Okay, t first I thought "isn't this kind of a dumb thing to explain? It's right there in the card if it says target, it targets otherwise it doesn't" But I actually learned something here, I didn't know that when a card DOESN'T target, that the choice of which card(s) the effect will fall on is decided after the card resolves, so at that point, they can't be responded to. That's actually an extremely important little detail. Thank you.
That's pretty important to know, but if you go back and read old card text from the stone age days of yugioh, you'll very quickly realize what audience this is for lol. Old card text was dreadful.
there's a reason why targeting only ever happens as part of the _cost_ of an effect the cost is the only part of the effect you can respond to. otherwise, the chain has been locked and the only thing left to do is resolve it
@@hi-i-am-atan Oh! You re right, I hadn't actually ever considered targeting as a cost, but it is. This just opened my mind in terms of analyzing card effects.
I can't count how many headaches I got trying to explain that before PSCT. Trying to explain at the time that Magical Dimension does not target (because you chose the monster to destroy during resolution) and can't be responded by Stardust Dragon (because destroying a monster is not guaranteed at activation), and missed the timing for their Bottomless Trap Hole once I destroyed the card was a nightmare. No matter how many times I explained to them, they just wouldn't get it. They just couldn't believe this never used card could just get around the most popular cards at the time (which was the very reason I used it in the first place).
Brymal I learned about this particular variant of non-targeting from playing D/D/Ds in duel links: specifically when using pendragons back row removal effect.
Cards that says target: Enemy Controller Cards that dont target: Trishula Dragon of ice barrier Cards that are immune to being targetted by card effects: Obelisk Cards that are immune to card effects in general: Ultimate Falcon Cards that have wording of both: Vennominaga
Its mostly because Konami is retarded and doesn't understand if you choose which card it effects you're targeting that 1 card. But a piss poor wording of cards is a loophole of a card thats obviously targeting 1 specific card but doesn't because they left out 1 word in the effect.
You know attention seeking comments like this really trigger. It's not only logical but smart (that's why we teach it to children) to question an "authority" about rulings. Dzeef would not be offended because he isn't the Emporer of YuGiOh and clearly likes to help others. Countless times people have been confident in saying how something works and that confidence alone wins over people gullible enough to just mindlessly believe it. (We won't get into religion) Language has been built over thousands of years and English specifically has many rules and some stand outs that break the rules for a specific reason. If you in anyway interact with a SINGLE chosen card then you by definition are targeting it, there must be a target from your "choice". Not oppinion, no discussion or debate, it's language FACT. That is why there are SO MANY ruling questions. Then degenerates like you come along and try to "act" cool but in reality don't know anything and likely a basement dweller. Keep your smart mouth to your lonely self while adults to try to discuss how to potentially make the rulings clearer for not only new players but also veterans that still to this day have issues.
The “Can not be targeted” effect works about the same in Magic: The Gathering. Board whipes and stuff that forces your opponent to sacrifice don’t count as targeting.
one of the biggest differences is in Magic almost ever single target or choose a few targets effect is a targeted ability, while in yugioh, it really just comes down to whether it says target on the card, even for some single target effects. Magic does have forced sacrifice effects though which similarly don't target, since it's usually the opponent that has to choose what to sacrifice. But yeah anything that says "all" in any card game is pretty likely to not count as targeted.
suddenllybah That’s interesting. Stuff like Ranger’s Guile and Heroic Intervention are my favorite. I like Leyline of Sanctity too because it turns off burn and hand disruption decks.
@@cadenchampion3244 Yeah, I think MTG is a bit more clearly designed, because it makes it clear that target legality is checked while casting and while resolving, with targets checks only during casting are clearly said. As an counter example, some face down S/T removal still works if you activate the card in response, and others don't.
The entire problem with targeting and non targeting effects is that you get non targeting effects that affect a single card, or a target. It is 100% understandable why people will get confused with this because it makes logical sense. The way to avoid this would be to have another name for this that wasn't "target". If you point at the one thing that your card is affecting then naturally you'd say that is the target of the card. It is intuitive to say that all targeting and non targeting cards that hit a single card target because it makes sense in any situation outside of Yugioh. tl;dr: Language gets in the way of comprehending targeting and a better phrase should represent the mechanics.
