This could happen, e.g. if Obsessive Inmate is already committed to a story alone when the Binding Worm enters play.

Here's the Binding Worm's card text: Characters cannot commit to stories alone.

Does this affect a committed character in any way?

And how does it interact with card effects that force characters to commit, e.g. using Y'Golonac's ability? Would the Binding Worm force the player to commit a second character to accompany the one targeted by Y'Golonac's ability?

jhaelen said:

Binding Worm doesn't affect characters already at a story. It only affects how a player does the commiting not the already commited.

As for Y'Golonac... hmm. WIthout really researching, I'd say that if a player can, they must commit a second character to accompany a character inflicted by Y'Goloanc's ability. However, if Y'Golo's target is the only character capable of committing then it can't as it would need a friend via Binding Worm.

Neither effect conflict with each, but they do make either others more complicated lol. At least, thats how I'd rule it off hand.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Cannot is an absolute. Absolutely nothing can make a character commit to a story alone with Binding Worm in play. Y'G's ability cannot force a player to commit a character not chosen by its effects, as such unless you have a way of forcing additional characters or the player chooses to commit an additional character the effect would fizzle.

Penfold said:

Cannot is indeed an absolute. However... we seem to interpret Y'golonac's effect differently.

Y'Golo's effect says the target must commit if able right? Technically, if you have at least one other character capable of commiting then you are "able" to commit the target no?

However, think we'll both agree that if the target is the only capable character a player can commit with binding worm out there, then it would fizzle.

Magnus Arcanis said:

I agree.

If I don't declare another character then it is not able, and since Y'g's ability did not target that other character also, and no other card effect is in play forcing me to do so, there is nothing that can make me commit any other character.

Penfold said:

I understand your position here, I really do. We may be at an impass and need Damon. As... of this moment I have no better explanation of my intrepetation of how I thought/think Y'Golonac's ability merely places a condition on how the target acts during the commiting phase.

In other words I don't see it as Y'Goloanc targeting an addtional character for free, but if the target can, then it must do whatever it has to to be able to commit to the same story as Y'Golonac.

Like... if there was "players cannot commit to stories unless they pay 2" was in play. If I had a undrained domain in play with 2 or more resources I would think I would have to pay it so I can commit the target. Now, if I drain that domain for something else, the target isn't going anywhere. But ya... if I can, I must. Make sense to me.

I'd say it needs an official ruling, but I personally would go with Magnus & Professor. The character is able to commit. He has to put forth a little more effort than usual, but if there's another character that can commit with him then he *is* able.

He commits due to Y'Golonac, then to successfully complete that action another character has to come along for the ride too.

If I don't declare another character then it is not able, and since Y'g's ability did not target that other character also, and no other card effect is in play forcing me to do so, there is nothing that can make me commit any other character.

But there is a card effect forcing you to do so, it's on the Binding Worm's card. You're forced to commit one character by Y'Golonac, then Binding Worm forces a second character to commit with him. Y'Golonac doesn't need to target the other character.

Damon said I'm right.

"Y'Golonac places a condition on a single character. Binding Worm placesa condition on every character. Must versus cannot, Cannot will always win. Cannot should be interpreted as do not even try. Since Y'Golonac's ability is not targeting any other character it does not trump the cannot. If its controller targetted two characters then you would have to commit both."

Penfold said:

... But... binding worm doesn't place a condition on every character does it? I would think that it alters the rule of how to commit a character. Not...

All characters gain "This character cannot commit to stoires alone." - That would be placing a condition on all characters... right?

... wording muffing aside... can't say that I agree with this ruling either. More research needs to be done.

Also... Y'Glonac's ability doesn't say that the target has to commit alone either... so...

I get that we can't trump cannot, but our "must, if able" still isn't conflicting with the 'cannot.' Cannot (in this case) shouldn't even have to be in competition until you don't have a second character to commit. Otherwise the must can still be applied. Especially when I am still 'able' to commit the target.

I also say this with the disclaimer. I know that Damon is looking over the FAQ and I wouldn't be suprised to see some changes. There is, of course, a real possibility that those changes could make me wrong. But based on what we have right now I'm not convinced.

I just don't understand. Is my side making any sense? Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think my logic makes sense.

Ok, wait...

