Will someone explain this please (Regarding Targeting)

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
He thinks that things that do not literally have the word target in it, are not considered targeting.

Example of what happened:

He thinks that when casting Harrow that the land that you sacifice as an aditional cost, is not targeted.

He also thinks that if someone has a Witchbane Orb or Ivory Mask out, that something that says "choose a player" isn't targeting the player

Or that Sacrifice a creature, that the creature isn't considered being targeted.

He says it has to actually have the word target on it to be considreed targeted.

I told him that anything that is selected is considered TARGETED even though the word target is not on the card.

He thinks that Choose an opponent and target opponent are two different things. When in fact Choosing IS TARGETING.


So what is considered targeted?

He is completely correct. 
114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.

If the card doesn't use the word 'target', or the rules text for the card's keywords don't use the word target (see: Aura spells and the Equip ability), then it doesn't target.

He is correct, Harrow does not target the land you sacrificed.

He is correct, 'choosing a player' is not the same as 'target player'.

In most cases, this is correct.  Diabolic Edict targets a player, not the creature that gets sacrificed.  If I sacrifice a creature to activate Skull Catapult, the sacrificed creature was never targetted.

He is right, you are wrong.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
He's right. Things only target if they use the word target in the ability text or in the rules for certain keywords and for aura spells.

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

So you're all saying that a card that says Choose an opponent, and a card that says TARGET opponent are not the same thing?

Explain how that's even possible when choosing an opponent IS for all intents puproses TARGETING the opponent.

I think everyone here should understand what targeting is considered.

You cannot have a specific thing chosen, not being targeted.

Unless the rules now for the game are so beyond screwed up now that everything is black and white.

So you're all saying that Choose an opponent and TARGET opponent are not the same thing?


Right.  They are different.


How is something specifically being chosen Under the rules text not actually targeting it?



The first reply to your question provided the relevent rule.
 
Explain how that's even possible when choosing an opponent IS for all  puproses TARGETING the opponent?

So your saying that even though I'm Choosing my opponent, which is actually targeting my opponent it's nto targeting?

It has to a target otherwise you cannot possibly have choposen anything.
When something is CHOSEN it is literally being targeted.
So you're all saying that Choose an opponent and TARGET opponent are not the same thing?

How is something specifically being chosen Under the rules text not actually targeting it?

Simple. There's nothing that says it is targeting, so it isn't.

You seem to have some very firm ideas about what "target" means, however, they come entirely from your own preconceptions and not from the actual rules of Magic. I strongly recommend setting them aside. At least in Magic, "target" does not mean "affect in any way whatsoever", or even "single out". It is a very specific term of art that applies to Aura spells on the stack, spells and abilities that specifically use the word "target", and a few specific keywords, and nothing else.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Explain how that's even possible when choosing an opponent IS for all intents puproses TARGETING the opponent.?

So your saying that even though i'm Choosing my opponent, which is actually targeting my opponent it's nto targeting?

It has to a target otherwise you cannot possibly have choposen anything.
When something is CHOSEN it is literally being targeted.



No.  Only if it says "target" is it literally being targeted.  Choosing is not targeting in Magic.  Perhaps you have some experience with another game where the two are synonymous, but in MtG choose and target are not the same thing.
 
Explain how that's even possible when choosing an opponent IS for all intents puproses TARGETING the opponent.?

So your saying that even though i'm Choosing my opponent, which is actually targeting my opponent it's nto targeting?

It has to a target otherwise you cannot possibly have choposen anything.
When something is CHOSEN it is literally being targeted.


Repeating the same questions from your previous post, in mostly the same words even, isn't going to change the answer. If there's a specific point you don't understand, ask a question that (a) focusses on that specific point instead of being vague, and (b) doesn't contain obnoxious declarations like "It has to a target otherwise you cannot possibly have choposen [sic] anything" that may be true in your personal definition of "target", but that have nothing to do with the Magic rules.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
.
No.  Only if it says "target" is it literally being targeted.  Choosing is not targeting in Magic.  Perhaps you have some experience with another game where the two are synonymous, but in MtG choose and target are not the same thing.
 



Sorry, but chosing something, or anything chosen is considered targeted. I select a forest to be sacrificed, that forest has targeted to be sacrificed.

If this is not true, then the word "TARGET" in magic the gathering DOES NOT EXIST because if the term choosing actually doesn't target something despite it being selected, then nothing in magic is targetable or ignores the word target.



dictionary.reference.com/browse/targetab...


