How does this work?

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
If someone plays Incremental Blight and i unmorph my Willbender do i get to choose new targets for all the sets of counters or..... im not sure. how does this work?
Willbender's ability can only target a "spell or ability with a single target". Incremental Blight has three targets, and thus does not match that targetting restriction. Since there are no legal targets for willbender's ability, it is removed from the stack and does nothing.
ok that makes sense, i thought it ment that everything went to a single target, i read it funny.  thanks
ok that makes sense, i thought it ment that everything went to a single target, i read it funny.  thanks

I've done the same thing, many times. And complained loudly about the wording.

Change the target of [target spell with a single target] is the correct reading. "With a single target" is a restriction applying to "target spell". 
It baffles me that so many people can misread this effect in exactly the same way.  If I said "change the diaper of that baby with the dirty diaper" would you remove the diaper of that baby, and replace it with a dirty diaper?  No, you would "change the diaper of" that baby.  Which baby?  "That baby with the dirty diaper."

The only way it could possibly mean what so many people seem to think it means is if it said "exchange" rather than "change".  It's right up there with:

Unless a player has Book Burning [imaginary comma], deal 6 damage to him or her [imaginary period].  Put the top six cards of ["target" somehow becomes "that"] player's library into his or her graveyard.
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
@IronMagus: the baby example is a bit more evident.

change [this]>{the target of target spell or ability} with [this]>{a single target}

change the target of [this]>{target spell or ability with a single target}

these are both valid interpretations in English (though the latter is the intended interpretation)

but if someone read it as the former, I can see their confusion.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

change the target of [this]>{target spell or ability} with a single target

change the target of [this]>{target spell or ability with a single target}

these are both valid interpretations in English (though the latter is the intended interpretation)



No, they're not.  You can exchange something with something else as in to trade one in for the other, because to "exchange" something [with something else] means the same thing as to "swap" or "replace" it.  To simply "change" something, on the other hand, doesn't mean "replace" it it means to "alter" or "modify" it.

...maybe the word "change" isn't they key here, maybe it's "with."  In reality, all the words of the sentence work together to put forth the idea, but "change A with B" can really only mean one thing.  If "change" was changed to "exchange", or if "with" was exchanged with "to" (see what I did there?) then it could be read the other way but as it is written, it cannot mean anything but the second one.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Change the word "lazy" with "XXX":
The quick brown fox jumped over the lXaXzXy dog.

I changed (modified) the word "lazy."  I used "XXX" to change it, and therefore it became "lXaXzXy."

Exchange the word "lazy" with "XXX":
The quick brown fox jumped over the XXX dog.

This time I exchanged (swapped) the word "lazy," using "XXX" in its place.
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
No, they're not.  You can exchange something with something else as in to trade one in for the other, because to "exchange" something [with something else] means the same thing as to "swap" or "replace" it.  To simply "change" something, on the other hand, doesn't mean "replace" it it means to "alter" or "modify" it.


So when I change my tire, I'm just altering the old one, not swapping or replacing it?  Changing my clothes?  Changing my shoes? Changing places with someone? Changing airplanes? Changing dollars into francs?  Seems somewhat evident from all these examples that "change" pretty commonly means exactly the same thing as "swap" or "replace," and hence "exchange."

Also, your analogy of the statement about the dirty diaper is not a good one - it's obvious from the context of your situation that you would not put a dirty diaper on a baby. It is NOT obvious, especially to the newer player, how to interpret Willbender's text.
Rules Advisor - 10/24/2010
No, they're not.  You can exchange something with something else as in to trade one in for the other, because to "exchange" something [with something else] means the same thing as to "swap" or "replace" it.  To simply "change" something, on the other hand, doesn't mean "replace" it it means to "alter" or "modify" it.


So when I change my tire, I'm just altering the old one, not swapping or replacing it?  Changing my clothes?  Changing my shoes? Changing places with someone? Changing airplanes? Changing dollars into francs?  Seems somewhat evident from all these examples that "change" pretty commonly means exactly the same thing as "swap" or "replace," and hence "exchange."

Also, your analogy of the statement about the dirty diaper is not a good one - it's obvious from the context of your situation that you would not put a dirty diaper on a baby. It is NOT obvious, especially to the newer player, how to interpret Willbender's text.


Hint: English has idioms.

