Forced to discard or destroy?

I don't have the card in front of me so I don't have the actual name, but one of Iron Legacy's cards does some damage and then has this line of text: "Each player must discard two cards or destroy one of their cards in play."

If you don't have any cards in play, you are forced to discard two, right? You can't just choose to destroy a non-existant card. And I guess if you don't have two cards to discard you'd be forced to destroy something? If you can't do either that means you have nothing in play and either one or zero cards in hand, so you're pretty screwed anyway.

Assuming this to be true, that card is incredibly backbreaking as the first thing IL plays to start the game. Or, in the case of my game last night, the second card. Chained from a "Former Allies". >_<

We still won that game, amazingly, thanks to AZ having Fueled Freeze as the one card he kept in hand and then the Inmates of The Block actually unloading on IL after he had incapacitated half of the heroes. But it was probably the least "fun" Sentinels game I've ever played due to the stunning lack of options inflicted upon us from the word "go".

To be specific, the card in question is Rule From The Front, and the relevant text is Each player must either discard 2 cards or destroy 1 of their cards'. I kind of think your interpretation is correct, must either …' and specific numbers suggest to me that if you can't fulfill one, you need to choose the other.  That would indeed also mean that you can't choose discard if you have only 1 card, and if you have no other cards in play you you're going more than screwed, because you always have one card left: your character card. That seems pretty horrible, so maybe you're allowed to choose one you can't fulfill after all

Well you do always have your character card in play...  That said I'm not sure if you are really supposed to be incapacitated if he plays "Rule from the front" when you have no cards in hand and no other cards in play.

I agree that forced discard can be an annoying mechanic which limits options and thus fun.  But Iron Legacy is meant to be a very brutal assault.  Keep in mind that if the heros are allowed to set up at all, 32 damage should be very trivial to deal.  Also, never forget about the option to draw two cards on your turn.  This is a particularly important tactic against Iron Legacy, since the key to victory is a short burst of things going right.

Being forced to discard is really nasty…once we were fighting Dawn and had as her starting line-up both Sweat and Tears (and someone else, can't remember who but those two were enough :P). So every turn we both had to discard two cards, starting with the first turn. As a result, we were never really able to get going and she kicked our arses :P. In theory, if you had no cards in play and only one card in your hand, wouldn't you still have to discard it? You can't destroy anything because there's nothing there…but you have one card so should you still have to discard it even though you don't have a second card to discard as well?

Oh, games against this guy are gonna be so fun :P. Then again, that's the idea, right?

I came back from a game that started with Blood, Sweat, and Tears in play, with Dawn's first card being Blinding Blast.  It was Bad, but Haka and Ra's damaging base powers were integral to the comeback.

Uh… now I'm curious to know the applications of this vs. Miss Information's "Debt From Another Time"…

Vyolynce PM'd me about getting a ruling for this.

In his comment in another thread (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/discard-clarification), Christopher said that if a hero is required to discard two cards but only has one to discard, than the single card is discarded and that's the end of it.

For the original question posted in this thread, it seems clear to me that you must fulfill as much of the requirement as possible. If you can't destroy a card, but you can discard two, you must discard them. If you can't discard two cards, but you can destroy a card, you must destroy it. If you can't do either, than you must do as much as you can, which in the case of having a single card in hand would be to discard the single card. 

So, I am disinclined to bring this up for a ruling, but I will do so if you insist.

Dypaca brought up the side point that maybe if a hero must destroy a card but has no other cards in play, the hero must destroy his/her/its hero character card. 

That's funny! I am also, however, disinclined to bring this up for a ruling. I probably would if someone insisted, though.

I don't see the character cards as being "in play". Cards in play are brought in from either a deck or a player's hand.

Character cards can't be destroyed.  If they would ever be destroyed, they're flipped instead.  So I'd say this one's dead too.

This is kind of like the ambiguity between initiating an attack (dealing damage) and causing HPs to be lost (dealing damage). Destroying could either mean the attempt to destroy or the result of something being destroyed. I could see it ruled that someone 'destroyed' a character card, fulfilling the requirment of a card in play needing to be destroyed, even if the result was that the charcter card gets flipped instead of being destroyed.

