Y'Golonac question

[MightyAtom13 0]

Y'Golonac allows a player to pay one and unexhaust a character. It says "Character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac if able". Is it permissable to not commit Y'golonac to any story and still unexhaust a character and commit him to a story. My interpretation is that if Y'Golonac is not commited to a story, it is not possible to commit to the same story, so therefore the character can commit to whatever.

 

And, by extrapolation, would it be possible to pay 1 to unexhaust before commiting any characters, then commit to different stories since Y'Golonac was not commited when the action was taken?
 

[jhaelen 98]

MightyAtom13 said:

Y'Golonac allows a player to pay one and unexhaust a character. It says "Character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac if able". Is it permissable to not commit Y'golonac to any story and still unexhaust a character and commit him to a story. My interpretation is that if Y'Golonac is not commited to a story, it is not possible to commit to the same story, so therefore the character can commit to whatever.

 

And, by extrapolation, would it be possible to pay 1 to unexhaust before commiting any characters, then commit to different stories since Y'Golonac was not commited when the action was taken?
 

I think that's exactly what the 'if able' clause is there to prevent. I.e. if Y'Golonac isn't commited to a story you cannot use the ability. You may want to check out the FAQ about the definition of 'if able' (although it's still difficult to understand).

[MightyAtom13 0]

Thanks for the response.

I don't really see it that way, and here is why.

I don't have the exact text of the card in front of me, but as I recall, it says "Action: Pay 1 to ready an exhausted character. That character must commit to the same story as Y'golonac, if able".  Based on that text, the only "if able" part is commiting to the story, not the readying.

If it were the other way, it would be a response, not an action. The text would read something like " Response: When Y'Golonac commits to a story, pay 1.... blah blah"

But, obviously, I am a relative newbie and am here for advice. I am not sure...

[TheProfessor 4]

I think is says

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

I guess if it (the recently readied character) cannot commit to the same story as Y'G (for whatever reason, including Y'G not being at a story) then it can do whatever it wants.

[jhaelen 98]

MightyAtom13 said:

But, obviously, I am a relative newbie and am here for advice. I am not sure...

Ditto. I'm always confused about those 'if able' abilities. It just never occured to me the abiltiy might be usable if Y'Golonac isn't commited.

[radynski2 0]

MightyAtom13 said:

Y'Golonac allows a player to pay one and unexhaust a character. It says "Character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac if able". Is it permissable to not commit Y'golonac to any story and still unexhaust a character and commit him to a story. My interpretation is that if Y'Golonac is not commited to a story, it is not possible to commit to the same story, so therefore the character can commit to whatever.

That is correct.   

MightyAtom13 said:

And, by extrapolation, would it be possible to pay 1 to unexhaust before commiting any characters, then commit to different stories since Y'Golonac was not commited when the action was taken?

 

No.  Y'Golonac being committed or not is irrelevant to the action.  When you trigger Y'Golonac, you set up a beacon of sorts that forces the targetted character to go wherever he is going.  If this is not possible because Y'go doesn't commit, then your character is free to go where it likes because the beacon essentially can't be fulfilled.  But if you can fulfill it, you must.

Other ludicrously evil things you can do with Y'Golonac include:

1. Readying characters while not in the story phase and then doing whatever you want because the commitment effects only last for a phase.

2. Targetting already ready characters and forcing them to commit with Y'Golonac.  The secondary effect of committing to the same story does not have a "then" clause attached to it, which means it does not rely on the first sentence completing successfully in order to work.  The readying fails, but the beacon still works.

 

[Dam the Man 84]

Bumping this thread instead of starting a new one.

cannon said:

2. Targetting already ready characters and forcing them to commit with Y'Golonac.  The secondary effect of committing to the same story does not have a "then" clause attached to it, which means it does not rely on the first sentence completing successfully in order to work.  The readying fails, but the beacon still works.

 

How does the timing come into play when Y'Golonac is the defender? Sequence goes:

Actions

Att. commits

Actions

Def. commits

Actions

Say your opponent puts 1 char into each of the three stories. At step 4, Y'Golonac commits to say story #2. During step 5, pay for Y'Golo's ability, targetting those chars committed to a story. They ready, but everything else is lost? Or in other words, generally not a good use. If you use it during step 1, again no real gain if you're the defender for using Y'Golo on your opponent's chars?

