Targeting as Effects (DBC + KNF)

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=102226

Here's what's actually going on: I was the head judge of the Pasadena Kotei; Techcasualty is a player who had this ruling go against him during the event. This ruling came up in earlier during the day and was made two or three times; as it impacted a number of rounds, including in favor of a player who made the Top 16, I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

My understanding of DBC is that it has an effect that causes a target to be chosen, and that effect causes the Attacking player to choose. The rule quoted in that thread says that the original source is overridden by the choice being made; I see this as while it's still the other player's action's effect, the source of the targeting itself comes from the Attacking player. Looking in the other threads, however, you've said that targeting as an effect doesn't happen--in essence, that "Target a Personality: You may target an additional personality. Bow all targets." is effectively the same as "Target a personality, and you may target an additional personality: Bow all targets." Let me ask a question to make that perfectly clear.

I control Bayushi Tenzan and no courtiers; my opponent controls Akodo Kakihara, a Lion Ancestor, and a Shadowlands personality (Daigotsu Hotako XP3, say) equipped with Armor of the Heavens. I announce Tenzan's ability, targeting Kakihara, and my intention of targeting Hotako with the targeting in Tenzan's effect line. I pass reactions to targeting; my opponent plays Ancestral Protection, destroying his Ancestor token to negate the action's effects. I pass again; my opponent activates Kakihara's reaction. I pass a third time; my opponent activates the reaction on Armor of the Heavens.

Is the Reaction from Armor of the Heavens still legal to take, despite the targeting existing only in the effects line of the ability and said effects line having been negated?

Targeting isn't an effect (or a cost). I have seen often this confusion because, after all, targeting is listed along with costs and effects, but it's neither. See the CR Glossary definition of targeting:

Targeting is a special procedure that involves designating one or more cards or other game entity (such as a Province or player).

And the definition of Effects:

An effect is anything, other than a cost, that creates a card or other thing in the game, changes the characteristics or state of a card, stat or other thing in the game, adds restrictions or permissions to the game’s procedures, or creates a new instance of a game procedure.

[...] Targeting and costs are not effects.

(Emphasis mine)

My understanding of DBC is that it has an effect that causes a target to be chosen, and that effect causes the Attacking player to choose. The rule quoted in that thread says that the original source is overridden by the choice being made; I see this as while it's still the other player's action's effect, the source of the targeting itself comes from the Attacking player.

Essentially, yes. It's the difference between "after another player targets your XXX" and "after another player's action targets your XXX". The former looks for the source of the target, and in the case of DBC it's the Attacker. The latter looks for the source of the action, and it's the Defender. It's particularly relevant when another effects changes targeting, because the change of targeting doesn't change the source of targeting. (You may have made the final choice of what card is targeted thanks to Ryoshun's Guidance, but it's still me who made the targeting.)

Looking in the other threads, however, you've said that targeting as an effect doesn't happen--in essence, that "Target a Personality: You may target an additional personality. Bow all targets." is effectively the same as "Target a personality, and you may target an additional personality: Bow all targets."

Yes. In EE we're using the former wording because it allows us to easily differentiate between required targeting (which happens at Step C of playing actions) and optional or conditional targeting (which happens during Action resolution, step E)

Let me ask a question to make that perfectly clear.

I control Bayushi Tenzan and no courtiers; my opponent controls Akodo Kakihara, a Lion Ancestor, and a Shadowlands personality (Daigotsu Hotako XP3, say) equipped with Armor of the Heavens. I announce Tenzan's ability, targeting Kakihara, and my intention of targeting Hotako with the targeting in Tenzan's effect line. I pass reactions to targeting; my opponent plays Ancestral Protection, destroying his Ancestor token to negate the action's effects. I pass again; my opponent activates Kakihara's reaction. I pass a third time; my opponent activates the reaction on Armor of the Heavens.

Is the Reaction from Armor of the Heavens still legal to take, despite the targeting existing only in the effects line of the ability and said effects line having been negated?

Yes. Optional targeting still can happen even if the action effects are negated HOWEVER... In the scenario you described, you played all targetings at the same timing point. That's not the case. Tenzan's first target is required, therefore happens at step C (see above). That's when the opponent can react with Ancestral Protection and negate your entire action. When the optional (Shadowlands) targeting comes up at Step E, you already know that the action is doomed to be negated. Therefore, why would you bother to make optional targeting if you know before-hand it's going to fail? Unless you really, really want to trigger that Armor of the Heavens in your example, you could simply choose not to produce Tenzan's third target. In a convoluted sense, the targeting would not happen (only indirectly thanks to the negation effects).

PS Today is the long post day it would seem...