I think its 100% fine the way it is lol. The overwhelming vast majority of players have no issues with this concept. No need to make it even more confusing for new players.
I feel like the real gap in some people's knowledge is the difference between Activation and Resolution. That's the common thread connecting people not knowing how costs work, not waiting for the opponent to pick their targets before chaining their backrow, and not playing around tiramisu/dingirsu/spellbook of fate/any other card where the opponent makes a choice at resolution rather than targeting at the activation.
New theory: An alternative reality that occasionally crosses paths with our own. When this happens, a few of the people from our universe move over to their's and we gain some. The people from our universe also happen to watch that universe's Dzeeff and are confused. This is why these people exist.
That can in theory matter. Let’s say you had broken bamboo sword and golden bamboo sword, and the only monster in play is your opponent’s ultimate falcon, then you can equip their ultimate falcon with the broken sword to allow you to use the golden sword to draw two cards. However, if the monster your opponent had was Venominaga deity of poisonous snakes, who is the only card I know that is unaffected and untargetable, in which case you would have nowhere to place your swords.
chompyzilla i think ultimate falcon has the same interaction with icarus attack. I just thought it was funny cause i was being headass about and saying you can’t do anything to it. He picked up my card and said it can be targeted basically. Tbh I don’t know why. He didn’t do anything with that info.
I can’t find a specific ruling, but as far as I can tell, placing a counter on a card is considered to be affecting it, and thus cannot be done to ultimate falcon.
If you had Gizmek Orochi on the field, could you target it with Gizmek to banish 3 cards from your extra deck (and not destroy it), then summon Gren Maju and beat over it?
I think a big part that is missing is the difference between "it/them" vs. "that target/those targets" "it/them" means that the target does not have to meet the requirements (i.e. being a face-up card) anymore on resolution, whereas "that/those targets" means exactly that (so that you can i.e. dodge an effect that targets a face up card and says "destroy that target" with book of moon)
I remember a time before PSCT and me and my friends learning the game. We did look up wether certain cards targeted so many times, because there really was no clear way of telling (or at least we didn't see one). PSCT is the best thing that has ever happened to yugioh!
Two big ways to know if a card targets not mentioned: 1: If it's a board wipe, it doesn't target. 2: Test it in one of the official video games, preferably the most recent one, which at this time is Legacy of the Duelist Link Evolution. Since the rulings are done via AI, they won't get it wrong unless Konami screwed up. It's also helpful for any other rulings you might have questions about, like missing the timing.
Really old cards sometimes say “select” and it’s considered targeting, or you have wonderfully old cards that don’t have any text relating to targeting or selecting and yet it still targets
Chain blocking means when you resolve a card(s) u have 1 or more card to resolve at same time so u can make chain of it The simplest example is when u send Halqlifibrax and O' Lion to summon Auradon Auroradon and O'Lion are optional effect and u can make Auroradon chain 1 and O'Lion chain 2 thus chainblocking so your Auroradon cannot be negated, say, by opponent's Gamma
I don't play YGO, but it seems like using the Faerie Dragon effect in Hearthstone is a good example to explain how targeting works. Faerie Dragon is immune to cards like fireball or assassinate because they require you to drag the arrow to apply the effect of the spell to Faerie Dragon, which asks like having to target him. But he can still be killed with spells like flame canon or twisting nether since you don't have to drag the arrow onto Faerie Dragon to apply the effect of the spell, it does it by itself. Obviously there are more cards that don't translate well from HS to YGO to help explain every example of targeting, but it seems like a decent basic example to help people understand.
Yeah, one slight problem with "If it says target it targets". Target wasn't a word until Zexal and plenty of older cards that haven't been reprinted since Generation Force are still confusing on that regard.
As I mentioned in the video, "plenty of cards" is a bit of a stretch. We're talking about like 20 or so useless cards that haven't seen play in years (and in most cases, ever).
