Smashing Ground question

[RPGKid]

This has probably been asked a thousand times, but here's a scenario:

Player A has a D.D. Assailant and a Jinzo face-up on the field, and a Book of Moon face-down on the field.

Player B activates Smashing Ground.

Player A activates Book of Moon on D.D. Assailant.

Would Smashing Ground's effect jump to Jinzo or would the effect Disappear?

 

[Kyhotae]

But they don't target, they never did target, and they never will.

Of course they target. If they didn't find a target, they wouldn't destroy anything on the field. They target, they always have targeted, and they always will. Do they specifically designate a target? No. Have I ever said that they did? No.

When you play Fissure/Smashing Ground/Hammer Shot, are you, to put it basically, pointing to a monster on your opponent's field and saying "I choose you, Pikachu" (sorry).

You are actually playing the card, looking at your opponent's field, and moving the monster with the highest/lowest ATK/DEF to the graveyard, you never point to it, choose it, select it nothing, you have no control over what goes.

Of course you don't choose a card. You don't have to because it doesn't specifically designate a target. The effect finds its target all by itself without any input from you. When did I EVER say that the player selects the target of "Fissure" or "Smashing Ground"? Oh, that's right. I DIDN'T...

One down...

If you blindfold me and spin me around in a circle, take off the blindfold and tell me to walk straight ahead, with NO DEVIATION; I can guarantee to you that eventually I will walk into "something". Is it a target, or "some target"? Is it something I just ran into, or something I purposely searched for?

This is so ridiculous, I'll just quote it and let everyone laugh at it somemore. It has NO correlation to the discussion at hand...

The problem is, you are calling all card interactions "targets" when they are not always the intended target as far as from the player's selective point of view.

What?! They are not always the intended "what"? I thought you said that they don't "target." Which is it? Here's a question for you: Is an "unintended" target not really a target? Maybe they should come up with a new word so you can be right...

The Player is the only one who can select a target. If a card effect selects the target on its own, then it is not considered "targeting" for the simple fact that the player had no involvement with directing the effect to a single source.

So now a card effect can select a "target" on its own, but it's still not a target? Wow, that makes so much sense I can't stand it. I want to thank you for making my points for me, but I thought you didn't agree with me.

how many of us find ourselves looking at multiple face-up monster's stats everytime we activate Smashing Ground? That in itself should tell you that it isnt a targeting effect if you have to make sure you destroy the right monster....

So, since you have to search the field for the card that your effect is targeting, that means that it's not targeting anything? You have to make sure that it destroys the right target, so it doesn't target. Got it.

Two down.

^^^^ Another correct and very awesome explaination.

Since you agree with masterwoo0 and he was contradicting himself left and right, do I really have to address your post? I guess so, you had some good stuff that needed pointing out, too. Here goes.

This is where your logic is completely flawed. If Smashing Ground actually does target then the effect would Disappear from the field when it resolves. It would destroy Berserk Gorilla (like in this example) because it doesn't target at activation.

No, because nowhere in my logic did I say that "Smashing Ground" DIDN'T pick a new target. In fact, I said that, since it doesn't specifically designate a target, if it finds a target that is more Appropriate, it will hit that target instead (i.e. a new monster with a lower ATK is Special Summoned to the field with "Call of the Haunted" in a chain to "Fissure"). Or if a once-Appropriate target Disappears, it will find the next most Appropriate target, unless there isn't one (i.e. your "Book of Moon" example). Either way, it finds a new target if there is a possible target left on the field.

According to your logic it would make cards like Mirror Force and Curse of Anubis target monsters when they actually don't.

Of COURSE they target. They target "all monsters in Attack-position on your opponent's side of the field" and "all face-up Effect Monsters on the field" respectively. Do they specifically designate a target? Heck no. Too bad for "Tyrant Dragon" which only negates Trap Cards that specifically designate him as a target.

Don't make libal statements that don't speak for the majority of the players and judges in this game. You claim that "EVERYONE" knows that Fissure and Smashing Ground target, yet there's rulings and established game mechanics that are two or three years old that say differently.