As an attacker, his ability really seems at its best. Commit Y'Golo solo to a story during step 2 (committing other chars to the other stories of course), during step 3, pay and force those people you don't want taking part in other stories to commit to Y'Golo's story (his Invulnerability should keep him alive nicely)?

[scourn1 0]

cannon said:

MightyAtom13 said:

 

Y'Golonac allows a player to pay one and unexhaust a character. It says "Character must commit to the same story as Y'Golonac if able". Is it permissable to not commit Y'golonac to any story and still unexhaust a character and commit him to a story. My interpretation is that if Y'Golonac is not commited to a story, it is not possible to commit to the same story, so therefore the character can commit to whatever.

 

That is correct.   

MightyAtom13 said:

And, by extrapolation, would it be possible to pay 1 to unexhaust before commiting any characters, then commit to different stories since Y'Golonac was not commited when the action was taken?

 

 

No.  Y'Golonac being committed or not is irrelevant to the action.  When you trigger Y'Golonac, you set up a beacon of sorts that forces the targetted character to go wherever he is going.  If this is not possible because Y'go doesn't commit, then your character is free to go where it likes because the beacon essentially can't be fulfilled.  But if you can fulfill it, you must.

Other ludicrously evil things you can do with Y'Golonac include:

1. Readying characters while not in the story phase and then doing whatever you want because the commitment effects only last for a phase.

2. Targetting already ready characters and forcing them to commit with Y'Golonac.  The secondary effect of committing to the same story does not have a "then" clause attached to it, which means it does not rely on the first sentence completing successfully in order to work.  The readying fails, but the beacon still works.

 

 

How is that correct, according to the "If able" clause you need to be able to do the entire action sucessfully or you cant do it at all.

 

A question I do have with it is...

Story Phase:

*Actions may be taken (do nothing)

* You avtice player commit characters to stories ( Y'Golonac  goes up)

*Actions may be taken (do nothing)

*Opponent (non active player ) commits characters to stories to oppose yours.

*Actions may be taken

Now at the last action phase before stories are resolved, can you use  Y'Golonac 's Action to bring up Ravenger of the Deep? I was Informed before that each player only gets one phase to commit but this Action seems to break those rules or am I wrong?

 

[TheProfessor 4]

This is where the "if able" clause comes to play.  The character cannot commit to the story after the commit phase.  Thus, it is not able to do so.  So you are not able, thus cannot commit.

Don't mix up the "then" with the "if able".  Because there is no "then" in the action text, you don't have to do both parts of the action.

[Amante 0]

cannon said:

Other ludicrously evil things you can do with Y'Golonac include:

1. Readying characters while not in the story phase and then doing whatever you want because the commitment effects only last for a phase.

Do you have any source on that (when the commitment effect fades)? It certainly doesn't say "until end of phase" anywhere on the card, which makes me think that it's until the end of the turn at least?

A bit unclear, I suppose.

[Dadajef 0]

I think, you can look at the FAQs p.3 about Duration of Effects.

(v2.0) Duration of Effects

If a triggered ability has no specified duration,
then the effects of that ability expire at the end of
the current phase. “Put into play,” “Remove from
play,” and “Take Control” effects are all an exceptions
to this rule, and unless specified by a specific
duration are considered to be permanent effects.
With "take control" effects, control of the card
in question is granted to the most recent "take
control" effect.

Ygo'ability has no specified duration so, the effect will expire at the end of the phase.

 

[MightyAtom13 0]

Dadajef said:

I think, you can look at the FAQs p.3 about Duration of Effects.

(v2.0) Duration of Effects

If a triggered ability has no specified duration,
then the effects of that ability expire at the end of
the current phase. “Put into play,” “Remove from
play,” and “Take Control” effects are all an exceptions
to this rule, and unless specified by a specific
duration are considered to be permanent effects.
With "take control" effects, control of the card
in question is granted to the most recent "take
control" effect.

Ygo'ability has no specified duration so, the effect will expire at the end of the phase.

 

 

Awesome. Good catch and that answers my question.

[Dam the Man 84]

Will the universe implode if Y'Golonac uses the ability on himself? Is there a targetting restriction to prevent that?

[Amante 0]

I don't see the problem. He's definitely "a character", and he's definitely able to commit to the same story as himself