@@Dzeeff Fair enough. I will say checking on erratas of older cards has actually saved my neck from getting DQ'd once, the case being Dark End Dragon whose original print did not mention the word select (as it was printed during 5D's).
I still remember that player who was screaming because I banished his untargetable monster (I think it was Lunalight Leo Dancer ?) with Trishula. He was all like "WHEN YOU HAVE TO PICK A CARD IT MEANS YOU TARGET !" ... No, dude, targeting is a mechanic. It's written on the cards, otherwise it doesn't target.
As a magic player, targeting is mostly simple to me. What isn't as simple is the effects that essentially target, but don't say target, such as dingersu or the tiramisu. Mind you, that's because the only effects similer to those 2 in mtg to my knowledge are clone effects, and the card council's judgement. (A card that I still am surprised doesn't target)
Nice explanation. I don't understand why people think things like Dark Hole target (I am hopeful that this is a thing of the past these days). If it did, i assume that at this point it would read something like: "Target as many monster cards on the field as you can, and destroy them".
Not a Yugioh player but a MTG player, and it is interesting that targeting works the same way in both games. If spell has targets those are declared as the spell is cast and put on the stack and can be responded to, but if says something like "choose" then that is picked during spell resolution and cant be responded to.
I think this is the kind of thing where people who do not feel confident in their understanding of the game (typically new players) will assume that something is more complicated than it is. Telling whether or not a card targets is really easy, but they feel like it's not supposed to be that easy. I would be interested in seeing a different video on activated effects. In general, I think it can be tricky for people to grasp the difference between what is done on activation of a card or effect, and what is done on resolution. See... any and every ruling question about Predaplant Verte Anaconda for examples of such confusion.
I agree with that, targeting is really important to learn, cause like the god cards, their effects only last during the turn that they're summoned, so after you passed the turn to your opponent, the effect wears off. I also stress that it's important to learn chaining of effects too.
With all due respect, I'm not really sure which effects you're referring to when you say "their effects only last during the turn they're summoned." I think you may be a little confused about how they work
You know WHY it is confusing?? It's exactly because like you say Cosmic Fortress Gol'Gar apparently DOES target even though it doesn't say target but cards like Ignister Prominence, the Blasting Dracoslayer does NOT target even though you have to select a card to be shuffled away, it's not random. I'm sure if Gol'Gar was ever reprinted it would say to target 1 card on the field to destroy it but I just can't understand how the action of selecting a card for an effect does NOT count as targeting it just because the text doesn't specifically say "Target". It's a dumb power creep method that doesn't make sense. The Worst offender is Ryko, Lightsworn Hunter. In it's history it was a card that "Targets" and rightfully so...because it SHOULD but now due to the updated text, it again does NOT target apparently even though it works basically 👏EXACTLY👏 the same👏as Man Eater Bug!!! which does target. If you are the type of person that says "it's not confusing, just read the cards" then you are just jumping on a band wagon because I can almost guarantee that you are just going by what other people say vs actually trying to understand the mechanic.
"Select doesn't always mean target but sometimes it does" I can already see the endless argument that I'm going to have with my brother as soon as we follow the targeting/non targeting rule.
Wild that there's not any real reason targeting always happens at activation, they could totally print a card that said "Discard 1 card; target up to 2 Spell/Trap cards on the field, then destroy them." and it would be consistent with the rules. Konami probably wouldn't do this since so many people already get confused as it is, but still.
It is still confusing cause when u resolve u still can target So u cannot actually activate this effect if Dark Magician the Dragon Knight is on the field
Next video idea for YGO 101: the difference between destroying a monster/card and negating it's effect. Plenty of times, I've activated a card and then my opponent activates something like MST not understanding that you destroying the card isn't going to negate the effect.