I've got 3 sweet old ladies commited to 3 different stories. Then play Misguided Dreams. You have a character and 3 undrained domains 2 resources a piece with no cards in hand (or any other way to possibly force drain your domains).

You guys must commit, if able (vis Misguided Dreams). The cannot is not invovled. But you have to pay to to commit your character(via the sweet old ladies). Must you pay then?

This is mainly a question on how far we can/should go with 'must, if able.'

----------------------------------------

Quick question too back on binding worm... What if I want to commit the target? Based on the ruling given I getting the impression that I can ingore Y'golonac's ability since I'm no longer forced to commit because of Binding Worms condition? Obviously I don't think it works this way... at all. But Y'Golonac's ability doesn't say "target must commit, if able. If you do commit the target, it must be to the same story as Y'Golonac."

So, ya.

Also, why wouldn't this ruling apply to both targets if Binding worm is placing a condition on each character? If its good enough for one, why isn't it good enough for 2? If we treat each character as its own entity, since it 'cannot' commit without a friend it is no longer forced to commit. So what if there are two characters that have the same condition? What if the ability came from two different effects? Such as Y'Golonac and Glaaki each targeting a different character?

Now, again. I think the last part of the ruling is correct. If two character's are targeted, then they both have to go. I'm bickering over the other parts of the ruling as to me the first parts and the last part conflict with each other.

Magnus, I'm with you on this one. I don't grok Damon's ruling, but there may be something associated with it that we don't know?

It doesn't make sense to me, but rules is rules... or rulings is rulings.

Wow... I don't get your reasoning at all. It doesn't even make sense in the terms of card games in general. The cards tell you exactly what you are required to do and how to play them. They don't extend past that. There is nothing in the rule book or faq that supports any argument to the contrary.

One card says you cannot do this thing, another says you must do this thing if able. Cannot verus if able. The debate should end right there. One is a game defined absolute, the other a statement with a built in safety valve. When comparing the two conditions -

Binding Worm reads, "Characters cannot commit to stories alone." It effects every single character in play.

Y'Golonac reads, "Action: Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac, if able." It effects only the chosen character if it is able .

Y'G does not effect any other character that has not been targeted and the "if able" prevents it from forcing the characters controller to take any other steps to make it able to commit, beyond the normal rule of exhausting to commit. If You were to use Y'G after characters are committed on both sides does it magically alter the rules to bring that character into the story? No. Does it force the controller to use any other cards that would allow for it to join in the story after the commitment to stories has happened? No.

Y'G's ability begins and ends with this check: Is the targeted character capable of committing by the rules of the game without requiring any additional effects or actions other than committing this character? If yes, it must commit. If no, then it is unable. Nothing in Y'G's effect would make the controller do anything else to make a character that cannot legally commit, have to commit.

Why do you keep putting so much priority on the "must" rather than keeping it equal to the "if able" given they are in the same part of the effect and the "if able" statement clearly modifies the "must."

(v1.0) “If Able”
Certain card effects contain the text “if
able.” For these cards all normal rules
apply for choosing targets and triggering
effects, with one exception: If there is no
legal target during resolution, there is no
effect.

This seems pretty clear, if the card (that card and only that card since it is the only thing being targeted) cannot fulfill the legal requirement of the effect during resolution, there is no effect.

Penfold said:

If able is the main point I'm trying to make! Must is merely the after affect of my arguement...

Course, I'm also argueing that Binding Worm 'affects' not "effects' all characters in play. But its that very ruling of If Able that i"m stuck on (among other things). I still believe that the target is legal. Since it is still able to resolve. Thats the case I'm trying to make anyway.

Obviously, thats not the way the ruling is going right now. How we're picking what applies to cards, what applies to only game effects/rules, and what does both is becoming rather confusing to me based on these latest rulings.

"Nothing in Y'G's effect would make the controller do anything else to make a character that cannot legally commit, have to commit."

^ Is the closest thing said so far that could make me switch. By far. For instance, say the target is already commited but has a military bike. Would Y'G force me to use my card effect? We both agree that it would be no.

Gonna make the point that effects that alter game rule/effects should be done. Card effects would get around Y'G not game effects/rules. May of discovered the tipping point here, we'll see.