Verb phrase
verb (used with object)
11.
to use, set up, or designate as a target or goal.



14.

target (in) on, to establish or use as a target or goal: The club is targeting on September for the move to larger quarters.

Both define something being used as TARGETED.

The rules of the game clearly define what it means to target something.

Cyphern directly quoted the relevant rule, from the official rules document.

Whether you agree with it or not, that IS the rule.  You are wrong.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


No.  Only if it says "target" is it literally being targeted.  Choosing is not targeting in Magic.  Perhaps you have some experience with another game where the two are synonymous, but in MtG choose and target are not the same thing.

Sorry, but chosing something, or anything chosen is considered targeted. I select a forest to be sacrificed, that forest has targeted to be sacrificed.

If this is not true, then the word "TARGET" in magic the gathering DOES NOT EXIST because if the term choosing actually doesn't target something despite it being selected, then nothing in magic is targetable or ignores the word target.


dictionary.reference.com/browse/targetab...


Verb phrase




verb (used with object)

11.

to use, set up, or designate as a target or goal.




14.


target (in) on, to establish or use as a target or goal: The club is targeting on September for the move to larger quarters.

Both of these definitions define something being used, selected, chosen etc... as being TARGETED.

So all of you here are wrong ANYTHING SELECTED is actually targted.

If nothing is targeted, then nothing can be chosen.

If all my creatures have shroud, and someone casts Diabolic Edict, I cannot sacrifice anything because Diabolic edict targets me, but I then have to TARGET one of my creatures to be sacrificed, which none cannot be because they all have shroud, so nothing happens because the resolution of the spell cannot have the creature selected to go to the graveyard.


In order for a creature to go to the graveyard, it has to be selected which means it's been targeted. If it's not slected then nothing can happen.
Magic, however, does not, and you are playing Magic.  Therefore, you use Magic's definition for everything involved in gameplay.

When you tap a card, do you turn it sideways, or do you lightly poke it with your finger?

Magic used to use the word 'bury' as an action.  Would you take the card in your backyard, dig a hole, drop the card in, and cover it?  When a card is destroyed, do you rip it up or set it on fire?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


Sorry, but chosing something, or anything chosen is considered targeted. I select a forest to be sacrificed, that forest has targeted to be sacrificed.


Just plain false. The relevant rules have been quoted. "Target" in Magic does not mean what you insist it means.

If this is not true, then the word "TARGET" in magic the gathering DOES NOT EXIST because if the term choosing actually doesn't target something despite it being selected, then nothing in magic is targetable or ignores the word target.

That's.... pretty breathtaking. Nothing short of delusional, in fact. Anyone literate can verify just by looking at any of several cards that the word "target" in Magic does, in fact, exist.

You made a mistake about what it means, which you should bloody well get over because you're making a complete fool of yourself; that is ALL that is going on here.

Verb
phrase


verb (used with object)

11.

to use, set up, or designate as a target or goal.




14.


target (in) on, to establish or use as a target or goal: The club is targeting on September for the move to larger quarters.

Both define something being used as TARGETED.

The dictionary is not a Magic rulebook. Like almost ALL games, Magic uses some words in non-standard ways. But even setting that aside, if you calm down and READ and THINK about the definitions given here, they don't actually lend any support to your position, not least because they depend on the noun "target" to have any meaning at all.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
None of you explained how something chosen, has not been targeted.

If all my creatures have shroud, and someone casts Diabolic Edict, I cannot sacrifice anything because Diabolic edict targets me, but I then have to TARGET one of my creatures to be sacrificed, which none cannot be because they all have shroud, so nothing happens because the resolution of the spell cannot have the creature selected to go to the graveyard.


In order for a creature to go to the graveyard, it has to be selected which means it's been targeted. If it's not slected then nothing can happen.


Also you're all going to seriously try and say that  The land Vesuva isn't targeting a land to copy when it comes into play?

If it isn't targeting then how is it copying it?
So, by your logic, a card can only be 'flying' if it's in the air? And when you Murder a creature, you physically destroy the card?

Magic has it's own definition for some of the words it uses. Something only targets if it uses the word 'target' in its Gatherer text or rule text for that ability. "Choosing" does not mean "targeting".

EDIT:

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.



Which part of this rule is confusing? It states it fairly clearly.

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

So, by your logic, a card can only be 'flying' if it's in the air? And when you Murder a creature, you physically destroy the card?