New mechanic idea: Cross Cards: Extra Deck Spells/Traps They have very specific conditions in order to be played directly from the Extra Deck (banish two cards with X effect from the Hand or Field facedown). You can only use one Cross Card per turn, but Cross Cards are not considered Spells or Traps, as such cards that specifically negate those cannot negate Cross Cards. They are MUCH more powerful than spells/traps, but the conditions for using them plus the cards taking up space in the Extra Deck balances them out nicely. It would also make players have to consider whether to have Extra Deck Monsters or Extra Deck Cross Cards. Example: banish facedown two cards which allow you to draw a card(s) from your deck to activate a Cross Card that allows you to draw 3 cards. The cross card banishes itself facedown afterwards.
I think the biggest issue with targeting for me, was cards like Ding and Tiramisu, in which my opponent selects my cards. It's this thing where my brain is translating the word target, due to my opponent having the full choice of card and it's a singular card as opposed to board wipes or responses like Catastor.
Can you cover "cost" effects? I don't understand how something like Magicians' Souls can't be Ashed. Also why is destroy/send to the graveyard not the same thing but remove from play and banished are?
The cost is whatever is before the semicolon in a card's text. So in the case of Souls the cost is sending the Level 6 or higher monster to the graveyard, and Ash only stops effects. You can, however, use Ash when they use the draw effect of Souls. Destroy/send to the grave are different mechanics. Cards can be destroyed without being sent to the grave (Dark Hole while Macro Cosmos is on the field), and they can be sent to the graveyard without being destroyed (Dingirsu, for example). Banished replaced "remove from play" in text, so that's why they're the same.
You should have squeezed in the difference of "destroy it / destroy that target etc" here to help with targeting even more, because on flip/activation some cards lose their target...
My favorite non-targeting removal interaction that I've experienced is Time Thief Redoer vs. T.G. Halberd Cannon /Assault Mode. Redoer had a trap, so activated. I have the OG Halberd, and a set Assault Mode Activate, which is completely useless cuz it doesn't matter if I use it or not, both versions of Halberd are getting spun by Redoer regardless due to how non-targeting effects works. I use it, Halberd /Assault comes out and then immediately leaves, having done absolutely nothing. Redoer's definitely the better card, I think we can all agree.
Targeting was confusing to me before PSCT. I mean it still irritates me occasionally how some cards are inherently worst than others based on a few simple words, just like “when” and “if” determining if a card can miss timing and such. Not so much I don’t understand how to resolve the cards anymore, just disappointing some times to see cards miss their full potential of actually being interesting and viable just because one word in the text is different.
You damn right targeting confused me as an old player. I got PTSD for explaining what targeting is when my opponent played Shining Dragon (don't judge us) and I Vortex'd it back in 2007 or something. And I don't really like that I didn't have any explanation (at least until recently) on what targeting actually is all this time. So for one last time, targeting happens during activation but never in resolution? Is that why Forbidden Droplet uses the word "choose"? Also, another word that has been used to indicate targeting is "designate", although that's very far and few between.
I don't think designate is ever used anymore Usually the pattern of the card that targets is: Cost if there is, What card you can target and the effect They can also not use 'choose' but say 'negate same number of opponent's monster(s)' instead in case of forbidden droplet but it may an option to say not targetting in other card printing later
10/10 vid, me and my freind got into an argument because of the interaction with Dark dragoon and Immortal gearfried. it was a pain to try to explain to him about how immortal bypasses the target effect.
I would say i very good example of cards that look they should "target" but they actually dont it's spellbook of fate. Like 90% percent of cards doing any of the 3 effects usually target lol.
One thing I think might be happening is that commenters are confusing “targeting” with “affecting”. What I would do to try and explain is first show them Obelisk, who can’t be targeted, Ultimate Falcon, who cant be affected, and then Venominaga, who can’t be targeted or affected. There is another similar phenomenon that occurs when they confuse “summons” and “effects that summon”, such as when they attempt to use Solemn Strike to negate your fusion summon. I find explaining the difference not that helpful for them, but showing them Solemn Warning that negates both kinds seems to help them understand.
Before PSCT it made sense to me that Dark Hole didn't target, what really confused me was Dingirsu. Like, of course something where you can't choose what you destroy isn't targeted, but something where you have to single something out?