Uh, broad generalizations about no specific person is not libel, counselor. Besides, I'm not saying anything that isn't true, let alone defamatory. "Specifically designate a target" has been shortened by the judges and players to "target" because they didn't want to have to type that out all the time. Look at your cards. Pull out your LOD-034 "Tyrant Dragon" and read what it says.

According to your logic it changes thousands of situations that have been established as solid base core mechanics for this game. Konami isn't going to change their mind unless they have a very good and definate reason to do so.

Actually, my logic doesn't change anything. Cards that negate cards that specifically designate a target STILL don't negate cards that don't specifically designate a target. "Bottomless Trap Hole" STILL removes "Tyrant Dragon" from play EVEN THOUGH it targets all monsters Summoned with 1500 ATK or higher because it doesn't specifically designate a target.

Three down.

This is a very serious problem here. Your insisting that your terminoloigy is correct, but you are missing the point. "Target" and "specifically designate a target" are EXACTLY the same thing and EXACTLY the opposite of non-targeting. This is something that the Judges List has spent years trying to pound into our heads and you are arguing that it's not the case.

What's the problem? That's (sort of) what I've been saying the whole time. "Target" and "specifically designate a target" are used interchangably by the folks on the judges list, when they really shouldn't. The truth is that NO CARD that destroys another card is "non-targeting." Again, if it didn't target anything, NOTHING would be destroyed, and we all know that doesn't happen.

It's much easier to explain to the confused newbie that his card targets, but it doesn't specifically designate a target, than to tell him that his card that is targeting the monster with the lowest ATK on the field really doesn't target.

The fact remains that "target" is a game term chosen by the developers of the game. It only applies to and can only be used with cards that they have deemed perform this action.

Where do you think I got the "specifically designate" term? THE DEVELOPERS OF THE GAME included in in all kinds of card effects. How is that NOT a "game term."

Better yet I'll let Curtis Shultz put it to you:

OK, once again you quote people I already know are the ones that have shortened "specifically designate a target" to "target." I read the judges list all the time. I know how they word things. I don't agree with them doing it. That's my point.

Four down. And finally:

But what would make you think that the dictionary definition of a specific word used as a game term would be an appropriate word to argue about on a Yu-Gi-Oh rules forum?

Because the dictionary definition involved directly applies to the discussion of the game mechanics. Haven't you been reading?

That should do it. Anyone else got anymore?

 

[mortals]

Its a little pointless to keep arguing about language semantics. I do understand where you are getting it with your argument but arguing about the difference in language and what something is defined as in a TCG is just pointless.

Its just the same as saying an effect fizzles, despite meaning the same thing as resolving without effect, in this TCG, it has been defined that if an effect fails to resolve properly, it "Resolves without effect".

Targetting in this TCG is defined as an effect that immediately chooses a specific target, be it a spell/trap or monster, upon its activation. A Non-targetting effect is an effect that does NOT select a target upon activation of the effect. Its as simple as that.

There is no point in arguing language semantics. The game is defined as such and as certified judges, we try to make sense of the mechanics as it is defined and adjust to the wording that they choose to use.

 

[slither]

Well mortals, pretty much covered it perfectly but I just want to add something I did dislike:

This is so ridiculous, I'll just quote it and let everyone laugh at it somemore. It has NO correlation to the discussion at hand...

Sorry to say but ridiculous is the fact that you are trying to bend what it has been stated and will ALWAYS be stated by rulings certified judges AND game mechanics, those cards don't target period. There is no way around it, there is no explanation given of why or why not, they don't and they will never do.

Sorry if I sounded rude, but that last post really got me upset, it shows arrogance and it's really pointless.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Of course they target. If they didn't find a target, they wouldn't destroy anything on the field. They target, they always have targeted, and they always will. Do they specifically designate a target? No. Have I ever said that they did? No.


Of course you don't choose a card. You don't have to because it doesn't specifically designate a target. The effect finds its target all by itself without any input from you. When did I EVER say that the player selects the target of "Fissure" or "Smashing Ground"? Oh, that's right. I DIDN'T...

One down...


This is so ridiculous, I'll just quote it and let everyone laugh at it somemore. It has NO correlation to the discussion at hand...


