If an effect doesn't specifically say "target," it is not a targetted effect.

For evasion to target, it would have to say "recover target character."

well, using the word 'Target' here would be incredibly difficult...

"Stun this character..." is about as close to using the word "target" as you're going to get ...

... unless they used "Stun this target character..."

It's not an effect it's a payment!!!!!!!!!!! and the PAYMENT states what the legal target of the stun must be.

where dealing with a PAYMENT not an effect.

The payment states "Stun this character."

That is different from targetting.

I am not going to argue about if it targets because i can't find a clairfication. how ever this is what i can state.

Robin will allow you to stun any one you like in the team attack but untill you stun the charater with evasion you have not payed the coast for evasion.

Well, cards that refer to themselves don't really target themselves. It may be close to targetting, but it still doesn't apply. Additionally, targets, as far as I have seen (if someone finds an exception, please point it out as my logic is based on this idea) can not apply to costs, only to effects.

Remember that targeting involves choice. When something has a target, you get to choose the target (even if there is only one eligible target on the field). Something that states 'this character' or 'this card' does not involve choice and therefore is not targeting.

I hate bringing in references from other games, but in Yu-Gi-Oh!, this would be similar to the effect of Sinister Serpent (self-referencing, but definitely non-targeting).

Robin *can* redirect the stun.

However, doing so does not fulfill the cost so evasion does not set up a delayed trigger.

The cost is to stun the character with the ability.

Robin's power completely replaces the stun event; it never ocurred so the payment was never made.

Exactly right, Dlannan.

I was looking for a cost that targets. I can't find one.

Evasion has no choice, so there is no target. Self-referencing is not targetting.

And again, my only question was why Zaxx said you cannot use Robin to redirect the stun, REGARDLESS of the effect working or not. If anything is said about the effect of evasion, it doesn't apply to my question.

Kairos,

Have another look at my posts.

Not once did say Robin could not redirect the stun.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Ok, I see.

Chad, why do you think the rules would allow the cost to be considered paid (aside from the Magic precident)?

Yeah, I misread the post to be that he couldn't redirect the stun, because it was a cost. With all the talk of targetting, I didn't have time to double check what you had said.:)

When you are paying a cost, the game is looking for the action to be successfully completed. Even if an event is replaced with another event, the game will still see it as completed.

It all really comes down to what UDE wants. Personally I think it should be allowed, because you want to limit the times when you say something can't happen. When you have to many "can't"'s in the rules, you inevitabley get a situation where the game breaks down because of all the "can't"'s are conflicting with each other.

At this time, I can't see a way to abuse this, and if it turns out you can, then it would need to be addressed at that time. Until then, you want to place as few restrictions on the game as you can.

If you can not pay the cost, then the game backs up to the point right before you announced the effect.

If UDE decided to say you can not repalce costs, then if you tried to redirect the stun, the cost would not get paid, and so the game backs up and so the character who the stun got redirected to would not get stuned.

This, and the post immediately after, make complete sense.

The only possible abuse I see is that you can ensure that your evasion character survives the turn AND deals damage. If you team attack with Robin, Pantha, and Jessica Drew, you can evade Drew, having Robin take the stun, and then have a combined attack value of 10, and if the opponent chooses to stun Drew during ATK/DEF comparison, she will be recovered.

Statement:

Because Robin replaces the event of that character getting stunned (which is part of the cost) and because it is 'replaced' the game treats it like the evasion cost never happened. Since it didn't happen, the recovery effect does not happen. So even though the cost wasn't paid, the game treats it like it never happened and DOES NOT revert back to just before the cost being paid.