I am of the notion that Binding Worm's effect doesn't place a condition on each character in play, but overrides normal commiting rules. Instead 'to commit a character(s) you must exhaust it' (not sure of the actual quote off hand). I believe that Binding Worm alters the rule to 'you cannot commit a character to a story alone and to commit a character(s) you must exhaust it'.

You and Damon believe that Binding Worm places a condition on each character. Sorta how Dutch Courage (for lack of a better example off hand) does where it pretty much all but puts it into a card's text box.

So now we're pretty much at the point now that... what leads you guys to believe that Binding effects characters and not game rules/effects?

My thinking is along the same track. Binding Worm does not affect each character. But, the only way to resolve the conundrum is to say that Binding Worm in fact says to each character: "Each character may not commit alone." as opposed to saying "Characters may not commit alone." It is a small wording thing.

The conclusion is that Damon reads it as targeting each character, not creating a new commit situation.

It says characters, not players. That pretty much solves any question about what it is affecting in my mind.

If it read, "Players may not commit characters to stories alone." I would say it is working on the rules, telling players what they can and cannot do regarding commiting to stories.

As it says, "Characters cannot commit to stories alone." The effect seems to operate on characters.

There is literally nothing in the rulebook or in the faq that supports the position of players being forced to take extra steps not outlined by the rule book or card effect. This is part of the fundamental nature of card games, no, scratch that, all games. The rules don't say it, the faq doesn't say, the card doesn't say it. This entire line of reasoning is an extrapolation of how far a player has to go to meeting a card effect. I'm not saying that the deductive reasoning itself is flawed, but that it there is no basis to assume that the player has to take any steps beyond what the base rules say.

Do we all agree that if I had a character that said "This character cannot be committed to stories on your opponents turn." and I had a location that could blank that characters card text that I would not have to trigger it if that character were targeted by Y'G's ability? What if the character required me to pay 1 for it to commit? How far does one go down the line? IF I had a card in my hand by this line of reasoining, I would have to use it, unless you you guys want to say I must do everything I can with cards in play... which seems rather arbitrary, and since there is nothing in the rulebook or faq saying that I have to stop there any argument that says I must go one step further than exhausting the character targeted by Y'G could equally be applied to using any and all steps necessary for that character to commit.

In my mind, and apparently in Damon's also, Y'G's ability cannot force a player to take any steps beyond the normal commitment steps. That character cannot legally commit when it comes time to commit so the if able entry says that Y'G's secondary effect has no effect.

Why am I the only one citing the rules and faq? How about one of you quote something that supports your position?

My instincts are that in your examples, you would not be required to exhaust the location to remove an effect, but you would be required to pay 1 in the other case. My thinking (and undoubtedly wrong based on Damon's initial ruling!) is that in the first case an Action must be taken to change the state of the current rule system (this character can't commit), but in the second case there is just a cost to commit - not an Action.

As I'm writing this, I think my logic is just that: Y'Golnac would not require a player to use an Action (or Response) to commit. But, if the current situation requires some additional payment (pay 1, send characters in pairs) without any Action on the part of the player, then it would be part of the "if able" condition considering the current state of the game.

But, I also accept that Damon has ruled conversely - I'm just reflecting how I would have (did) interpret this before the official ruling.

It's all about the meaning of "if able" in my opinion.

The character being targeted by Y'Golonac *IS* able to commit. If it's theoretically possible in any way to do something, you're able to do it.

The ruling has changed the implied meaning of the ability to "if able to do so unaided" or something like that. If that's the intent, then fine, but IMHO it requires an errata to update the meaning of "if able" to plainly state what limits there are on it if able means something other than the English language definition.

There is literally nothing in the rulebook or in the faq that supports the position of players being forced to take extra steps not outlined by the rule book or card effect. This is part of the fundamental nature of card games, no, scratch that, all games. The rules don't say it, the faq doesn't say, the card doesn't say it. This entire line of reasoning is an extrapolation of how far a player has to go to meeting a card effect. I'm not saying that the deductive reasoning itself is flawed, but that it there is no basis to assume that the player has to take any steps beyond what the base rules say.

I agree that this is the crux of the matter, and it all boils down to what "if able" means. Without a specific game definition I would say that "if able" means through any means possible. The player has to take those extra steps because they're part of the "if able" wording. Those extra steps are what makes them able to fulfill the rule. They don't have to be explicitly named.