What?! They are not always the intended "what"? I thought you said that they don't "target." Which is it? Here's a question for you: Is an "unintended" target not really a target? Maybe they should come up with a new word so you can be right...


So now a card effect can select a "target" on its own, but it's still not a target? Wow, that makes so much sense I can't stand it. I want to thank you for making my points for me, but I thought you didn't agree with me.


So, since you have to search the field for the card that your effect is targeting, that means that it's not targeting anything? You have to make sure that it destroys the right target, so it doesn't target. Got it.

Two down.


Since you agree with masterwoo0 and he was contradicting himself left and right, do I really have to address your post? I guess so, you had some good stuff that needed pointing out, too. Here goes.


No, because nowhere in my logic did I say that "Smashing Ground" DIDN'T pick a new target. In fact, I said that, since it doesn't specifically designate a target, if it finds a target that is more Appropriate, it will hit that target instead (i.e. a new monster with a lower ATK is Special Summoned to the field with "Call of the Haunted" in a chain to "Fissure"). Or if a once-Appropriate target Disappears, it will find the next most Appropriate target, unless there isn't one (i.e. your "Book of Moon" example). Either way, it finds a new target if there is a possible target left on the field.


Of COURSE they target. They target "all monsters in Attack-position on your opponent's side of the field" and "all face-up Effect Monsters on the field" respectively. Do they specifically designate a target? Heck no. Too bad for "Tyrant Dragon" which only negates Trap Cards that specifically designate him as a target.


Uh, broad generalizations about no specific person is not libel, counselor. Besides, I'm not saying anything that isn't true, let alone defamatory. "Specifically designate a target" has been shortened by the judges and players to "target" because they didn't want to have to type that out all the time. Look at your cards. Pull out your LOD-034 "Tyrant Dragon" and read what it says.


Actually, my logic doesn't change anything. Cards that negate cards that specifically designate a target STILL don't negate cards that don't specifically designate a target. "Bottomless Trap Hole" STILL removes "Tyrant Dragon" from play EVEN THOUGH it targets all monsters Summoned with 1500 ATK or higher because it doesn't specifically designate a target.

Three down.


What's the problem? That's (sort of) what I've been saying the whole time. "Target" and "specifically designate a target" are used interchangably by the folks on the judges list, when they really shouldn't. The truth is that NO CARD that destroys another card is "non-targeting." Again, if it didn't target anything, NOTHING would be destroyed, and we all know that doesn't happen.

It's much easier to explain to the confused newbie that his card targets, but it doesn't specifically designate a target, than to tell him that his card that is targeting the monster with the lowest ATK on the field really doesn't target.


Where do you think I got the "specifically designate" term? THE DEVELOPERS OF THE GAME included in in all kinds of card effects. How is that NOT a "game term."


OK, once again you quote people I already know are the ones that have shortened "specifically designate a target" to "target." I read the judges list all the time. I know how they word things. I don't agree with them doing it. That's my point.

Four down. And finally:


Because the dictionary definition involved directly applies to the discussion of the game mechanics. Haven't you been reading?

That should do it. Anyone else got anymore?

Actually, none down. We're right back where we started.

I said that "specificaly desginate a target" and "target" are the same to point out that they are both the OPOSITE of non-targeting, which you are saying is not a game term.

I've never flat out told someone on this forum that they are wrong, But I'm afraid you've crossed a line of incorrectness that borders on beligerant. Is your purpose just to disrupt these forums with abject negativity?

Everything that you quoted was trying to show you something that your completely ignoring. Your caught up on this notion that UDE shortened the term "specifically designate a target" to "target". This is a complete and utter fallacy. Who told you this? "Specifcally designate" is actually the newer of the two terms, as many older cards have been errated to include it, not the other way around.

Secondly, the dictionary is not the official rule book. Game Terminlogy does not fit with Dictionary definitions most of the time. Otherwise everytime a monster was "destoyed" then it would have to be set on fire or crumpled and thrown in the trash. Target is a game term. One that your improperly defning.

Non-targeting is also a game term, one that you would do well to include in your vocabulary. A targeting effect selects somethign specific at activation. A non-tareting effect doesn't.