Pedantics aside, though, I still don't think this needs a ruling.

I wish that you had ever answered this question, as it seems really important to know.  I'm going to have to go with the assumption that we are completely screwed each hero must discard 2 cards to a first-turn Rule From the Front.  But I really wish you had confirmed whether such suffering was in fact necessary.

You fulfill as much as you can. You can't destroy one of your cards in play so you discard.

Source?  This seems to contradict how Fixed Point interacts with Pushing the Limits et al.

How so? If Fixed Point was out and something forced you to destroy a card, you could just go "Okay, I'll destroy this one…oh, but look, it's indestructible, so nothing happens" (just as you can still try to deal damage to someone who's immune, such as an unflipped Chairman, but it'll have no effect). If you have no cards in play but have any in-hand, you can't destroy anything therefore you must discard two (or as many as you can if you don't have enough to meet the required number). If you have nothing in play or in-hand…well, then you're probably in trouble, but hey, at least it means you can't discard or destroy any of your stuff because it's all already gone ;).

I don't see how that's different from "I choose to destroy rather than discard, but I have nothing I can destroy".

Frankly, turn 1 Rule from the Front is enough of a back-breaker even without forcing all players to discard on turn 1.  It's not like it's Citizen Dawn's Blinding Blast, where it's just 2 damage to each of them and she only zaps one of them each turn.

The difference is that you do have a card in play and you can choose to destroy it. fixed point is an outside effect that prevents the card from being destroyed, but that does not prevent you from trying to destroy it. That's the difference. 

Nor does it prevent you from taking damage, so why aren't you forced to choose that valid action over the one that can't successfully be completed?

You cannot attempt to destroy nothing.  You can attempt to destroy something.

You cannot attempt to damage targets that are not in play.  You can attempt to damage a target in play.

If the target is immune to damage they can still be the target of an attempt to deal damage, otherwise Legacy with lead from the front and next evolution would be stupid, instead of awesome.  (because if he couldn't choose to be the target next evolution would be wasted)

Equally a target that is immune to destruction can be the target of an attempt to destroy.

You cannot, however, at any time attempt to destroy cards that are not in play.  So with a choice of destroy a specific number of cards, or discard a specific number of cards, if you have no cards you have 0 to destroy, you can't choose to destroy one if you have 0.

Equally a player with no cards in hand can't discard 2 to destroy an environment card, since they don't have 2 cards to discard.

If a card destroys all your cards, or discards your whole hand, then you can select that option as a hand of 0 cards is still a hand, and if 0 cards is the number of cards you have in play, then you can destroy all 0 of your cards, because you destroyed all your cards.

I guess what I wish is that the card said "Each player destroys 1 of their cards in play unless they discard 2 cards".  This would prevent the back-breaking first turn while otherwise getting largely the same functionality.

But offers no choice. So no it doesn't function similarly. I like the way the designers did it just fine.

Having Citzens Sweat and Tears out in round one is just as bad, maybe worse, since you actually need to kill them - forcible discard of two cards at the end of Dawn's turn while both of them are out. Very horrible...and in the game where it happened to us, resulted in us never really having a chance to get set up since half our hands were gone before we'd even had a turn, and thus we had difficulty (can't remember which heroes were present at all) getting anything which could take either/both of them out. At least Rule from the Front is only a one-shot ;).

It does too offer a choice.  If they don't want to destroy, they can discard; if they don't want to discard, they can either destroy, or have nothing destructible.  That last part is the only thing I'm changing.

True, but Citizen Dawn is not quite as deadly as IL overall.

She doesn't need to be if she gets out a combo that shuts you down heavily enough that you can't do much/anything to stop her and her damaging citizens from kicking your arse ;). You can be destroyed by Dawn just as easily as by Iron Legacy - it just tends to take longer (same with Voss, the Chairman, La Capitan or indeed any other villian with the possiblity of bringing out loads of painful stuff, especially if they can nerf your abilities in the process) ;).

Correct. It is never a matter of if a villain is dangerous. They all can be. It is a matter of consistency. IL and Dawn can be equally as devestating in their unique ways, but one has the tools to do that on a more consistent basis.

