Even if that were not the case, I cannot see a distinction between failing to choose a character and failing to successfully kneel that character in the effect - both result in the pre-Then statement to fail (if there weren't an If Able).
Going through the reasoning the long way, I can see and agree with this. The end result then, is that if the person playing the event doesn't have a target OR has only targets that are already knelt, s/he can't play the event. Here's how you get to that the "long way":
- All play restrictions, including whether or not all legal targets are available, are checked in part "b" of the initiation sequence described in the FAQ.
- The new definition of and limitations on "triggered effect" in FAQ 5.0 indicates that "are you anticipating a successful resolution for this effect" has been added into those play restriction checks in part "b" of initiation.
- So looking at Cyvasse, there are two questions to ask before you can trigger the effect:
1. Does each player have a character with an INT icon to choose as a target?
2. Can I anticipate a successful resolution of some part of the independent effect(s)?
- That, btw, is the key issue here. Targeting requirements and anticipated success are two separate play restrictions that must both be met before the effect can be triggered.
- If the answer to #1 is "no," it's OK to continue because the "if able" allows you to continue without choosing all targets.
- If the answer to #2 is "no," you're done because, whether there is an "if able" or not, the new FAQ entry uses the magic word "cannot." If you do not anticipate a successful resolution of at least some pare of the independent effect, you cannot trigger the effect at all. The "if able" text doesn't trump that absolute (i.e., "cannot") restriction.
Remembering that the person triggering the event has no control over what the other players will choose, and that the other players are not trying to trigger an effect and so are not obligated to do what they can to ensure a successful resolution, there is really only one situation in which the person playing Cyvasse can answer "yes" to #2 -- have a standing character with an INT icon themselves that they will choose as a target and kneel for the event's effect.
So, you are correct that the "no characters with the INT icon controlled by the person playing the event" and the "all characters with the INT icon controlled by the person playing the event are kneeling" situations should have the same result. BUT, that result is "you can't trigger Cyvasse."
This does indicate a slight shift in the way that we have understood the text "if able" to this point. It's not that anyone was wrong before, only that the rules environment has changed a little bit, so this particular instance doesn't work exactly the same as before.
Specifically, "Pre-FAQ 5.0" the term "if able" did two separate things.
A) "If able" used as part of identifying targets for an effect allowed you to trigger the effect anyway if fewer than the maximum number of targets were available to choose. It softened the "all available targets" requirement for triggering effects.
B) "If able" used as part of a "then" effect (e.g., "Do X. Then do Y.") allowed you to consider X successful (and move on to Y) after the effect had been triggered, even if nothing actually happened during X.
Post-FAQ 5.0, our understanding of the term needs to change a little.
A) Doesn't change at all. "If able" will still allow you to trigger the effect if fewer than the maximum number of targets is available.
B) Does change a little. "Do X, if able. Then do Y" effects are going to be subject to the new "must anticipate some successful resolution" restriction. And if you anticipate a complete lack of success (or cannot at least guarantee some success) for X, you cannot trigger the effect in the first place. It doesn't matter that the "if able" would allow you to move on to Y for an unsuccessful X once you reach Step 3. The fact that you anticipate a completely unsuccessful X means you never get out of Step 1. You can still trigger a partially successful X, and move on to Y because of the "if able," but if you anticipate a completely unsuccessful X, the "if able" won't bypass the absolute "cannot" of the new FAQ entry.
Cyvasse is just an interesting case because it incorporates both uses and contexts for "if able" in the same card.
Hope that all made sense. You guys were absolutely right for calling me out on that inconsistency.