Now since Damon has ruled otherwise, he is essentially stating that "if able" means something else. I'm fine with that, he just has to define what the new meaning is or else the question will continue to come up in other circumstances.

Actually... 'if able' isn't the problem.

Both Pen and I actually agree that 'if able' specifically (y'golonac's) refers to the rules on how to commit a character.

The actual difference is that Pen (and Damon) are of the thinking that Binding Worm's effect puts a condition on each character. Effectively having each character gain "cannot commit to characters alone."

I and Professor are of the thinking that Binding Worm's effect alters the rule in how we commit characters.

Its how THAT is ruled is how Y'Golonac would/should be ruled. Currently we have a verbal ruling (which everyone should use until told otherwise) saying that Binding Worm's effect affects cards. I, of course, disagree saying that Binding Worm's effect affects the rules of the game in hopes of either getting it reversed to be convinced that I'm wrong.

While if the effect would be easier read if it said "Players cannot commit characters to stories alone." As then it would clearly state that the effect is affecting how a player would use a card. However, its also true if it said "Each character cannot commit characters to stories alone." That it would then clearly state that it affects how each card can be used by a player.

The rule book and faq really (in their current state) don't really help or hurt either side of this arguement (in my opinion). Which is the prodiminant reason why I haven't cited anything from the FAQ or rulebook (hell, I haven't even looked at yet to see if there is anything, but fairly certain there isn't anything that helps either side). Only rule worth quoting is the golden rule, but really... all that means is that I'm capable of not being wrong.

To me, this isn't the type of thing we can solve with rules as its mostly a wording issuse since we don't have a dominant keyword or phrase. Also, I think (for this case) that just because something ISN'T there doesn't mean that the other one is right.

I tried to spend a little time finding another card with without a dominant keyword or phrase that used similiar wording to help us gauge what direction we would take.

I found ONE card (so far). Flux Stabilizer.

"Characters may not enter play through triggered effects."

To me, this card affect the rules in how a character can enter play. As normally a character can enter play by either playing the card or using an effect to put a card into play (aka, a triggered effect). At least, thats how I interpeted the effect. If I am correct, would it not serve as a precedence for Binding Worm's effect?

Every other card besides BW and FS has a specific word or phase to easily determine (that i've looked at, not exactly an easy search parameter) wether an effect affects cards or rules.

Well, both conversations were really going on simultaneously.

The question about effecting characters vs. rules is the over-riding one.

Then there was the parallel discussion about what "if able" means if Damon's ruling did not apply: e.g. if you had to pay 1 to commit due to a card effect, would Y'Golnac require you to do so? Actually that question applies without any discussion of Binding Worm.

My first reaction was "No, if there is an additional cost you would not have to pay it." But then I started thinking that there is the cost of Exhausting a character to commit, so if the current rule state required paying 1 to commit, I think you probably would (if you had an open domain). Of course it probably would depend on the wording. A card that says:

"Character cannot commit to stories unless the controller pays 1" would probably over-ride Y'Golnac, but a card that says "Players must pay 1 to commit a character to stories" would not. Does that make sense???

I don't think you'd ever have to use a non-passive card ability to meet the "if able" requirement though, because that modification to the rule state would not be in effect.

Magnus Arcanis said:

My quick search shows Flux Stabilizer as the only card with the phrase "may not" in it.

Does The Silver Key relate?

Readied characters cannot commit to attached story. Exhausted characters can commit to attached story.

TheProfessor said:

I'm relatively uncertain about the Silver Key so I didn't bring it up. It places a condition on the card (since it specifically mentions attached story), but the condition mucks with normal committing rules. So my answer would be no and yes in regards to its relation to the topic. Silver key has a dominant phrase when it mentions attached story. Meaning that its placing a condition on a card. However, that condition affects how a player would commit a character, not so much by altering how you commit, but provides an exception when committing. Friggin wierd card doing wierd things when the result is actually very simple. To help the point, technically you don't check for exhaustion or readyness of a card until after you've started the commiting process by deciding on which characters you want to try and commit.

Remember kids, a card doesn't trigger "when commits/committing/commited" type effects until it goes through the entire process of how to commit a character.