Magic has it's own definition for some of the words it uses. Something only targets if it uses the word 'target' in its Gatherer text or rule text for that ability. "Choosing" does not mean "targeting".

EDIT:

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.



Which part of this rule is confusing? It states it fairly clearly.



Rules state for flying that a creature has to have flying and this is not the same thing.

A choice is still considered being targeted because if it doesn't, it cannot have any effect.
I think what is needed here is a reason that the two are separate, and one of the main things I can think of would be for something like which involves the protection keyword.  For example, enchanting a creature with Black Ward gives it protection from black, meaning it cannot be the target of Black spells or abilities.  Now, if you play Chainer's Edict, even if the creature has Black Ward on it, the player may sacrifice the creature, and the ward doesn't prevent it because it is chosen by the target player.  Means the spell is not targetting the creature directly, the ward has does not protect it.  At the same time, if you have a creature with protection from red, say Abbey Gargoyles, you could still play An-Zerrin Ruins and choose gargoyle as the creature type and it would effect the Abbey Gargoyles because the enchantment is not targetting the creature directly, it is chosen to effect it's creature type. 
At the same time, if you have a creature with protection from red, say Abbey Gargoyles , you could still play An-Zerrin Ruins and choose gargoyle as the creature type and it would effect the Abbey Gargoyles because the enchantment is not targetting the creature directly, it is chosen to effect it's creature type.



This is not the same thing. No one here gets what i'm talking about so I'll make this simple:

If I select a forest on the table FOR ANYTHING IT IS TARGETED PERIOD.. If I do not target the forest is cannot be selected.

Something cannot be selecetd/CHOSEN, and not be target. it's impossible.

You cannot chose ANYTHING WITHOUT IT BEING TARGTED.

As soon as ANYTHING is SELECTED IT HAS NOW BECOME TARGETED FOR SELECTION.
None of you explained how something chosen, has not been targeted.

It's been explained many times.


  • First of all, you're wrong about normal English usage and your own inept attempt at the tiresome "argument by dictonary" tactic proves it.

  • Second and more importantly, Magic has a definition of the term "target", just as almost any game has words that it defines in ways that don't necessarily line up with normal English usage. That definition is very clear and simple and you would have no trouble understanding it if you weren't clinging to your preconceptions about the word from other sources as though your life depended on them.

  • That definition does not state, imply, or in any way have the result that choosing is targeting. Moreover, the rulebook even has a passage stating in the clearest possible language that this is NOT the case, just to make this clear to people like you.


There is one (1), count 'em, ONE authoritative source on what the Magic rules are. That source is the Comprehensive Rulebook. Any argument you make needs to be based on what that actually says, not on your personal opinions of what it should say. If you refuse to believe the rulebook, there's no reason to have this conversation with you.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
This is not the same thing. No one here gets what i'm talking about



We understand exactly what you're saying.  And what you're saying is absolutely, objectively, provably (and proven, multiple times) to be WRONG.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
At the same time, if you have a creature with protection from red, say Abbey Gargoyles , you could still play An-Zerrin Ruins and choose gargoyle as the creature type and it would effect the Abbey Gargoyles because the enchantment is not targetting the creature directly, it is chosen to effect it's creature type.



This is not the same thing. No one here gets what i'm talking about so I'll make this simple:

If I select a forest on the table FOR ANYTHING IT IS TARGETED PERIOD.. If I do not target the forest is cannot be selected.

Something cannot be selecetd/CHOSEN, and not be target. it's impossible.

You cannot chose ANYTHING WITHOUT IT BEING TARGTED.

As soon as ANYTHING is SELECTED IT HAS NOW BECOME TARGETED FOR SELECTION.

We get it just fine. You insist that any time you choose something, you are targeting it. You have asserted this about a dozen times now.

Where you got that idea, however, is indeed unclear. Relax for a few hours and come back and re-read this in a calmer mood and I really think even you will see why. Even if you're talking about normal English usage, this is pure nonsense. If I choose to order a burger for dinner, I have not targeted it. No-one in their right mind would say that. It's just bizarre.

If you're taking about the Magic rules, it's nonsense on stilts. You don't get to rewrite the Comprehensive Rulebook just because you don't like what it says.

Now, if you have a reasoned argument for why the actual text of the comprules, not your imagined version of it, should be interpreted your way, make it. If (somewhat more plausibly) you have such an argument for why it should be changed, you're welcome to make that as well.

What is not welcome, though, is repeatedly asserting your idea, with zilch in the way of supporting argument, refusing to seriously engage with anyone else, plugging your ears and going "wahhh wahhh wahhh" and just generally behaving like a petulant child.

