So, some cards in the game say ''each creature'', and some say that it affects ''all creatures'', so is that the same thing?
Asked by xenith4127 9 years ago
the reason why this may matter comes down to shroud. You see, I had been playing a game where I used Overrun , and the version of the card said ''each creature'', and that says to me that it targets ''each creature'' individually. otherwise, it would say all creatures, such as the card pyroclasm did, and both cards were made at the same time. I had the creature with shroud, and I didn't think that it would do anything for my shroud creature, but my opponent was sure it did. So, who of us was right?
xenith4127 says... #2
cool. I had just wanted to make sure. It seems like a pretty simple thing, but the person I was playing with takes the stuff way seriously and I just wanted to get down to it. I had agreed to what he said, so it played out fine and correctly, but I was curious. And from now on I will.
October 15, 2014 9:55 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #3
A spell only targets if it says "target." "Each" and "all" are functionally identical in terms mechanics meaning that a spell is not "targeting" the objects it's affecting. That is to say "Destroy all creatures" and "Destroy each creature" will both destroy a creature with shroud, but often times grammar will demand the use of one over the other.
An example of this can be found in overload spells like Cyclonic Rift . From Gatherer:
Because a spell with overload doesn't target when its overload cost is paid, it may affect permanents with hexproof or with protection from the appropriate color.
filledelanuit says... Accepted answer #1
Please link all of your cards.
Pyroclasm
Unless a spell or ability has the word "target" it doesn't target so it would get around shroud/hexproof. I believe that the difference between "each creature" and "every creature" has to do with formatting and grammer. There is no game play difference between the two terms.
October 15, 2014 9:53 p.m.