Y'Golnac says

Action : Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'Golnac, if able.

Binding Worm says

Characters cannot commit to stories alone.

So let's say I've got Y'Golnac and Binding Worm in play. My opponent has at least 1 ready character and at least 1 other charcter.

I pay 1 on Y'Golnac to make one of my opponents characters commit to Y'Golnac's story, and my opponent has another ready character.

Does my opponent have to send the targeted character and another one to the story ("must commit... if able", and the only way to be able to commit is to send two?), or can my opponent ignore Y'Golnac's ability because a character cannot commit alone?

Interessant.
I will say your opponent ignore Y'Golonac's ability.
You should pay twice the Y'Gonac action to target the 2 characters and be clear with the Binding Worm effect.

Hello again Professor and Dadajef!

Funnily enough I was thinking about exactly the same thing today. My conclusion was that FAQ p5 (V2.0) "Cannot" applied here.

This states: "The word 'cannot' when appearing in card text is absolute. Effects that attempt the described action will not affect any card that 'cannot' be affected by such an effect."

In this case then, the Binding Worm's 'cannot' clause overrules the Y'Golonac action, so the target cannot commit alone. I am not totally sure this is right, but this is how I would rule in this situation. Hope this helps.

Nomad

I don't know what's right either, but I'm not sure the "cannot" clause will take effect. This is because although the targeted character cannot commit alone, it CAN commit (just not alone), and according to Y'Golnac, MUST commit, if able. The character is able, but only by bringing someone along for the ride...

However, I really don't know. I could see that argument that the Binding Worms over-ride Y'Golnac because only 1 character was targeted, and it must apply to that character. So in effect Binding Worms make Y'Golnac less useful.

The way I see it:

Binding Worms adds a global restriction to committing ("characters cannot commit to stories alone"), causing Y'Golonac's ability to fizzle, as that that single character is rendered ineligible to commit (Y'Golonac says they commit "if able", and they are unable to).

Now, if you were to use his ability twice, on each of the opponent's two characters, I'm pretty sure both would be forced to commit to the same story as Y'Golonac, and it would be valid.

Amante said:

Yes, and I suspect it will work out that way. But, the flaw in the logic is the argument you made above that the targeted character is unable to commit because of Binding Worm. In fact that character IS able to commit, but can't do so alone. It can commit if one of the other ready characters comes along.

So it seems to me that in the hypothetical situation proposed, the targeted character is able to commit.

They're unable to commit alone, is the thing. They could if that other character comes along, but I see no reason that Y'Golonac would "force" that second character to come.

More specifically, the opponent could choose to leave their targeted character at home. However, if they did choose to commit that character anywhere, I do believe it would have to be with both of them.

I'm agrre with Nomad and Amante. The word 'cannot' is like a Keyword.

So for example, the story phase begins :
1) you commit Ygo
2) You play Ygo's ability
3) Your opponnent can commit characters to defend, but he must commit one with Ygo, if able .
But Binding Worm says he cannot commit him alone. So the effect of Ygo is ignored because of the if able clause.

So don't put into play Binding Worm and Ygo in the same time, or pay twice Ygo to force two characters to commit with him

Let me start by saying I think the analysis is correct, and if a FAQ is ever released it will confirm this. But, from a logic/mathematics point of view, I still see one hole in the argument and am not sure how from a rules point of view it is formally resolved.

Dadajef said:

I'm in complete agreement with the above sequence of events. And I know CANNOT rules over CAN. However, the opponent IS ABLE to commit the character, but it requires an additional action (bringing the other character).

I'm thinking that what I'm really after here is perhaps a more rigorous definition of "IF ABLE". I think the logic in this thread is that "IF ABLE" means, "if able without taking any additional actions".

Does that make sense? If so, the issue is cleanly resolved.

Take the definition of the 'if able' clause (see faq).

In our case we can translate the "if able" by "if you cannot commit the character to the same story as Y'golonac, the Ygo's ability is ignored by opponent."

With the Worm you cannot commit the character alone, so you cannot commit it to the story of Ygo, so the "if able" works and the effect fails (the character need not to go with Ygo). If you pay twice Ygo you can target two characters, they will commit together and all is ok.

"If able" is like a Keyword, don't try to translate it in courant language, translate it by "if the entire effect is able to execute without fail" like says one time Marius.

With the actual "if able" clause, don't fear to lose all your sanity point

I still don't think the FAQ language is robust enough to explain this situation. I keep running into the same problem in this hypothetical situation.

The targeted charcter is able to commit to the story. Yes, it requires two charcters going (the targeted one plus another ready character), but it is able to commit.

So, the predicate "if you cannot commit the character to the same story as Y'Golnac" doesn't apply. You can commit the character. But it takes some additional requirements (another character).

That's why I'm thinking "if able" really has some additional implication, like "if able with any other requirements or actions" or something like that.

I agree with the conclusion, I just don't think the rules or the FAQ are robust enough to PROVE this is the correct interpretation.

TheProfessor said:

So are you looking for something like "If able, but not forced to do so"?

IE, if the player would be able to/if they have it within their ability to do so if they take additional actions, but not if they don't have the ability to do so.

Thats sort of like saying "I'm playing a card that forces my opponent to discard exactly 2 cards, if able"

Then my opponent, who lets say has one card in hand looks at it and it reads "Disrupt: Draw two cards"

Should my opponent be forced to play their card because they're ABLE to do it and thus have two new cards in hand to discard?

I don't think that needs extra clarification.

I agree that "if able" shoud not involve the taking of an action by a player. So, I don't think your example with the discard would need clarification - the player would need to take an action in order to satisfy the discard possibility.

However committing characters is not an action . How about if we call it an "activity" so that we don't mix up with the keyword action ? The activity of committing allows the player to commit between zero and some large number of characters using a single activity.

That's why I think this situation is distinct from your example with discard - it is not an action .

I would think the "If able" clause would mean that the character affected by the binding worms cannot commit.

I was wondering though, does the character that Y'golonac readies and then commits, does it exhaust, or does it stay ready as if it won an arcane struggle?

Characters exhaust when they commit, so this would be true regardless of whether or not Y'Golnac called them in.

Thank you for the quick response. Makes sense.