Loaming Shaman vs Seht's Tiger | Thread profile

My Loaming Shaman comes into play and I target the Genesis and Glory in my (target) opponent's graveyard. Then my opponent flashes in Seht's Tiger , naming green. Are the incarnations shuffled or not?

the incarnations would be shuffled, unless he flashes out the tiger while the shaman is on the stack, because the shaman states "Target Player" if it's already on the stack it means he's already targeted. and the tiger says you cant be targeted, if the target is already on the stack.. it should still resolve.. But i'm not 100% accurate. but i'm pretty sure.

Ravarshi is right and wrong at the same time. They do get shuffled, but not because of what he stated. If seth's tiger gives your opponent protection, only he is the illegal target. However, since the ability still has targets left which are legal, it tries to do as much as it can and shuffles the cards away.

Except that it is not shuffling the cards, the player is, and a spell or ability cannot effect an illegal target or make it do anything. So in this case, it will try to resolve, see that the player is an illegal target, and not do anything, since it can't make that player shuffle those cards in.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sutherlands Except that it is not shuffling the cards, the player is, and a spell or ability cannot effect an illegal target or make it do anything. So in this case, it will try to resolve, see that the player is an illegal target, and not do anything, since it can't make that player shuffle those cards in...

Quote: Originally Posted by Sutherlands Except that it is not shuffling the cards, the player is, and a spell or ability cannot effect an illegal target or make it do anything. So in this case, it will try to resolve, see that the player is an illegal target, and not do anything, since it can't make that player shuffle those cards in....

Quote: Originally Posted by sclocke42 Can something from the CompRules be cited to back this up? I would have thought the scenario in TeknoLink's first comment would be how this scenario would end up, and while I can believe Sutherlands' ruling, it's never come up for me before. Yes: 413.2a If the spell or ...

Well, there it is: exactly the kind of evidence I was looking for. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the clarification, epeeguy.