IL's only real weakness is his health.  He's quite probably the most "Luck of the Draw" villain, simply because you either have cards to win or you don't, you don't have much time to build up or recover from a bad hand.

I would also consider these his weaknesses; power comes mostly from ongoings, deals mainly melee damage, doesn't destroy ongoing/equipment cards in mass, and being the only target.

He has some wicked ongoings, but even without them he's doing 3 irreducible to everyone on advanced, and with Galvanized being indestructible he can improve it.

The melee damage is definitely deserving of a spot, it does leave him open to being shut down by Legacies from other timelines.

15 cards in Legacies deck are one shots.  Each one deals damage and either forces discards, destruction or causes heroes to not deal damage.  Every one is wicked, together they are sick.  You could start the game setup as normal and then remove every other ongoing from his deck and you might actually increase your odds of losing.  His best ongoing is superhuman redirection, as it counteracts his glaring weakness by stopping heroes from knocking him down with a few big shots, the others are also strong, but he isn't reliant on them remaining in play to win.  

As for being the only target, that is another HP issue, as other targets just eat damage for their leader.

The only thing you listed that is exploitable is the melee damage, the rest is just things he doesn't do as epicly as other villains.

Possibly, sure. 

He isn't really reliant on any particular card in play to win. But you can't discount Armored Fortitude, which gives him some good DR, while recovering his HP. Vigiliance, gives you at least 2 more damage whenever someone plays a card, which can rack up quite a bit without Ongoing destruction. Final Evolution, gives him 2 HP for each power use. Leaving them out makes him extremely nasty and hard to kill. Destroying them early will certainly give an opening.

Not only that, things like Throat Jab, Offensive Transmutation, etc. Really shut him down, because he is the only target there to deal daamge, much like Plague Rat and Spite.

A first round Fueled Freeze getting rid of most of his starting Ongoings gives you a better chance at winning, having someone like Visionary or Argent that can destroy ongoings consistantly will essentially make him playing Ongoings near meaningless.

Have plently of ways to prevent him from doing damage shuts him down.

Not destroying a massive amount of ongoing/equipment cards allows heroes to get set up.

But how would a team consisting of Mister Fixer, Haka, and Bunker fare against his Ongoings?  Especially on Advanced.  Whatever set-up they could do would be eaten up by Iron Legacy's destruction/discard.  It's nice to note how an optimized team can easily exploit a certain weak spot of a villain, but games without consistent/powerful ongoing destruction against Iron Legacy are usually pretty fruitless endeavors.

Being the only target isn't always a weakness, as there are quite a few cards that are designed to fight the hordes, and prove substandard against him.

Heroes that do a lot of AoE also tend to have a lot of single target damage as well. Tempest has Locallized Hurricane, Chain Lightning, Lightning Slash, and Ball Lightning. Pair his AoE with Gene-Bound Shackles, and he will constantly tear the only villain target to shreds.

So being a single villain target against a hero that focuses on AoE isn't that bad.

True, but if you don't have the Shackles, Squall is useless against Legacy's flipside, or against his mainside if he opens on an Armored Fortitude.  (So is Fanatic's Exorcism but that's beside the point.)  Tempest isn't a hero I would pick on as useless against IL, nor in fact do I have one on the tip of my tongue...but individual cards, certainly.  Unity for instance seems to face a very uphill battle against him - his every-round damage insta-kills Raptor Bots, making them all but dead draws, and one Galvanize makes Platform Bot equally moribund.  Without the ability to keep a bot in play for a round, Powered Shock Wave is also nearly useless, and it's an example of a card that's designed mostly to fight minion-based villains and not very good against a single one, even before the need for golems is considered.

(As an aside, I have to try Unity against Plague Rat sometime, just to see how it works.)

Tempest is Iron Legacy's nemesis, which means Tempest gets a +1, so Iron Legacy with a DR1 will still take 1 damage from Squall. Even without Gene-Bound, as mentioned Tempest has a lot of other ways of dealing tons of damage. Plus two other powers to replace Squall.

Great, so we established not every card is great against every villain.

