For a creature to be targeted, does the spell have to explicitly say "target"? If I have to sacrifice a creature to cast a spell, would you technically be targeting it?
Also, ITT: Annoying Semantics of MTG
>>48178602
Sacrificing a creature as part of the cost of an activated abilitiy doesn't count as targeting that creature for the same reason you're not targeting a land when you tap it for mana. Targeting something only happens as part of the effect of a spell or ability trigger, never as part of the cost, and the card will always tell you if you need to pick targets.
>>48178602
>Annoying Semantics of MTG
how is it confusing or annoying that you ONLY TARGET when it actually SAYS TARGET you fucking retard
>>48178602
A spell or ability "targets" if the official game text for that spell or ability use the word "target". If it doesn't say "target", then it doesn't target.
Example. Bone Splinters says
>As an additional cost to cast Bone Splinters, sacrifice a creature.
>Destroy target creature.
The creature you sacrifice isn't targeted. The creature you want to destroy is targeted because that part of the card says "target".
>>48179429
Nah man, I'm pretty sure Magic rulings are all based on interpretations and intent. There certain'y isn't a specific language built up over the years that expressly and literally spells out every single remotely common interaction.
>>48179429
u mad bro
>>48178602
>For a creature to be targeted, does the spell have to explicitly say "target"? If I have to sacrifice a creature to cast a spell, would you technically be targeting it?
yes. it has to say the word target. this is not annoying or confusing
Yes. That is why this lion can bounce your own creatures with shroud, such as calciderm.
>>48178602
And before you ask, "copies" of spells aren't "cast."
>>48179429
This is something that I think confuses alot of noobs, even though it is actually really simple and straightforward. They overthink the whole thing too much and don't understand that Magic cards are entirely well defined and literal in their meaning, so they think there must be hidden rules that make the words on the card mean something different. Once it's explained to them that you read Magic cards the same way you would read a scientific formula or a legal document, and that basically nothing is left open for interpretation or semantic argument, these kinds of questions stop happening
>>48186039
I would blame YuGiOh for this. The monster effects are so poorly defined and rely on knowledge of the card wording that you HAVE to read errata to figure out.
>If BLANK happens you may do BLANK
>When BLANK happens you may do BLANK
That seemingly innocuous difference in wording makes a MASSIVE difference in how the card works and can either make or break a combo.
>>48186039
Teaching my wife to play, she still does the whole "my creature attacks your creature" and "you can't target this, it's mine" stuff. It's cute and tolerable when she does it but goddamn when I play some rando at the lgs with some $400 modern deck and he starts bitchin like OP I try so hard not to flip the table. I tell them both the same thing, though: Read the card. Literally.
This isn't yugioh, OP, the cards aren't designed by retards
>>48180664
The rules are literally maintained by a lawyer, 100% independently from the R&D and design teams.
>>48179429
So I could technically activate something in response to pic to boost a creatures toughness for the extra card.
>>48189029
I believe that's an example of an "intervening if" clause. So if you have an ability like that that needs a certain condition to be met, it won't trigger unless it is actually met. So no, you wouldn't be able to boost during your upkeep to draw another card
>>48186039
>massive detailed infographic
>glaring typo four words in
WEW LADS