Whether you want to insist that slecting is the same as tagrting is you problem. But no one on this or any other forum will stand by and let you spread such erroneous misinformation. You might as well be saying that Normal Summoned is the same as Speical Summoned because they are both Summonig. Your logic is just as faulty on this subject

****yness is also not a trait that is tolerated here. I would suggest you tone down the attitude just a notch.

 

[anthonyj]

Just so I clarify exactly what Kyhotae is suggesting (yes it seems irrational but I'm just pointing out the possibilities) so there are 10 cards that use the term "Designate" when referring to what everyone else in the game agrees is "Targeting". I'm really not going to the trouble of counting all of the cards that use the word "Target" without the word "Designate".

By your "All effects Target" theory a Great Dezard that has destroyed a monster in battle will be immune to Fissure and Smashing Ground. Is that correct? The same would hold true for the Archfiends die roll to negate targeted effects.

If this is truly what you are postulating I will continue on this thread, if not you are most assuredly attempting nothing more than to argue for no point other than sheer obstenance and I'll request of the powers that be that we simply close this thread.

 

[Tkwiget]

Rulings of these non-targetting cards is what gives you examples of non-targetting and targetting templating. You say Smashing Ground targets, but Konami says your wrong. These rulings are made by Konami according to what they define certain game terms and what they feel the game mechanics should be. Saying these non-targetting effects target is saying Konami has defined their own card game completely wrong and should be changed to mold in your defination of what they are.

You need to stop arguing not with us, but with Konami. Arguing language sematics only goes so far and that would be to the point of the meaning behind how a card functions based off the card text. Not how a game term is defined. We certified judges get our information from UDE who in turn gets their information from Konami.

Targetting and Non-Targetting effects are game terms. Konami has defined what they are by giving UDE the information to pass on to us certified judges through the Judge's List. As a result they've become core game mechanics that we've used since they've been established.

 

[Kyhotae]

Have I ever said anything like that? Cards that don't specifically designate a target can destroy cards that require a card to specifically designate them as a target before their effect can activate to negate them. That's what I've always said throughout this thread.

My point is that what people call "non-targeting" (NOT a game term. I've never read that term on ANY card I've ever read) is really "not specifically designating a target."

I find it difficult to believe that you guys really don't understand the point I'm making. My point changes the game NOT ONE IOTA. It's just easier to explain effects when you don't contradict what the card SAYS it's doing in your explanation, in my opinion.

And what's ****yness. The forum has sensored your derogatory term for me, so I'm not sure how you're trying to describe me. And why exactly do I have to tone down my attitude when all I'm doing is explaining my point (which is completely valid) with sound, logical arguments. Well, that's not ALL I'm doing. I'm also defending myself from the claims that I'm illogical when I've used nothing but sound logic in all my posts. I don't try to say things like "this card doesn't target because it targets" to back up my opinions. Why is it that MY attitude is out of line, exactly?

Oh, and WHO is being obstinate, exactly?

 

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

reply

First post, yay!!!

Anyways...yes...as everyone before me has previously stated, Smashing Ground is a non-targeting effect while "Specifically designating a target" and "targeting" are both the exact same thing.

Otherwise...things like, let's say, Silent Swordsman LV3 couldn't be destroyed by Lightning Vortex just because it's the only monster on the opponent's side of the field.

Konami makes the rules...which Upperdeck then takes and uses for the TCG...and both clearly state it is not targeting with their rulings despite whatever doubt people have.

 

[Kyhotae]

*Sigh* Read the card. It only negates Spell Cards that specifically designate it as a target. "Lightning Vortex" doesn't specifically designate any card. It targets all of them that are out. "Silent Swordsman LV3" can't negate the effect.

 

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

reply

Not with the logic you seemed to be using so far.

Anyways, what everyone else has been saying is how Smashing Ground is no matter how you try to twist game terms around or try to justify it otherwise.

 

[Tkwiget]

[Re: Freed the Matchless General] The effect of this card will not negate "Creature Swap", "Fissure", "Smashing Ground", "Dark Hole", "Raigeki", or similar Spell Cards that do not target.