I thought I knew how targeting worked and stuff, but that thing with Tiaramisu and Dingirisu was new for me too. Maybe cause I only play on ygopro and don't see the difference but I always believed the Tiaramisu player, for example, would still have to choose the two cards but it was not considered targeting, and I could still know to response properly 😂🙈
Video Idea: Effect that don't activate. I played against a numeron player who set up zexal and for 30 minutes insisted I could not summon grandmaster of the six samurai (inherent summon, like pankratops). I think a video on those kinds of effects would be useful to newer players.
"If a card targets it will say target" Except in these 500 cases. And plenty of cards that target do not say it. I remember it was a huge problem for me growing up because there were always little caveats for this, competitive players knew which cards targeted or not just based on playing all the time and getting judge opinions.
@@Dzeeff but there's plenty of similar situations like with Super Poly and Red Eyes Dark Dragoon, Dragoon is unaffected by other cards but you can still use Super Poly on it to get rid of it. And there's the whole issue where things can miss timing, so sometimes even if something could potentially target it cannot because of whatever other reason. The text and how effects resolve are not consistent enough. And it's probably a lot more than 20, I know back when I played Dragunity and Chaos Dragons and there were always issues with targeting.
The one thing I never understood is why does shooting star dragon and red nova dragon attack negate effect targets the opponent’s monster when it shouldn’t have to?
The problem I have is when some cards have you choose specific cards on the field how is that not targeting that card, you as the player are selecting that card as a target for the effect, so why would I not be able to activate my “if this card is targeted” effect. My favorite deck (which I understand isn’t that good) is the face card knight deck, I can never use arcana knight joker’s effect which should allow me to negate cards that target him, yet all the time when he is chosen for a card effect I can never activate it even if I have the card type in my habd
today I had this discussion on an italian ygo group. I also got some really weird thing that "when you opponent activates a card" (for instance, gameciel) should be different than "when a card is activated", because "it negates the subject, and the subject is the opponent, not the card, therefore gameciel should be able to negate masterpiece, but konami is dumb and ruled the other way and they will probably errata the card to the other form". Like people dont understand active and passive tenses, as well not understanding you cannot negate an oppponent :D how dare you ask they understand the word target
It’s so weird that cards like Madolche Queen Tiaramisu doesn’t target when it does use its effect on specific cards. But I guess it’s just the difference between Destroying and sending to the graveyard; the only real difference is that one is called Destroy, so it triggers certain interactions and not others.
I confess, I’ve been that impatient person who’s flipped cards too fast. It’s not that I’m in a rush, I just don’t like waiting or making my opponent wait.
How about how do you know if a card targets a player for mystical rift panel? Cause I’m confused why it works with Pot of Desires but not Pot of Extravagants
@User well when you put it like that you're correct. And even if you put cards into your deck to make ritual summoning easier, at that point it's a whole engine just for one card.
Something I've been trying to understand, and it might be that I'm crazy or not understanding how cards resolve, but doesn't Tiaramisu target? It says target right there in the cost, after the detach. If anyone can set me straight on this, I'd appreciate it.
Your cards: Yes Opponents Cards: No She says tagets your card, then there is a semi-colon, which means this is a cost. After the semi-colon, the effects resolved and she doesn't say target, so she doesn't target your opponents cards. She simply spins them back, because the effect resolved and you can't respond afterwards, have to do it after the cost.
Tiaramisu Targets *your* Maldolche monsters first, semicolon, then after that you just send 2 whatevers to the deck without mentioning targetting anywhere in that 2nd part of the effect. It *does* target, but only your maldolche cards, so it doesn't matter unless they print a card like "monsters in your GY cannot be targeted by card effects" In which case you'd be unable to target the Madolche monsters in your GY For it to target it'd say something like "target two of your GY monsters, shuffle them into the deck; Then target a number of your opponent cards equal to the madolche monsters you shuffled into your deck, and shuffle them into their deck"
If a card saids "target this card, then destroy it", and if you try to target a card that saids it "Cannot be destroyed by card effects", that card that tries to destroy it by targeting it will fizzle out even through it can target it, but since it cannot be destroyed by card effects, it won't work.