Normally when the game does check it and sees that you're trying to commit an exhausted it character it kicks it out (thus not completing the committing proccess, acting like you never even attempted to commit the character). Silver Key makes an exception here. So it kinda alters the rule, but not really. Meaning that if you choose the attached story as the 'attempting-to-commit character' story choice then the game doesn't kick it out. So, its just sorta puts in an exception to the rule... which I dunno, sorta counts as altering, but I don't think that Binding Worm alters the same as a Silver Key does. I think that Binding Worm (if I am found to be correct) changes how you do something while Silver Key has an exception on how you do something. Kinda similiar but possibly too different for our purposes here. Again, not certain on this

However, regardless of the Binding Worm ruling, I would say that if the target of Y'Golonac is exhausted it would still have to commit to the story with a Silver Key (provided that Y'Golonac is already there of course).

Side note, anyone but me think that Silver Key use of the word Readied is incorrect? Readied implies that it was once exhausted and became Ready. In other words if we're in a battle of technicality, that cards that weren't "Readied" that turn could also commit to that story normally? This may or may not apply to unexhausted characters that were in play during the Refresh phase.

Speaking of incorrect uses of words. Flux Stabilizer is another one! I probably should've brought this up when I pitched in the card. But keep in mind that it is widely accepted that Flux Stabilizer actually means Characters 'cannot' enter play through triggered effects. Otherwise the card actually only merely gives cards the ability to say no to forced effects. Such as Opening the Limbo Gate. This is because characters already have the option to not come in play to triggered abilities which is the player controlling the effect simply doesn't use the effect. Clearly though, no one reads the card this way (it should be erratta'd, I haven't mentioned this directly to Damon yet, but if I don't forget again I'll do so for Monday).

So until further notice, please treat Flux Stabilizer as actually saying "Characters cannot enter play through triggered effects."

-------------------------

Back on topic. While we were sorta having two+ conversations, it really all boils down to Binding Worm's ruling. If a card effect would place the condition on the target it would not have to commit. If a card effect would place the condition on the game rule then it would have to commit.

Specifically in terms of paying 1. If the card said something along the lines of, "In order to commit target character, pay 1." Then the target of Y'G's effect would be able to choose not to pay 1 and thus is no longer able to commit. However if the effect was more along the lines of "When commiting characters players must pay 1 for each charcter they are committing." Then the rules of how to commit would change from "Exhaust" to "Pay 1 and Exhaust" so unless all of the target's controller's domains are drained they would have to pay 1 (and exhaust the target) to commit against Y'G.

Y'G's ability doesn't force a player to use any optional non-game rules related effects in order to appease the ancient one. Y'G can only force a character to abide by the game rules for commiting with the exception that the choice of story as it is already chosen. I've always believed this (though I wouldn't be suprised if some people didn't always see it that way). The main source of the confusion is what Binding Worm actually does on a very technical level. I was operating under the belief (and still do obviously) that Binding Worm's effect alters normal commiting rules. Pen and Damon believe that it doesn't do that and it merely places a condition on every character in play.

---------------------------

Side note. Remember that technically exhausting to commit is not actually a cost. It acts like cost. Behaves like a cost, but not defined as a cost.

From the FAQ - "Y'Golonac's ability does not create an additional window through which characters can be committed to stories. If anything (including game effects) prevents a player from fulfilling the entire effect of an "if able" clause, that effect is ignored."

That seems to imply that Y'G's ability only goes so far as affecting the specific character selected, and cannot create any conditions, alterations, or adjustments to the rules that would make the player need to take other actions. Not completely definitive, but it does also seem to contribute a bit towards the ruling Damon gave.

Penfold said:

If BW did alter rules for committing that FAQ ruling would still function normally. BW doesn't prevent the target from committing if you have a friend for him. However, both sides agree that if the target is alone, it would ignore YG's ability.

Still, I see what you were going for.

However, my concern isn't so much YG's ability anymore, but BW affecting characters or affecting the game rules.

Again, for those listening in. We currently have a ruling that BW places a condition on each character. Thus making YG's forced commit effect useless while BW is in play. Which is fine. But I'm merely of the thinking that BW doesn't place a condition on each character but alters the game rules for commiting characters. Till otherwise notified, follow the ruling.