I'm split on how to interpret this card. On the one hand, by regular logic, if you coose a unit to be affected by an effect, then you are targeting that unit with that effect. On other hand, the card says "destroy a unit" and not "destroy target unit". So the question becomes, did the designers purposfully not write "target" for it to avoid "cannot target" effects, or is it an oversight?

Does anyone have an idea?

No "target", not targetting IMO.

The game is supposed to use specific language. Sometimes things slip by them, but for the most part it is safe to assume that everything is written a specific way for a reason and should be played as is. When there is a real question of how a card is meant to be played send it to the developers using the link at the bottom of the page.

In this particular case if a card does not say target, it does not target. If you need an out of game piece of logic think about my shooting a shotgun full of bird shot from the hip. I may hit something, possibly even the thing I wanted to hit, but that is different than aiming down the barrel and actually targeting the thing. Kind of a mediocre analogy, but I think it kind of gets the point across.

dormouse said:

Think of how boring it would be around here if this was not the case.

I haven't got any awnsers for any of my questions sent there, yet... Though conserning this question i'm settling for the general concensious.

Not that i need an out of game visualization of how it works (because in this case it wuld just be silly and detract from the game), but yours doesn't really make a point. In your example the card resembles much more likely the aimed gun than the shootgun (since the card always hit what you coose to hit). Using out of game logic, if you fire a gun with the intention of hitting that specific thing you are targeting it, no matter how inaccurate the gun or how lazyly you aim (if at all). For you not to target you wuld have to shoot the gun fore some other reason.

A minor point: That you are only targeting when "target" is written out on the card is not in the rules, its just an assumption most of us have made. (I really hope they will define their vocabulary when the faq comes out)

Two points,

1) if you have ever fired a shotgun you'd get the analogy. There is a world of difference between pointing a gun and aiming.

2) Nate has confirmed targeting for us already.

1)Yes, but you still wuld be targeting (the differens is in aiming not targeting). And using that card is not like fiering a shotgun.

2) I did not know that (maby we shuld make a tread dedicated to collecting the nate awnsers). And it still wuld be nice if they defined it as such in the faq.

Problem is, anyone can say they have a "Nate" answer. Without the designers/rules team coming on here and specifically saying so anyway.

Vegabond said:

That is possible, but since any given question is usually asked by several players it is not at all smart. What is the incentive in making up answers... especially if you get outed? Coming off like a big shot for a day or a couple of weeks is certainly not worth the damage to your reputation on the forums, and possibly becoming a pariah on the boards and ostracized and dismissed at major tournaments. Besides, Nate is a gamer himself and attends cons, and started out as a player of FFG's games before he became the lead developer for the LCG line. There are a number of players who know him professionally and socially who could verify any given answer as having come form him.

mathulus said:

Actually aiming and targeting are effectively the same thing (at least in English where they both appear as the definition of the other). I can swing the barrel in the direction of something and if it is close enough the pellets will strike in a broad enough pattern to hit something. I can purposefully aim/target a specific thing and strike it dead center with little to no collateral damage at all. And considering the Zealot Hunter's ability to utterly destroy a unit without targeting it, I'd say it is very much the equivelent of a shotgun.

Swinging the barrel in the direction of something, if that was an effort to hit that somthing, is a form of aiming/targeting (although culd be argued not as much as "aiming down the barrel"). Just the fact that you are trying to hit it, makes it a target. I don't se how you're getting away from that. And i don't se how which tool you are using has any relevans to if you are targeting or not. (it has relevance to to what degree you are targeting though)

You're right, targeting and aiming is in essence the same thing. I guess what meaning you put on in exess of that, differs betwne people. To me targeting is more of the basic of the meaning. You try to do something to something you are targeting it with that. While with aiming you have at least put a bit of effort to lining upp your shots. I suspect the reason you don't se my point is, that you put more meaning in to the word than it really has (close to what my aming is).

I'm not sure were getting anywhere in this discussion. I'm ready to call quits on it if you are. (It doesn't matter much for the original question anyways)

@Vegabond: Believe in humanity, believe in the goodnes that resides within us. Because without belief we have nothing!

(trying to keep a straigt face)

It isn't about intention it is about the act itself. I may want to punch something, but me flailing my arms at it, even if I hit it, does not equate to me aiming (and thereby targeting) the thing. Aiming and targeting in English are used interchangeably to express the same idea, but how that idea is phrased will determine which word is used. A person may have preference of one over another, but there are no language based connotations that make one more appropriate than the other based on how much effort one is expending at striking the object. Aim is used in preference to targeting when the word target is what would be used to describe what is attempting to be hit. My aiming something at you and targeting you for something are precisely the same, but you can see depending on how I choose to speak those two sentences would be said differently. We would not reverse those and say, "I'm targeting something at you," or "I'm aiming you for something" because in those contexts it would imply something very different.

It has been a fun and interesting discussion, but yes, ultimately we have wandered away from the main point of the discussion, something is targeted by a card only if it specifically says to target a thing.

To me, the "target" word is lacking in this gametext.

Effects that are not targetting are affecting all the cards satisfying thier conditions (like "being a unit" for Troll Vomit). An effect that affects only one specific card in play basically targets it. If it doesn't, who gets to choose which particular card is affected ? You ? Your opponent ? Fate / randomness (like in the shotgun analogy) ?

BTW, the answer to this quesiton is only of use when one has Church of Sigmar in play, or the Dwarf Hero, period. My advice would be to play Destruction, this would solve this problem .

The owner of the effect makes all decisions regarding the effect unless the card explicitly says otherwise. If the card says choose or select, it is not 'Targeting' the card for game purposes. Again this has already been confirmed. If there is doubt send it in to the Dev Team.