Sig
Disclaimers
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so. Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs. Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.
# Card Blind Hall of Fame
3CB
3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with Mishra's Factory, Orzhov Basilica, Vindicate. 3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with Mishra's Workshop, Ensnaring Bridge, Scalding Tongs 3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with Saprazzan Skerry, Scalding Tongs, Energy Field; and Mown, with The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Inkmoth Nexus, Sheltered Valley 3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with Keldon Megaliths, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Boros Garrison 3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with Black Lotus, Channel, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
5CB
5CB 1 (3/6/11): Won by Maraxus-of-Keld, with Tropical Island, Thallid, Nether Spirit, Daze, Foil
quotes
56819178 wrote:
So, how would I use a card that has a large in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?
57031358 wrote:
99113151 wrote:
Winning is not important if: 1. You win by a blowout. 2. You pay billions of dollars in cards to win. If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.
what? do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?
57169958 wrote:
Or did no one notice Transmogrifying Licid before. (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA )
57193048 wrote:
57169958 wrote:
Hmmm... I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.
If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.
56287226 wrote:
We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.
[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!" [02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice
[10:11:33] !opalescence [10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC [10:11:51] *sigh* [10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence? [10:12:17] sure [10:12:23] $10 on humility interaction [10:12:25] :P [10:12:29] :D [10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish
Ego
58325628 wrote:
Mage is awesome, BTW.
56967858 wrote:
Dear Mage24365, You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.
58158398 wrote:
56761258 wrote:
I don't think there are any cards like that. There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically. There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player. I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.
Rings of Brighthearth; Dormant Gomazoa; Samite Ministration.
56761258 wrote:
Well played.

 

No, they're not.  You can exchange something with something else as in to trade one in for the other, because to "exchange" something [with something else] means the same thing as to "swap" or "replace" it.  To simply "change" something, on the other hand, doesn't mean "replace" it it means to "alter" or "modify" it.


So when I change my tire, I'm just altering the old one, not swapping or replacing it?  Changing my clothes?  Changing my shoes? Changing places with someone? Changing airplanes? Changing dollars into francs?  Seems somewhat evident from all these examples that "change" pretty commonly means exactly the same thing as "swap" or "replace," and hence "exchange."

Also, your analogy of the statement about the dirty diaper is not a good one - it's obvious from the context of your situation that you would not put a dirty diaper on a baby. It is NOT obvious, especially to the newer player, how to interpret Willbender's text.


Hint: English has idioms.

Hint: The dictionary (Merriam Webster and dictionary.com) both include "exchange" as a definition in the entry for "change."

So, unless you go somewhere else for definitions to English words other than the English dictionary, I'd say the two are synonymous.
Rules Advisor - 10/24/2010

So when I change my tire, I'm just altering the old one, not swapping or replacing it?  Changing my clothes?  Changing my shoes? Changing places with someone? Changing airplanes? Changing dollars into francs?  Seems somewhat evident from all these examples that "change" pretty commonly means exactly the same thing as "swap" or "replace," and hence "exchange."


Still it doesn't make sense in context. "Change the target of target spell with a single target." Are you using the single target to effect the change by brandishing it at the spell?
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite. "I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room."
It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
So when I change my tire, I'm just altering the old one, not swapping or replacing it?



Ah, but when you change your tire...do you change it with your spare?  No, you change it with your tire iron.  You use the tire iron to exchange the flat tire with the spare one.

Changing my clothes?


Putting on a change of clothes.  Exchanging them with clean ones.
Changing my shoes?

ditto.

Changing places with someone?


I'm not a language professor, but I would bet money that that is actually a (albeit commonly accepted) misuse of the word, and you are actually supposed to say exchanging places with someone.

Changing dollars into francs?  Seems somewhat evident from all these examples that "change" pretty commonly means exactly the same thing as "swap" or "replace," and hence "exchange."

Also, your analogy of the statement about the dirty diaper is not a good one - it's obvious from the context of your situation that you would not put a dirty diaper on a baby. It is NOT obvious, especially to the newer player, how to interpret Willbender's text.



Yes, it's all about the context.  The context of "Change [something] with [something]."  You don't change your clothes with other clothes, you just change your (or "put on a change of") clothes.  You exchange them with other clothes, but you don't change them with other clothes.  You don't change dollars with francs, you change them to (or "into") francs.  Etc.

So yes, "change" can mean to swap or replace, but not when it's used with "with" I guess is what I'm driving at.
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
(ex)change your line of reasoning with another

I suppose exchange is more technically precise than change, but in colloquial spoken English one can and does use change in place of exchange (whether it is technically correct or not is another matter).

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

As IronMagus alluded at the end of his post, the reason it'd be ungrammatical to read it the alternate way is more because of the word "with," not the word "change." Consider the following re-ordering that's consistent with the alternate reading:

"When Willbender is turned face up, choose target spell or ability and change its target with a single target."

