Tookish Blood vs Pilfer

[Alter Tuk]

Lately this question came up in a game. I played hobbits (please dont blame me) and my opponent tried to pilfer. I liked to cancel with Tookish Blood. Now, how does this chain work? The question is: When does the Pilfer player decide which hobbit he targets? Get the point?

IMHO it didnt work in my favour. I chose Sam to protect, so Dominic pilfered Bilbo. What do you think?

Pilfer anything unwatched
Playable on an untapped agent Tap the agent. Make a roll (draw a #) for a character in play of your choice with a home site the same as the agent's current site. To the roll add 5 if the agent's current site is also the agent's home site. If the result is greater than the character's mind plus 5, the character is returned to his player's hand (one item may be transferred to another character in the same company).

Tookish Blood
Playable on a Hobbit character. The Hobbit's player must make a roll (or draw a #): return the Hobbit to the player's hand if the result plus his unused general influence is less than 11. If the Hobbit is removed from play, one of his items may be transferred to another character in the same company; any other cards under his control are discarded. Alternatively, this card can be played as a resource card. For the rest of the turn, the target Hobbit cannot be discarded or returned to its owner's hand for any reason.

[Bandobras Took]

Returning the character to the player's hand is an action played out through the character, so the character is a target and must be chosen at declaration.

I believe CoE #91 ruled on this.

You may therefore respond to the play of Pilfer and the choice of target with Tookish Blood. At this point, it is too late for the hazard player to switch targets.

[Alter Tuk]

Thanks a lot. Pretty logical.

[Konrad Klar]

Returning the character to the player's hand is an action played out through the character, so the character is a target and must be chosen at declaration.

So what means "your choice"? Why not just "Make a roll (draw a #) for a character in play with a home site the same as the agent's current site."?
Compare it with Waiting Shadows and Gloom.
Why these cards are playable on company, not directly on affected character?

[Bandobras Took]

Action: Return to hand.
Number: a=1
Type: Character

Fits all definitions for a target because the card is already in play.

"Your choice" is redundant. Either way you phrase it, you have to decide on declaration.

[Konrad Klar]

Your logic is (as I understand):
Because entity (character with the same home site as agent) is specified by number and type and is affected by card, this entity must be target.
Target is chooen at declaration (consider phrase "your choice" as redundant).

My logic is quite reverse:
My question - is it a really target?
CRF says that entities are only targets if they are specified by number and type.
This is true. But it does not mean that that all entities specified by number and type may be automatically considered as targets. It only means that entities without specified type (e.g. any item, any character of company), or number (each, all) are never considered targets. In other words this is not complete definition. It is only hint that may help with distinguising between targets and non-targets.

Ultimate criterium is whether entity is specified at declaration or at resolution.

Take The Riddle Game as example. This card is played on character in company. This character is not affected itself by action from TRG. Only its race or skill may modify riddling roll.
Now opponent chooses its own character and its role is identical.
Can you say that both characters are targets of TRG? Or that none of characters is target?

Now about redundancy. In fact some cards contains redundand text, duplicating with general rules, or not changing sense of card in any way.
It is often source of confusion (what is a difference between card A with some text, and card B without it). But such interpretation is last resort, that may be used only if other interpretations fails.
Otherwise someone can say that tapping of diplomat is active condition for Ruse's first effect and "playable on untapped diplomat" is just redundant in such case (and that Ruse cannot be fizzled by tapping diplomat in response, or (it is even better visible in case of Lie In Your Eyes).

P.S.
Sorry for late answer and lack of exact quotes. Currently I have no personal access to the net. This post was typed on friend's computer.

[Bandobras Took]

It is also possible to read "your choice" as saying the hazard player selects the character, not the resource player.

The most basic definition of targeting is, from MELE Rulebook:

Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out.

By definition, the fact that you are choosing a character for the action of returning the character to the hand means you are targeting them. It is specified by number and type, so fits with the further CRF definition.

[Konrad Klar]

Cool.

If it is enough and complete, choose opponent character for TRG at declaration, and character affected by first effect of Gloom too.

Or...choose them at resolution and still consider them as targets.

I was under impression that actual moot point is whether character affected by Pilfer is choosen at declaration or at resolution (and why).
Not whether entity specified (no matter whether at declaration, or at resolution) fulfill some definition of target or not.

[Bandobras Took]

Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play.

Not "potential target", but "target" must be in play on declaration, as I understand it. Therefore the target must be chosen at declaration.

[Konrad Klar]

Ok.
If X is specified at declaration, then X is target, and vice versa.
I agree.

But here question is whether character affected by Pilfer is actually specified at declaration, or at resolution. If it will be established, we will know its status target/non-target. Not in reverse order.

Some cards, where "choose/choice" is printed in text:
The Riddle Game, Waiting Shadows, Gloom, Drowning Seas (possibly some other).
In which of these examples choosen entity is specified at declaration?
Should by Pilfer Anything Unwatched only one exception?

[Bandobras Took]

If you have to choose an entity for an action, that entity is a target.

If a card/effect targets an entity, that must be established at declaration because it is a condition of such card/effect.

Riddling Attempt. Playable during site phase on a character at the same site as one of opponent's companies. Tap the character. Opponent chooses a character from his company to play the riddle game. Each player makes a riddling roll (or draws a #) modified by +2 if his character is a sage and by +1 if a Hobbit (re-roll ties). The player with the highest result wins. He then names two cards and the other player reveals his hand. If any of the named cards are revealed, they are immediately discarded.

The character chosen is not the recipient of any action, therefore is not a target.

One character (attacker's choice) in that company suffers -1 to his prowess until the end of the turn.

This is not an action but a continuing effect, I believe. If you believe the effect targets the character, then it must be decided at declaration.

Environment. Playable on a company that moved this turn to a site with a Coastal Sea [c] in its site path. Target company loses one item of its choice

The item chosen must also be specified at declaration.

Environment. Playable on a company with an untapped Orc, Troll, or Man character. Tap an Orc, Troll, or Man character in that company (defender's choice). If Doors of Night is in play, the company need not contain an Orc, Troll, or Man and any one character in that company is tapped (defender's choice).

The character to be tapped is chosen on declaration and will be tapped on resolution.

There is no inconsistency in any of this that I can see.

[Konrad Klar]

Ok. So our views on mechanics of cards where "choose/choice" is printed are quite different. So discussion probably will end here.

P.S.

Environment. Playable on a company that moved this turn to a site with a Coastal Sea [c] in its site path. Target company loses one item of its choice

The item chosen must also be specified at declaration.

According to this statement in situation when company bears, for example, Glamdring and Potion of Prowess, resource player may specify (at declaration of DS) Potion of Prowess, and use (discard) it in response, effectively fizzling Drowning Seas (no target at resolution).

Ultimately Potion of Prowess would be discarded in both cases, but if it would be discarded by Drowning Seas, it would be discarded without effect.

[Bandobras Took]

Yes, if you discard the targeted item in response to Drowning Seas for its effect, Drowning Seas would indeed fizzle.

Likewise one could tap a ranger to satisfy the requirements of a river in response to the tapping of Adunaphel, effectively fizzling Adunaphel. You cannot switch Adunaphel's target; neither can you switch the target of Drowning Seas.

My view is simply that stated by the rules: targeting is the act of choosing an entity through which an action or effect will be played out.