I'm having trouble figuring out how Police Backup interacts with Enforcers, especially when they've been rendered incapable of dealing damage. The Enforcers deal a hero damage "unless that hero's player discards a card". So, is this ability "making" a player discard a card, just by offering them the option? And if they are unable to deal their damage, does the player automatically have to discard because he's unable to take the other option (thereby definitely destroying Police Backup, who might have been able to survive if the player chose to take the damage)?
Enforcers does not make a player discard just by offering the option to discard.
If Enforcers cannot deal damage, you can let them deal that no damage to you, you would not have to discard.
The option to discard lets you avoid them trying to damage you, that is all.
I cannot think of an option where you have to take damage or suffer a different fate, other than hero cards that destroy themselves.
I just wanted to make a slight suggestion to help other people find this thread. While clever titles are, well, clever, I had no idea this was the question you were going to ask based on the title of the thread. With a single question about specific card interactions, it would have been much more helpful to have that in the title. But this is of course only my opinion, and it is only about making the answer easier to find.
The title is fairly topical - it names the decks rather than the exact cards, but I think it's good enough. And I'd rather have a little poetry to the titles than have them be as clinical as an index - being that they're NOT indexed. (I still think there ought to be such an index, but this forum is not configured ideally to serve the purpose, and me giving my topics more boring names won't single-handedly fix that.)
Subtitles are amazing for interesting titles.
For instance: "Non-Crooked Cops and The Chairman: Enforcers vs. Police Backup" or something to that effect.
Well, I don't. For someone who already says they have trouble finding things with the search feature, I find it mind boggling that you won't make it easier. To quote you from the other thread:
[quote="Envisioner"]I agree that with very precise thread titling, it might be more efficient to find the answers
[/quote] [quote="Envisioner"]And I'd rather have a little poetry to the titles than have them be as clinical as an index
[/quote]As Reckless pointed out, it is possible to be poetic while still being clear.
See, now I am very confused. In case you forgot, let me quote you from the thread about Mr. Fixer:
So, over there your arguement is that you should go against what everyone else thinks because, in your opinion, you are making things better. So, even though that was a single step, you said it was the right move. Yet here, you outright say that you doing a little more won't matter, so there is no reason to perfect it. So, which is it, do you take the first step or not?
> So, which is it, do you take the first step or not?
It varies day to day whether I feel up to bothering. In general, my opinion is that whoever has the most resources at their command has the greatest responsibility to make all necessary changes, which generally rules me out. On a good day, I'm up to going the extra mile, but those days are rare.
I'm trying to figure out if trolling has just been taken to a transcendant level (by having the guise of relevant questions) or if these are sincere questions unintentionally wrapped in ignorance and snark.
I have to admit that I interpreted the interaction differently to phantaskippy. I always thought that you could take the option to discard, and then Police Backup would blow up in order to prevent you from discarding.
Police backup does not stop the discard. I interpretted it wrong at first too. It just is destroyed when a villain card makes you discard.
Really? I thought the wording was "When a villain would make you discard a card, destroy this card", or something, implying that the destruction of the police happens instead of the discard (at least, for one player - presumably if everyone has to discard, the police only get to prevent discard for one person). Mind you, we normally forget about that part of the card anyway and the Police end up staying out until they get nuked by the villain or the game ends or something…although I don't think it's that often that we've had them out and had to discard (but when we have, I've missed it) ;).
It does say would, but it does not say to destroy Police backup instead, just to destroy police backup, it does not stop the discard effect.
Ah well, fair enough. Most of the time when we play in Megalopolis we get spammed by the horrible cards instead (Hostage/Papparazzi/Traffic), witht he occasional showing of Rooftop Combat or Cramped Quarters Combat. I think the Police Back-Up may be the least common card ever to show up and when it does it seems to get taken out by the villain within a couple of turns or the game ends, lol.
I'm pretty sure there's an implied instead in there. I think that's consistent with other rulings I've seen in this game, like how Jack Handle prevents Mr. Fixer from damaging himself.
I'd say it works like Omnitron's components, it has a destruction trigger, that is all.
Omnitron's components don't use the word would. The word would is put in there to indicate that it would have happened, but it doesn't, something else happened instead.
Would simply allows for a case where you don't have cards in hand, so no card is actually discarded. No card is discarded, but you would have discarded so it is still destroyed.
I'm also firmly of the camp that "would" without "instead" doesn't imply prevention of the "would"
Then why does Jack Handle prevent you from dealing damage to yourself?
Because official ruling says so.