Unity takes planning against Iron Legacy. Get 2 Contruction Pylons, 2 Raptor Bots, Champion Bot, and Turret Bot. First get the Champion and Turret into play. Next round, unless Iron Legacy played a one-shot that deals damage to hero target with lowest, you will be able to get out 2 Raptor Bots, each of which will do 6 damage each. Turret Bots would of also dealt 4 damage at the start, meaning you just had an 18 point round. I consider that a hob well done. Also she has Volitile Parts, meaning she will do 2 damage to the lowest for each bot that get destroyed. In a low target environment deck, it will most likely be Iron Legacy. Also note that Unity is the nemesis of Iron Legacy, meaning she will deal him 3 damage upon each bot destruction.

Construction Pylon to get out Stealth Bot and Raptor Bot. Raptor Bot will do 3 damage to Iron Legacy. Let any damage that Raptor Bot will recieve hit Stealth Bot instead. Raptor Bot will have a good chance to live for Unity's next turn. Next turn, play out Scrap Metal, at the end of Unity's turn, Raptor Bot will do 2 damage, then get put back in hand. Next round, at the start of Unity's turn you can now play a Bot, you may play Swift Bot. Now play Volitile Parts and another way to get a Bot into play. Use that way to play the Raptor Bot again. He will not deal 3 damage, now when he is destroyed, Unity will deal deal 3 damageo Iron Legac at his passing.

Platform Bot and any of the FV bots have a descent chance of surviving for a round. Even if no bots are in play, Powered ShockWave would still deal 2 damage to Iron Legacy, sometimes 2 damage is the diference between a victory and a loss.

Did you just cite a strategy requiring seven cards as viable against the villain against whom games tend to be only a few rounds long?

My point isn't that his ongoings aren't deadly, and that destroying them makes him easier compared to not destroying them, but if you removed them he would still be a very nasty villain to face.

I would take weaknesses to be more in line of Voss can't destroy your stuff at all, or Kismet can be almost completely shut down with strong ongoing destruction, or Gloomweaver's relic mechanic.

Legacy's health is that kind of weakness, the best way to win is generally to just nuke the crap out of him.  I'll give the Melee damage a spot, even though that is only a big deal when facing Legacy.

Two decks have single target damage elimination (throat Jab and Offensive Transmutation) so that can be an issue against them.

But even those two are only against certain Heroes, where as IL requires by far the least amount of damage dealt to win by HP.  He does have reduction and healing, but other Villains have those and far more health.

I would argue it is easier to shut down Grand Warlord Voss's damage than Legacy's, despite having lots of targets to deal damage.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting that.  Alas, both my games with IL had him opening on 2x Armored Fort and 2x SuperRedirection (plus a Galvanize and Demoralizing Presence in the larger game), so even with the +1, one damage wouldn't affect him until those were taken out (which, in the game not featuring Tempest, they never were).

Plus two other powers to replace Squall.

If you're lucky enough to draw into them.

Great, so we established not every card is great against every villain.

Which, to me, is a bit of a problem.  I always get screwed by luck, so I'd rather have it be minimally a factor on the game.

Also she has Volitile Parts, meaning she will do 2 damage to the lowest for each bot that get destroyed.

Ooh, there's a neat thought.

Platform Bot and any of the FV bots have a descent chance of surviving for a round.

A chance, yes, if you're lucky and IL hasn't gotten many damage boosts.  Any, in Platform's case.

Even if no bots are in play, Powered ShockWave would still deal 2 damage to Iron Legacy, sometimes 2 damage is the diference between a victory and a loss.

Sure, and sometimes it's irrelevant.

Sorry, it appears you and I have different views on "Weakness", as I view anything that can make a villain significantly easier is a weakness.

That ongoing cards can be destroyed and that they are better in play than in the trash isn't a weakness, it is a game mechanic.  Legacy has the most indestructible ongoings of any deck, so he even gets around that more than anyone else.

I would consider a weakness something that is exploitable, or at least below average compared to other villains.  Whould we list "Can be defeated by reducing health to 0," or "does not deal damage during environment turn" as weaknesses?  It certainly makes the villains easier.

Legacy is not dependant upon his ongoing cards, they are great, but you can destroy them and still not have a great chance at winning.

Deleting