As a native English speaker, I find that to be an awkward and incorrect use of "with." If someone wrote that, I would definitely assume that English was their second language (since preposition choices in English are largely idiomatic and are often the source of mistakes by otherwise-fluent speakers.)
(ex)change your line of reasoning with another


I shall.  Or alternatively I will change it to another.  I will admit that "change" by itself can have either meaning.  But when used in this context in conjuction with "with" then it can only lead to one correct answer.  As in:  Change the look of [the hat with the feather] {perhaps by coloring it pink or replacing it with a different hat entirely} vs.  Change the look of [the hat] with (as in by using) [the feather] {by placing the feather in the hat, for example}.

Change the target of [target spell with a single target] {to a different target}. Acceptable.

Change the target of [target spell] with [a single target] {by brandishing the single target at the spell's original target and convincing it to change its ways}.  Unacceptable!!!
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
I'm also a native English speaker and I find nothing odd about the alternate interpretation. (beyond the obvious confusion it causes)

With can be used with change.

Perhaps it's a dialectical difference. I live in Vancouver on Canada's west coast.

I changed my tire with a spare.
Change your line of thought with another (line of thought).
When Willbender is turned face up, choose target spell or ability and change its target with a single target. (this sentence sits well with me)


DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

Of course, there's also the issue of the use of the singular "target".  Even if it said "change the target of target spell or ability to a single target", it still wouldn't make sense for it to be able to change multiple targets.  It would need to be "change all targets of target spell or ability to a single target."  And even then, "target" wouldn't be used to refer to the new target.  It would be something like "change all targets of target spell or ability to a single creature or player."

My point is that, even if you initially get the wrong impression about how it works, you'd need to gloss over a lot of issues in order to think that interpretation is actually correct.

Also, Incremental Blight can't target the same creature multiple times.  Even something that could change the targets of a spell with multiple targets (e.g. Goblin Flectomancer) wouldn't help there.
My point is that, even if you initially get the wrong impression about how it works, you'd need to gloss over a lot of issues in order to think that interpretation is actually correct.


Not necessarily. Most people won't sit down and consider all the implications of a particular interpretation of a card's wording. They won't gloss over the issues you see; they just won't consider them. Not everyone thinks the same way...
M:tG Rules Advisor
The alternative (wrong) interpretation had never occurred to me! And I'm afraid that this is because - and I am intending no insult here, please don't flame me - it is based on an incorrect (or shall we say "non-standard?) use of English.

As IronMagus has intimated, for the alternative interpretation to be viable it would have to be either "exchange with" or "change to". "Change with" simply does not mean what people have misinterpreted it to mean (apropos of nothing, "swap with" would work).

People (like me) who seek to preserve correct use of English try to explain (since we are often criticised) that "colloquial use" and "dialectical difference" are all very well, but there is a danger of the meaning of words being lost when not used correctly - and frankly this two-page thread rather makes our point for us; non-standard English has caused a great deal of confusion.

[edited to remove several spelling and grammatical errors of my own!]

"Personally, I believe $50 is the roof that someone will pay for a Standard card, Mythic or otherwise." - Ben Bleiweiss, StarCity Games ----------------------------------------------------------
Is there an English professor in the house? 

I would like to think that I'm pretty good at english, however, my interpretation of  Willbender vs. Incremental Blight would have been that I would get to change only one of the targets of the spell but the other 2 would go through.

For example, My opponent casts Incremental Blight and I flip over my Willbender and change the -2/-2 target but the -1/-1 and -3/-3 targets would still occur.

BUT i guess I would have been 100% wrong. 
R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio My Trade Thread: http://community.wizards.com/marketplace/go/thread/view/94957/24019517/Dereks_Haves_and_Wants?sdb=1&post_num=1#432983357 I attempted HTML but it didn't work so You'll have to copy/paste.
The simple use of "that has" in place of "with" would remove all source of confusion, I think. What people are often missing is that the "with" phrase is describing the target spell, not the target you are changing. They have to jump over a few grammatical hurdles to get there, of course, but as you can see, many find that reading more natural than the correct one.

 
Ho! Guys! Reality check here!

This thread belong in the
Rules Theory and Templating
forum.
Can someone please change its location?

change to
change with
change for
change into
change toward

Who cares?

Willbender's ability requires a spell to target.
That spell is required to have ONE single target.
End of discussion.



If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

If I said "change the diaper of that baby with the dirty diaper" would you remove the diaper of that baby, and replace it with a dirty diaper?