That goes double for going "nobody understands me!" when it's plain that most of your interlocutors understand you just fine, and what's not clear is whether YOU understand a single word WE are saying. I'm willing to bet you've read less than half of what's been said in response to you, and understood less than half of that. If anyone could justifiably whine about a lack of understanding here, it's the rest of us.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
If all my creatures have shroud, and someone casts Diabolic Edict, I cannot sacrifice anything because Diabolic edict targets me, but I then have to TARGET one of my creatures to be sacrificed, which none cannot be because they all have shroud, so nothing happens because the resolution of the spell cannot have the creature selected to go to the graveyard.



False.  The spell targets you, not your creatures.  It's the same way a creature with Protection from everything can still be sacrificed or destroyed by things that do not target it directly, eg. Wrath of God
Time to lock the thread maybe? :P

Rules Advisor

The Basic rulebook, read it! A lot of basic questions are answered there!

How to autocard :
Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus.
Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One.

Anyone literate can verify just by looking at any of several cards that the word "target" in Magic does, in fact, exist.

Hum, I don't like this «proof».
I can write the word «Dragon» on a piece of paper; that doesn't mean dragons exist!

Words are nothing but (very!) usefull ideas human beings have invented to communicate (or to meditate). 
They don't actually exist.
All that exist is matter and energy; anything else is a figment of our imagination. 

TARGET, like any other word, is nothing but pixels on a screen or ink blots on a card or sound waves our mouths emit.
Our imagination may grant those blots some meaning, but this happens only inside our minds,
under the form of energy patterns between our brain cells. 

The ink blots exist;
Our brain cells exist;
The energy between our brain cells exist.   

But «target» does not.   

Proof?
«Show me target» is an impossible task.
All we can do is show an object, which our minds has designated as «target».
(I admit this is not an ironclad proof, but still an adequate indication of possible nonexistency)


  

That being said, Cookedeye is totally wrong, of course:
when playing Magic, many words must be used according to some specific game definition,
different from the Dictionary, and «target» is one of them!

Wizards of the Coast: outsourced to Elbonia

Time to lock the thread maybe? :P

Like all enforcements, locking the Thread should be reserved for the most severe cases.
All we have to do here is stop responding. Easy enough?  

Wizards of the Coast: outsourced to Elbonia

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct


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.

He says it has to actually have the word target on it to be considreed targeted.

well this is about the only thing that he was wrong about (and that's a real nitpicky point to boot)

aura spells target and they don't say target on them (but it does say so in the rules)

likewise the equip ability targets, but it isn't always written on the card though it does say it targets in the rules.

Regardless of what one might think the word target means in English, that definition is irrelevant to the usage of the word target in Magic.

Many words have special meaning in Magic, target is one of them. Choose is not one of them.

Something must be chosen to be targeted, but the inverse is not necessarily true.

Just like "a horse has 4 legs" does not imply that all animals with 4 legs are horses.

To target requires choosing, but choosing doesn't require targeting.

That's the logic of it. The rules have been posted. End of argument.



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

The word "target" has a very narrow meaning in the Magic game rules.

A spell or ability uses the word "target" when we want to lock in what the spell or ability will affect as it's put onto the stack. All players then have access to that information when deciding whether to respond to that spell or ability.

The rules for Auras say that an Aura spell targets the object or player it will be attached to. The rules for the equip ability say that ability targets the creature it will be attached to. Everything else that targets uses the word "target" in its rules text (or reminder text).

Choices made as a spell or ability resolve do not use the word "target." Those choices are made as the spell or ability resolves, and players don't have time to react to them.

Certain categories of rules text can never use the word "target." Examples include additional costs (such as the first paragraph on Harrow and the trigger condition of a triggered ability.

Del Laugel

Editing manager, Magic TCG

Why are people still replying to this thread? His question was answered right away and he has never posted anything since besides re-stating his question and ignoring the given factual answer.

If he doesn't get it by now, it won't happen, though it is more likely he is trolling. In either case there is no reason to post again until a new questions arises.
I'm hoping he shows up and admits that he was wrong, so he will play the game correctly in the future.

Alternately, I'm hoping he goes to a sanctioned tournament with an official judge, tries this, and gets thrown out on his ear.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Since the question has been asnwered multiple times and the thread is turning sour, I am going to lock this for review.


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.

We should all take this time to review the Code of Conduct, found here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Sign In to post comments