Pervasive Toxemia

OK, I've got a question about this card. Let's say this card is in play and the only characters you have in play all have invulnerability. Does this mean that you cannot commit any characters to stories?

Yes.  If you can't pay the cost, you can't do it.

From http://www.cardgamed...ew-part-2-r1370
 

BanalityBob - 5/5 - This is one of the cards that will make the most impact on the meta, and a good contender for the best conspiracy in the game (Negotium and The Great Work watch your backs, this is coming for you). Decks that aren’t prepared to deal with it will lose in short order, and even with some toughness on the opposing side of the table, you’re probably going to be taking advantage of this effect instead of mitigating it. I expect to see and play this a lot in the coming months.
Danigral - 4/5 - I’m very hesitant to call a conspiracy meta-shaping especially after not seeing much impact from the awesome conspiracies in the Agency box. However, this is the new Negotium for slowing the game down. It rewards the person who can get ahead in terms of more characters or more toughness, so for the player down and out, it may be too hard to come back. It also really hurts char-lite decks. Black Dog though, still a champ. Or anything that can get around the commit framework window.
dboeren - 4/5 - Very solid conspiracy and ups the playability of any Tough characters (which Shub has plenty of) or cards that grant Tough like Dutch Courage. Should be a popular card for those running Conspiracy based decks.
Kamacausey - 5/5 - Now this is a conspiracy I can get behind! You will feel this conspiracy as soon as it hits the table and if you aren't prepared for it you might be packing it in early. I am curious to see how much abuse people will find for this conspiracy.
mnBroncos - 4/5 - Is meta shaping in a way that may want to add some toughness that use to overlook or more lower cost characters just to be able to throw away. Is a very strong card but doesn’t force the game one way as much as you’d think. Most rush decks often have a character they can throw away in order to commit and you’d also have to wound a character in order to defend. This will hurt yourself more than you expect.
Reckoner - 5/5 - This card is going to define decks and could potentially define the meta. This will either slow that game down or just reinforce the power of recursion. A deck built around this could be very annoying to play against. As a conspiracy there are very few answers to this card and numerous ways to find it and abuse it. Toughness and things that grant toughness are only the beginning. You need to be prepared for this card.

Son uses it with Rend and Ai! Ai! Absolutely game changing combo. He has been way behind before and the board takes a 180 degree change after he drops Ai! Ai!

Ai! Ai! is a bomb if you can pull it off, but Loyal 4 means it's pretty much reserved for mono-Shub decks so there's a substantial cost to give up your 2nd faction.

Yes, as they both add the effect and neither of them would be conflicting.

Either bring lots of Toughness or prepare to watch your board vanish

Question:

The rules FAQs/Errata for "If Able" reads as follows:  'If a player must choose between multiple “if able” effects, he may not choose an option that has no eligible targets unless no alternative with an eligible target is available.'

So, if I use Y'Golonac's triggered ability on my opponent's character, does this rule mean he must wound one of his characters and then commit the chosen character to the same story as Y'Golonac?  I'm confused on whether Pervasive Toxemia gives my opponent an "escape clause" where he can claim the Pervasive Toxemia is preventing him from committing to stories.

You may want to put this rules question over on the rules forum...

In this case, I would expect that your opponent would have to wound a character and then commit the chosen character to the same story as Y'Golonac.

My Reasoning:

The "must commit, if able" wording is stating that if it is possible to commit that character, you must do so.  The wounding from Pervasive Toxemia is a cost to commit (just like exhausting) so it must be paid to commit, which in this case isn't a choice, but ruled by the 'must'.  (Also see section 2.10 in the Official Rules Clarifications section of the FAQ for info on "must commit" still requiring the character to exhaust)

The "if able" portion would only come into play here if all the characters your opponent controlled were invulnerable and therefore couldn't be selected to take a wound.  In that case, your opponent would be prevented from paying the cost to commit, and would be able to ignore Y'Golonac.

Let me know if you move this to the Rules Forum, and I'll bring my response over as well....

Toxemia doesn't prevent him unless your opponent has nobody capable of taking a wound, there is no escape clause.

Since Y'golonac's controller is doing the committing (albeit of an opponent's character) wouldn't that player's character have to take a wound?

Pervasive Toxemia

While this conspiracy is in play, each player must choose and wound a character he controls in order to commit characters to stories.

It doesn't say "in order to commit his characters to stories."

Edited to add:

 

Y'Golonac

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

It's confusing, because it says the "character must commit," rather than saying the character's owner must commit it. But on balance, I guess that's what's happening

No, Y'gonlonac's controller is not committing the opposing character.  They are just imposing a rule on how the other player commits.

When they commit Y'golonac they will have to wound someone to pay for that though.

Thanks, gents.  Your logic makes good sense, and I'm totally on board.  

Cheers!

I've asked to Damon some time ago a question like this, I'm reporting it here.

!

(I like the ruling, but I never would have come up with it myself.)

So, Y'golonac can't make the character commit, since he doesn't have the power of making the character's player pay!

That's pretty much what I had been wondering.  Maybe I'm wrong, but this game seems to have more confusing scenarios like this than other card games I've played.  

I am very surprised by that ruling...  but good to know.  Thanks Sadric, for posting Damon's answer.

The described use the word "characters" and  "stories". Does it mean if I commit only one character to a single story, I don't need to wound my character?

I know Pervasive Toxemia has been discussed to death, but somehow it feels wrong that PT and Infirmary don't work together.  Thematically and mechanically, they seem like they'd be best buds.  Technically, PT can feed Infirmary, but then the Infirmary's ability would prevent you from paying PT's cost.  Bummer.

I always think Infirmary can pay PT's cost. Infirmary's replacement effect does not prevent the wound, but just the result of the destruction. The wound was successfully done (If not why destruction?).PT says : "...instead of destroying it." not instead of wound.

Check out the comments for Nigel St. James.  I thought the same as you when it came to Nigel's interaction with Khopesh of the Abyss.  RichardPlunkett corrected me on that one, and the interaction between PT & Infirmary is pretty much the same.  Like I said, I wish it worked, but it doesn't.

Maybe you're right...It's a massive pity.