Yes.  Well, actually I'd just say, "Are you sure?"
(I'm only posting because I think I might have found the source of some of the confusion!)
And I think it's because in this scenario I imagine you, me, and a baby in a room.  So since we don't need to distinguish between babies I'd parse the "with..." part to distinguish the kind of diaper you want.  (Honestly, I was bewildered for a couple minutes how your example was supporting your position.)
And I think the same thing is going on with Willbender.  When you go to use Willbender (or similar spells) you aren't thinking about there being a ton of spells and abilities on the stack; you are looking at one spell or ability on the stack and you don't like it's target (or targets).  So then the "with..." gets parsed to clarify how you change the targeting, not which spell or ability can be affected (since clearly there is only one!).
But when I thought of your example being said in a room full of babies, it's quite obvious that you don't want me to change any diaper, but the diaper on the baby who's got a dirty one.  In the same way people (like me) need to read the text on a card knowing that it was written assuming there could be any number of targets in the room, and they need to be described as exactly as possible (no sense in changing a clean diaper, you want to change the dirty one).
If I said "change the diaper of that baby with the dirty diaper" would you remove the diaper of that baby, and replace it with a dirty diaper?


Yes.  Well, actually I'd just say, "Are you sure?"
(I'm only posting because I think I might have found the source of some of the confusion!)
And I think it's because in this scenario I imagine you, me, and a baby in a room.


There's more than one baby.

Look, it's as simple as this:

"Change ... with" if you apply the "with" to the "change" instead of the "..." can mean only one thing: "modify ... using".

e.g. "I'll change your face with a hammer."  I'm not going to trade in your face for the hammer.  I'm going to use the hammer, to $%^& up your face.  That'll change it, by golly.  As in "I'll change your face, using a hammer to do so."

"I'll change this hat with the feather" is ambiguous.  Perhaps I'm taking this hat with the feather, and doing something to it to change it.  Or, perhaps I'm taking this hat, and changing it with the feather.  The word "with" in this case can either be applied to "this hat" or to "change."  Both interpretations result in a meaningful sentence so you could argue the point here if you wanted.  It could either be "I'll change this hat, using the feather to do so," or it could be "I'll change this hat that has the feather."

"Change the target of target spell with a single target" on the other hand...applying the "with" to the "change" leads us to: "Modify the target of target spell, using a single target (to do so)" which doesn't mean anything!  It's gibberish!  Therefore the only logical interpretation of the ability is "Modify the target of target spell that has a single target."

"Exchange ... with" or "change ... to" can mean "swap ... for" but neither of those are what's printed on this sort of abilities.
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
Change the target of target spell or ability with a single target

The two interpretations as I mentioned earlier are...

Change [this]>{the target of target spell or ability} with [this]>{a single target} - incorrect interpretation
Change the target of [this]> {target spell or ability with a single target} - correct interpretation

the first interpretation happens because proper English uses exchange X with Y, but in colloquial English one often does say change X with Y with the same meaning (that is to swap them).

the second interpretation uses with to describe the target spell or ability that we're referring to for the preceding action.

Strictly speaking, if we accept that people colloquially use change with in place of exchange with whether they're right to do so or not, then the sentence formed by interpretation one is a valid read and it certainly could cause confusion if read that way. Can I exchange the target of a spell or ability with a single target? Certainly. Unfortunately, it leaves questions in the reader's mind, like that the OP asked.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

but in colloquial English one often does say change X with Y with the same meaning (that is to swap them).

[...]

Strictly speaking, if we accept that people colloquially use change with in place of exchange with whether they're right to do so or not


Who?  Who says that?  Aside from "change places with me" (and even in that case you're not exchanging "places" with "me", you're exchanging your place with my place) I never hear "change X with Y" used in that manner.  And if I did, I would certainly notice it because it doesn't even sound close to right.  "Trade X with Y" sure.  "Change X with Y"?  Not so much...
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
Wow this has been superbly entertaining.  I'm of the camp that believes the misinterpretation does not sound correct, even if it can be argued that it would be valid.

REALLY long story short:

When Willbender is turned face up, change the target of target spell or ability that has a single target.

"I have created many decks...but someone else has usually created it first...and better"
If I'm sideboarding in a match between games, I routinely change some cards from the deck with other cards in the sideboard. I use change with in place of exchange with all the time. I rarely hear the word exchange used except in bus exchange or money exchange or stock exchange.

I'd even go so far as to say the word exchange is going the way of the dodo, but apparently where you live it's alive and thriving.

edit: One other place I hear exchange used. When getting a refund, may I exchange this, please? is the polite way of getting your money back (or an alternate item).