This proves Smashing Ground, Fissure, Dark Hole, etc. don't target. Konami says they don't target so they don't target because this is how Konami has defined their own game term.

A targetting effect is a card effect that specifically is identifying exactly what it will affect and only affect.

We aren't saying anything along the lines of "this card doesn't target because it targets" because where our information is coming from is official rulings that Konami has made that help explain game mechanics for us to use in explaining how cards function and determine unofficial rulings to situations with no official answer.

 

[anthonyj]

Have I ever said anything like that? Cards that don't specifically designate a target can destroy cards that require a card to specifically designate them as a target before their effect can activate to negate them. That's what I've always said throughout this thread.

My point is that what people call "non-targeting" (NOT a game term. I've never read that term on ANY card I've ever read) is really "not specifically designating a target."

I find it difficult to believe that you guys really don't understand the point I'm making. My point changes the game NOT ONE IOTA. It's just easier to explain effects when you don't contradict what the card SAYS it's doing in your explanation, in my opinion.

And what's ****yness. The forum has sensored your derogatory term for me, so I'm not sure how you're trying to describe me. And why exactly do I have to tone down my attitude when all I'm doing is explaining my point (which is completely valid) with sound, logical arguments. Well, that's not ALL I'm doing. I'm also defending myself from the claims that I'm illogical when I've used nothing but sound logic in all my posts. I don't try to say things like "this card doesn't target because it targets" to back up my opinions. Why is it that MY attitude is out of line, exactly?

Oh, and WHO is being obstinate, exactly?

I'm still wondering about my earlier question. So I'll repeat it just in case it was missed.

By your "All effects Target" theory a Great Dezard that has destroyed a monster in battle will be immune to Fissure and Smashing Ground. Is that correct? The same would hold true for the Archfiends die roll to negate targeted effects.

Note that Great Dezard says nothing about being "Specifically" or "Designated" it only states that it negates effect that "Target". Nothing more. So to use your own definition you are claiming that Great Dezard will negate Smashing Ground. Is that correct?

 

[Kyhotae]

Not with the logic you seemed to be using so far.

Anyways, what everyone else has been saying is how Smashing Ground is no matter how you try to twist game terms around or try to justify it otherwise.

I'm not trying to justify any twisting of anything. My opinion on this doesn't change the way the effects resolve. Please actually read my posts instead of jumping to conclusions.

And please stop quoting the people that I have already acknowledged as the ones that have changed the wording. I read the judges list. I know what terms they use. I know how the cards are played. I just prefer my explanation because I think it's less confusing. And if you think you guys haven't said things like "they don't target because they target" you should re-read some of masterwoo0's posts.

 

[Digital Jedi]

*Sigh* Read the card. It only negates Spell Cards that specifically designate it as a target. "Lightning Vortex" doesn't specifically designate any card. It targets all of them that are out. "Silent Swordsman LV3" can't negate the effect.

The insinuation that you've struck everyone's comments down with each of you arguments is an improper attitude. That's what I was refering to.

Non-targeting is in fact a game term, as not all game terms are from card text. If it's used consistantly on the judges list then you can bet it's a term they want used.

The simple fact is that statements to the effect of the one you just made, "It targets all of them that are out" are completely erroneous. The problem is that there is nothing logical about your argument. Lightning Vortex does not target at all. It doesn't matter that you keep using the phrase "specifcally designate" as, even you've pointed out, it's the same thing. It does not target all of them. it targets nothing. Never has.

This is where we are running into a problem. These effects that do not specificaly desifgnate a target, do not target at all. The word "target" should not be used to describe them. The game term (which was not shortened, by the way) does not apply here. It should not be used.

Now we are going in circles and I don't belive this thread has reaped any benefit other then to disrupt things. It's one thing if you are arguing that a ruling or an extrapolation of a ruling is different from what everybody else thinks it is. It's one thing if you disagreee with the way an effect works and want to prove your reasonings.

But it's something else entirely to say that Konami is wrong and you are right. It's something else entirely to make statements about the history of the game that have never happened. These are game facts that cannot be disputed. These matters are not open to opinion, they are fact. And we've explained them long enough. It's time to move on.