Marvel Smash Up: Hydra

[@FatherTime89]

I playtested Marvel Smash Up and Hydra quickly became my favorite deck from the set.

[@RyanHamiltonBaker]

These guys quickly became one of my favorites. I've enjoyed them with Robots especially, but they're also fun with SHIELD, Innsmouth, and Halflings. I didn't luck out with my hand when pairing with Zombies, but in theory they should be really good. I hadn't thought of Grimm or Super Heros. I'll have to try those!

[@spitfire4209]

Hydra Sharks. Move a Great White, destroy an agent, play all your Mako's and 2x Arnim Zola's. Plus +1 counter on your Hammerheads and Minions with Chum everytime an Agent dies. Blood in The Water makes one Agent into 3 minions instead of 2. Week of Sharks to keep the cards flowing for more minions. Feeding Frenzy has a high ceiling with Agents, but probably never will be as good as you want it to be. For some reason I always feel minion starved with Sharks, so 12 minions with Hydra feels like a nice supplement.

[@liamobrien292]

Hydra.........rockstar’s lads if you haven’t tried it, it’s very powerful and they also do very well with tricksters.......in fact they are one of those factions that will carry another faction by themselves.

[@stephenmoses7515]

Grimmaracters 😂😂 Also, I like how you refer to the Itty Critter power 2s as “recruits”. I wonder where you got that from 🤔😉🤣

[@dennisavent1686]

Curious to know if anyone has tried Hydra with Sheep?

[@berryl_04]

“Grimaracters,” anyone?

[@CrankItUp]

Grimm + minions = Grimminions Grimm + characters = Grimmarachters Grimminions is infinitely easier to say

[@gustidegen]

I like the salt in your voice when you talked about red skull and the mmc not synergising lol. I suppose that reffered to the witness rule, bit i am confused: if the rule was not here, would it trigger? The destruction technically finishes before the search begins right?

[@CrankItUp]

This is not really explained well at all, to the point where this is actually something I am deferring to others' explanation on the subject, rather than my own interpretation, but "to" is not actually meant to be a blocking statement. Blocking vs nonblocking rarely mattered before, but it matters to Hydra. Per my sources, the destruction and the search/play happen in sequence, and THEN the reaction to the destruction occurs. So in this case, Red Skull would be the Reaction to the destruction occurs, though the witness rule prevents him from triggering, for said salty reasons.

[@JuddBrown]

It makes so much more sense that Red Skull doesn't draw the destruction from mild mannered citizen. Lol I like how you are upset. That rule makes so much sense though. Would be really wacky if you could draw a card from it. And I agree with you... 2 arnim zolas instead of 2 hydra agents would make so much more sense. Okay interesting wording for two cards I noticed. Baron Strucker and Two More Shall Takes its place both have the destroy a character and then a period. But, after that it says "after the character is destroyed.." does that mean destruction protection loop hole doesn't work for this?

[@CrankItUp]

It's not wacky when you view it from a strict programming standpoint. But I will spare you from that argument. OK I lied. For the witness rule to be applied, you would need to have effects queued up by a trigger being notified before the trigger took place. Using the classic programming design pattern the Observer Pattern, any card that has a reaction would register itself on play and after the resolution is complete, you would then issue a notify event triggering all observers without distinction. To do otherwise, you would have to issue the notification before the event, but delay it, and that is infinitely more complicated from a programming perspective. Regarding your actual question - after the character is destroyed does require destruction, but also clarifies when the resolution happens in the CRO

[@JuddBrown]

@@CrankItUp Yes, that is just wacky...you and your computer mind ;) No, it is just hard to wrap my head around the other way. It's hard to understand why a card would trigger if it wasn't there when it happened. It's all good I didn't mean to pour salt on your wound :) Interesting about you have to have the destruction because it says after its destroyed. I am just wondering why it didn't just say "destroy a character to...". But, I need to look at the new CRO and that might give me more insight.

[@CrankItUp]

see my response on a different comment here

[@duc-mannguyen3735]

@@JuddBrown The reason they say "after it is destroyed" instead of "to" is to allow interruptions between the two effects. If Baron Strucker said "to", you would destroy Hydra Agent, immediately move up to two characters to Baron Strucker's base, and only then you can play Hydra Agent's extras. Resolution of Baron Strucker's full talent would have to be finished before you could resolve abilities that were triggered by it. You would then not be able to move the extras of Hydra Agent because those are only played later. So it was changed to "After it is destroyed"' so that the second part becomes an ability triggered by the destruction, exactly like Hydra Agent. And when there are several abilities that were triggered, there's a rule that tells how to decide which one goes first: Here Baron Strucker's second part and Hydra Agent are both mandatory abilities so the current player chooses the order between them. They can then choose for Hydra Agent's extras to be played before moving characters with Baron Strucker. It then becomes possible to move one or both of Hydra Agent's extras. The same reason exists for Two More Shall Take Its Place. It's so you're able to interrupt the card with Red Skull's card draw (its Ongoing ability) before having to play the extras. You're therefore allowed to play the card you've drawn as one of the extras if applicable. If it said "to", you would have to play the extras before resolving triggered abilities and so before drawing a card with Red Skull's Ongoing. For the record, Madam Hydra, Red Skull's Talent and Hail Hydra! all say "to" because within the context of Hydra alone, there was no point in interrupting them. Oh and that ruling is only "explained" in the clarifications, not as a formal rule in the CRO. Probably to avoid going into long complex and technical explanations. And by the way, that rule completely screws Fledgling Vampire when played with Crack of Dusk, but hey... Vampires.

[@JuddBrown]

@@duc-mannguyen3735 Aww that makes sense. Thanks! It explains why Red Skull and Madame Hydra have the "TO" instead.

[@DatsVatSheSaid]

First, oooohhh baby