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

That sounds so bad to me lol.

You're changing your deck by exchanging cards from your sideboard with cards in the deck.

But really our language is pretty broken even when it is perfect, so I'd venture to say policing the masses would be a futile fight.  We'll degrade ourselves back to grunting and pointing soon enough.

"I have created many decks...but someone else has usually created it first...and better"
Wow this has been superbly entertaining.  I'm of the camp that believes the misinterpretation does not sound correct, even if it can be argued that it would be valid.



I don't think the side anyone is on is really the point. The fact of the matter is, no matter how blue in the face someone may get arguing the contrary, there is a large segment of the population that consistently reads this card and others like it incorrectly. There are alternate wordings that would alleviate confusion, and I encourage WotC to use them.
 
Who?  Who says that?  Aside from "change places with me" (and even in that case you're not exchanging "places" with "me", you're exchanging your place with my place) I never hear "change X with Y" used in that manner.  And if I did, I would certainly notice it because it doesn't even sound close to right.  "Trade X with Y" sure.  "Change X with Y"?  Not so much...


Are you honestly asserting that if you haven't heard a particular colloquialism, it can't possibly be in use anywhere in the English-speaking world?
M:tG Rules Advisor
It's pretty clear if you know how they write targets.

Though i can't think of any way to rewite the ability to clear up this confusion.

If you have one, go to Rules issues and post a thread there. That forum was designed so we don't need to have these types of disscussions here.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Though i can't think of any way to rewite the ability to clear up this confusion.


It's already been suggested that using "that has" instead of "with" would remove any ambiguity.  As in:

Change the target of target spell that has a single target.

Personally, I don't see that there is any ambiguity, given an I.Q. over 50 and a little common sense.  Although as evidenced by cards such as Book Burning and the like, we can't expect everyone to have such traits, and so templating can be reworded to accomodate those people.  I don't think the current wording is unclear, but I would not be against making the change, either.  The only issue I can see with this wording would be that "that has" is slightly longer than "with" and it may interfere with some cards that already have too much text in their text box.  For example that's why Circu says "target library" -- the phrase "target player's library" just would not fit on the card without making the text unacceptably miniscule...
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!
It's pretty clear if you know how they write targets.

Though i can't think of any way to rewite the ability to clear up this confusion.

If you have one, go to Rules issues and post a thread there. That forum was designed so we don't need to have these types of disscussions here.

I put this is Rules Issues 6 months ago.

If I recall (though I may be wrong), it ended the same way, with Mr. IronMagus here assuming that anyone living in a different region he does, or having a different education background, must have no common sense and/or an IQ under 50.
 
I put this is Rules Issues 6 months ago.

If I recall (though I may be wrong), it ended the same way, with Mr. IronMagus here assuming that anyone living in a different region he does, or having a different education background, must have no common sense and/or an IQ under 50.
 


You mean this one?  I had no part in that discussion, thankyouverymuch.
MTG Rules Advisor since 2007-06-27. Amateur MTG rules nerd since forever. Download the official rules and more at wizards.com/magic/rules -[ IronMagus' New Marketplace Trade Thread ]- 100+ completed trades!

I have always been confused with the wording on card like Swerve too.

On a side note, has there ever been a card that can change the target of a spell even if it had more than one target?


I have always been confused with the wording on card like Swerve too.

On a side note, has there ever been a card that can change the target of a spell even if it had more than one target?




Yes: Goblin Flectomancer and Wild Ricochet.

It strikes me as odd that the standard template for those types of abilities has that "with a single target" restriction.
ok another question came to mind, im assuming no still tho, so what if Ricochet Trap were used on Incremental Blight. The trap does not say only one target like willbender, so could this change stuff around, im guessing no.

then also could you use this on something like Fireball? sort of same answer i think, if thats a no then could you if they only pick one target?

and one last question about the trap, this may seem like a really noob question but i thought id ask anyway: could you use it to redirect a enchanment like Boar Umbra for example? if you played the trap while the enchatment is on the stack then it would be a spell right? and this is the part im really not sure about: since the card does not specifically say "target" would it be valid since you do have to target a creature when you play it?

sorry about the length of this post.
Read the card.  Ricochet Trap can only be used on spells with a single target.  It doesn't work on Incremental Blight or on a Fireball (unless only one target is chosen, in which it would work).  It does work on Auras, since Aura spells have a single target (the object or player they Aura will enchant).
lol oh right wow missed that one my bad. thanks though lots of help! =0


Anybody knows how I can UNSUBSCRIBE from this Thread?



If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)