ok. make it quick as i can. working on a deck called COMMITMENT ISSUES. cthulhu-ese often stumps me. situations are:

1. POLAR FOG (uncommits a character and makes them commit to another story). if this option is used to re-commit to a story with another one already committed, does it meet the criteria of BLACK DOG (as the text complies with the opponent committing exactly 1 character to the story as the other is already committed).

2. a character inflicted with UNHEALTHY FIXATION (cannot uncommit until story is won) while BINDING WORM is in play. can a player commit only 1 extra character to this story, as the text implies that this cannot be done as you cannot commit alone, and the inflicted character is already committed.

3. does the BINDING WORM'S passive thus negate THE FORGOTTEN EXPLORER'S forced response. i'm almost positive it would, but just thought i'd ask.

that is all for now. thanks for any help in clarifying these questions and carry on !!

1. I would say that Black Dog still works.

2. Not sure what you're asking. Why wouldn't you be able to commit more than one character?

3. Right, Forgotten Explorer would not be able to commit alone with Binding Worm in play - his Forced Response does not override that.

yeah, ( 2 ) could be read a couple of ways i just realised. rephrase. with UNHEALTHY FIXATION and BINDING WORM in place, must a player commit 2 characters to the story to be able to commit at all, as the original is already committed, and characters cannot commit alone.

"Alone" seems a little ambiguous here (stupid English language). If he commits and someone else already is committed then in one sense he is not alone. By going for an english description instead of a games term description they probably though the card read better and was more intuitive but it's less precise.

If I had to guess, I think they probably meant that when you commit, you must commit at least 2 characters together (regardless of whether anyone is already at the story). But, you may need to get an official ruling to be sure.

All good questions! I can only guess what might be the correct way to rule any of these.

I'd therefore recommend to forward the questions to the FFG's Rules Support.

In light of all the new characters that can be committed on the fly the wording of 'Binding Worm' is probably no longer sufficiently accurate.

I'm fairly sure the original intent was that you looked at the number of committed characters after a player was 'done' committing, i.e. a more appropriate wording might have been 'You cannot have less then two characters committed to a single story' - but that's obviously pure conjecture on my part.

yes. you can safely say that i've spent far too much time studying each and every card and how it interacts with the card pool and am really starting to strip it down to the nuts and bolts. its just the way my mind is configured. it can look at a thousand different things and work out how they all mesh and intertwine to effect each other, but ask me to focus on just one thing and ive got the mental capacity of a gnat. im a classic INTJ personality type. theres lots more questions i have concerning this deck that get even more complex to try and interperet, but id like to build it first i think and work out which need answering.

Yes. It is the act of committing, not the final number of committed characters which is being checked.

Penfold said:

1) Yes

2) No

3) Yes?!

I also understand those answers as 1)Black dog works, 2)You cannot commit one character to fixation character

But with 3)im not that sure.

Wouldnt Forgotten explorer just exhaust and not commit with Binding worm in play?

Card says "The Forgotten Explorer exhausts and then commits to that story." you cannot commit, but surely he can exhaust.

Yes, he will exhaust regardless.