DDR

[@mrphlip]

Suppose if Amy cast the Kozilek's Command for the first and fourth modes, and then for the "up to X target cards", chose to target zero cards. Sure, unlikely in practice, but it's a legal option. Would it then be a legal target for Misdirection?

[@edde2429]

I believe it does work if you choose no targets for the fourth ability

[@jyrinx]

@@edde2429Yeah, the CR on screen at 2:01 says it counts the number of times something was chosen as a target when the thing was put on the stack. So if you didn't choose anything for that mode, it's as if the mode were printed to have zero targets. (This surprised me a bit since it's different from things like whether an ability is a mana ability, which cares only about the text of the ability itself and not the circumstances of its activation.)

[@jerodast]

@@jyrinx Interesting point - I think the key is some circumstances are more related to the "platonic ideal" of the ability than others. Specifically, as he pointed out, Judge Dave's example certainly DOESN'T care about the actual choice or validity of targets - things on the board. It DOES care about modes chosen and amount of targets chosen. In other words, it cares about well-defined key choices. What you made me realize is those choices are NEVER PRESENT for mana abilities! Targets are absent by rule, and no modal activated ability has ever added mana!

[@jerodast]

@@jyrinx I would imagine, if they DID print an activated ability where only one mode added mana, they would add a clause about modes to the definition of mana ability. I doubt anyone would feel good about "I chose this mode that never adds mana, but it's still a mana ability." Part of the reason they don't want to consider all circumstances of the game to decide if something's a mana ability is IT CAN GET REALLY COMPLEX to do that. But knowing if someone chose one mode or another? Pretty rigidly defined process for that.

[@scionsword5]

@@jerodast There are actually three mana abilities that target players! Bigger on the Inside; Jetfire, Ingenious Scientist; and Mad Science Fair Project all add mana to target player's mana pool :)

[@Flyboy245]

Always feels good getting a medium difficulty question right

[@jerodast]

Nice. I guessed right based on "if it says target three times, you are making three INDEPENDENT choices of targets which may or may not be the same", aka the Bounty of Might principle, but then I started second guessing because heck, I've never seen a situation where the number of targets was at issue, and there could well be a little rule defining the "intuitive" answer that there's only one target if only one object was ever picked... I like the "if one of two targets is invalid, it still has two targets" reference point since that seems very natural to me, and the final conclusion feels like it follows more clearly from that perspective.

[@alexanderkraken7920]

And that's why Wyll's Reversal is a hidden gem on Legacy

[@WangerZ3291]

i knew it wouldn't be possible as kozilek's command uses multiple instances of "target" on the card

[@lucasriddle3431]

The fact that an 'illegal target' is still considered a target makes sense when considering that a spell only really cares about the legality of its targets at two points in time: 1. When the target/s are selected and 2. When the spell resolves.

[@williamdrum9899]

I think Wizards should use bold text for what a target is. Counter *target blue spell* Counter *target spell* if it's blue.

[@jerodast]

Mmm I don't hate that idea. I feel it's usually clear enough from reading, but some of the weird exceptions sometimes catch people out, and it seems like a great way to emphasize one of the most important beginner-to-intermediate rules concepts (targets, how do they work) to players.

[@jerodast]

I always ask myself "there's got to be some way to indicate on the card that part of it can resolve even if targets become invalid." My best thought so far had been putting some form of the the word "un-fizzle-able" somewhere in the text :) But maybe some kind of special formatting for the relevant text plus an icon could do the job...

[@GreatWhiteElf]

I always assumed misdirection forced you to choose a single target, not restrict what spells could be targeted. The wording of the card could maybe be a bit clearer

[@jordanburton9819]

The spell that you’re targeting is the spell that can only have a single target. There are plenty of spells that target multiple things or do not target at all. Thats why the wording is so specific. To me Misdirection is a little on the confusing/clunky side as it’s an older card.

[@jerodast]

The key is the word "with". "With" would never be used for what targets you must choose, they would use "to", like "change the target [of some spell] to the enchanted creature/to Spellskite" (Captured by the Consulate/Spellskite). Whereas "with" is often used to provide further description to an object already referred to, like it referring to "a spell" then following up with more detail about that spell with "with".

[@idjles]

wow, you finally met Amy!!

[@ChuggaChoo]

I hope they continue modals with multiple targeting, my Hinata Deck needs more tools.

[@Magnivore519]

What if Misdirection was replaced with Deflecting Swat?

[@mikaeus468]

Then the anti-fizzle design backfires, and you get to retarget both modes. You still can't choose the modes, sadly. I just hope wizards doesn't start using "Target player that is you"

[@jerodast]

@@mikaeus468 Yeah there's got to be a better way to make spells anti-fizzle. I'd rather it just say "this doesn't fizzle" haha.

[@mikaeus468]

@@jerodast I think Guilded Drake's errata text actually says that

[@MathisGries]

Speaking of targeting shenanigans, what if Amy casts Go For The Throat on Wilson, Refined Grizzly, and then I Misdirect it and the target is still Wilson because there are no other legal targets. Will Ward trigger a second and does Amy have to pay twice to not have the spell countered?

[@JasonOshinko]

I don't think ward would trigger again. There is never a point where it stops being the target and then becomes targeted again. It should work if you change the target to a different creature with ward though.

[@abrahamdrinkin2534]

Judge Dave I have a question about Niv Mizzet Visionary Amy has a Niv Mizzet Visionary in play. She casts lighting bolt targeting Nick. Niv triggers cause she dealt damage. Is it one trigger to draw 3 or 3 triggers to draw 1 card? Furthermore, how can one tell the difference between effects like this to know if it’s a single trigger vs many triggers for each instance of an effect being triggered?

[@ericbarr734]

1 trigger to draw 3 cards. It says "draw that many cards". "that many" is 3. I don't know of any templating that takes a single damage instance and splits it into multiple triggers. I don't know if that exists

[@abrahamdrinkin2534]

@@ericbarr734So if you’re playing commander, and play Boltwave, damage happened simultaneously so it’s 1 trigger to draw 9?

[@ericbarr734]

@@abrahamdrinkin2534 no that's 3 damage instances. So 3 triggers to draw 3. "a source you control deals noncombat damage to an opponent" happened 3 times (once to each opponent) so there are 3 triggers. But it didn't do the damage one at a time, each did 3. So the "draw that many cards" is 3 cards. If one of your opponents took normal damage, one was taking double damage (The Countdown Is One), and another prevented one damage (Abuna Acolyte) you'd draw 3, then 6, then 2 (stacked however you wanted).

[@abrahamdrinkin2534]

@@ericbarr734Thanks for you help.

[@sablesalt]

For someone who understands most of these beforehand this was surprising, I read both and figured something odd was going on due to "single target" and assumed it would only be an issue if kozileks command targeted a play and a permanent but since a player couldn't change both legally to any given single target. This is very useful info as it falls in an odd deadzone of information that comes up decently often but isn't something common enough to be able to reliably just ask another player about and get a functional or accurate answer.