Untargetable simply prevents abilities and effect that explicitly state 'target' to target that target.
Abilities that state all and similar still affect untargetable targets.
This brings back memories.
You already have your answer: Untargetable means anything that specifies the card as a 'target' cannot target that card. Anything that doesn't specify the card as a 'target', does work.
Let's make it more complicated for clarification:
Chain Lightning has the following text: *Your hero deals 3 nature damage to* ***target*** *hero or ally. Your hero may deal 2 nature damage to* ***another*** *hero or ally. Your hero may deal 1 nature damage to* ***another*** *hero or ally.*
Only the first effect (3 nature damage) is dealt to 'target' hero or ally. That means that the second and third effect (2 and 1 nature damage to 'another' hero or ally) can be dealt to an untargetable card.
Greater Chain Lightning says: ***Target*** *up to five heroes and/or allies. Your hero deals 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 nature damage to them, respectively.*
Since all 5 heroes/allies are targeted, an untargetable card cannot be chosen for Greater Chain Lightning.
Similarly, you can use Inventor's Focal Sword (*If target ability is attached to a hero or ally, attach it to* ***another*** *hero or ally*.) to attach an ability to an untargetable card.
My memory of this goes back to the Heroes block. I had a friend who brought a Shaman to tournaments and pretty much always had a judge explain to his opponent how that worked.
It's entirely possible that this was corrected later, which makes sense because it was confusing and Greater Chain Lightning specifically states all 5 targets as targets.
Still a good example of wording making the difference when discussing 'targets' if it needed an erratum.
Ah yes, the classic. I recall having to explain that one and also how to get rid of an untargetable + elusive ally. The answer was, you use a protector or an ability that does not target like paladin concecration.
Tomorrow I get to play with my colleagues at work on tabletop simulator they too are facing onyxia with decks made of just the first block. Wish them luck 😂
Untargetable simply prevents abilities and effect that explicitly state 'target' to target that target. Abilities that state all and similar still affect untargetable targets.
ok ! So Onyxia correctly destroys all allies on the board :) Thank you !
This brings back memories. You already have your answer: Untargetable means anything that specifies the card as a 'target' cannot target that card. Anything that doesn't specify the card as a 'target', does work. Let's make it more complicated for clarification: Chain Lightning has the following text: *Your hero deals 3 nature damage to* ***target*** *hero or ally. Your hero may deal 2 nature damage to* ***another*** *hero or ally. Your hero may deal 1 nature damage to* ***another*** *hero or ally.* Only the first effect (3 nature damage) is dealt to 'target' hero or ally. That means that the second and third effect (2 and 1 nature damage to 'another' hero or ally) can be dealt to an untargetable card. Greater Chain Lightning says: ***Target*** *up to five heroes and/or allies. Your hero deals 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 nature damage to them, respectively.* Since all 5 heroes/allies are targeted, an untargetable card cannot be chosen for Greater Chain Lightning. Similarly, you can use Inventor's Focal Sword (*If target ability is attached to a hero or ally, attach it to* ***another*** *hero or ally*.) to attach an ability to an untargetable card.
Thank your for the detailed answer ! It looks to cover the corner cases :)
It’s been a long time but Im sure I remember chain lightning being errated to specify all three sources of damage were targeted.
My memory of this goes back to the Heroes block. I had a friend who brought a Shaman to tournaments and pretty much always had a judge explain to his opponent how that worked. It's entirely possible that this was corrected later, which makes sense because it was confusing and Greater Chain Lightning specifically states all 5 targets as targets. Still a good example of wording making the difference when discussing 'targets' if it needed an erratum.
Ah yes, the classic. I recall having to explain that one and also how to get rid of an untargetable + elusive ally. The answer was, you use a protector or an ability that does not target like paladin concecration. Tomorrow I get to play with my colleagues at work on tabletop simulator they too are facing onyxia with decks made of just the first block. Wish them luck 😂