimensions in the basement is ever detailed or explained. Really, really disappointing that the end game is not living up to the rest of the game... :-(
  2. Okay, so the objective (1B, I think) says (paraphrased): "If four cultists are in the chapel, spawn a cthonian and reveal this objective" "If the cthonian is not killed within four turns, the Keeper wins." "If Event 5 is resolved and an investigator has Clue 1, the investigators win." So, what happens if both criteria are fulfilled? Last night, I spawned the Cthonian in the last round of Event four. That left four rounds until Event 5 would be resolved . The investigators did not kill the cthonian. At the end of the fourth round, Event 5 was revealed, and the investigators had Clue 1. So... who the heck wins? Sure seems like it should be the Keeper, but the cards aren't exactly clear.
  3. Thanks, everyone! Don't know how I missed that. I also mixed up the crypt with the chasm when making my post, so hopefully no one was confused.
  4. So, the setup indicates to put a ladder in the chapel. There is no other ladder on the map. In the Keeper story choices, there are two possible locations for the other ladder--one of which is the crypt. But, nothing in the Keeper setup indicates that I should go ahead and place the second ladder there. So, at the beginning of the game, in the first turn, an investigator wants to go down the ladder. Can he? Does he just have to resolve the lock in the crypt first? It's a bit unclear whether the lock is for the door to the room or the ladder... doesn't seem like a ladder could be "locked." Thanks for any advice!!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Corbon said: 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. I can't see how you can claim RAW for you interpretation when you change terms. That isn't what is written. Rules As Written. "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 (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.
  8. Corbon said: NigelTufnel 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??? 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. 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 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.
  9. Honestly, it takes so much time to paint them that the ability to get a little creative will likely be your favorite part.
  10. plueschi said: 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. 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.
  11. Corbon said: Corbon said: NigelTufnel said: "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. 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). 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??? 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.
  12. Corbon said: Corbon said: 1. 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. 2. 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..." 3. 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. 4. 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'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.
  13. Corbon said: Corbon said: 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. 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.
  14. Corbon said: 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 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).
  15. Corbon said: 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). 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.
×
×
  • Create New...