I assume it's because creature spells never target, but why is that? And if they truly never do, then why does Insist say "by spells or abilities"?

I would assume because in Alpha they wanted you to still be able to copy a creature that had a Blue Ward on it. I'm not sure why Insist is worded the way it is (consistency, maybe?).

The only spells that can have a target are instants (if they use the word "target"), sorceries (if they use the word "target") and auras (always, because as you cast them you need to choose what they'll enchant). Other permanent spells don't need you to make any choices as you cast them, because as spells the only thing they do is go to the battlefield as they resolve. The rules entry for targets is here.

Clone's choice is made as it enters the battlefield, not while it's a spell on the stack. Note that a Clone doesn't necessarily have to enter the battlefield from the stack. It could as well enter the battlefield directly from your hand through an Æther Vial, for example, and it needs to work the same way.

Insist doesn't need the "by spells or abilities" clause. It's there probably just because it was printed in the same set as Overmaster and they wanted them to have matching text boxes.

I really think people should stop reading that section as "Only these spells are allowed to have targets." The rule isn't saying only those spells can target. It's saying those spells are the only ones that target so far. If at some point they decide to make a creature spell that targets while it's on the stack, they'll add an entry to explain what happens then. Until then we can just daydream about what might be different about a creature spell that targets than a creature spell that doesn't target.

The most obvious thing would be that a creature card put onto the battlefield by an effect doesn't have a target like it would if it was cast.

Strangely enough, there was a time when Clone did have a target, so in Alpha it wasn't possible to clone a creature that had a Blue Ward on it. This lasted until 2001 or so, and in that times they mostly avoided printing new clone variants because they had too many rules issues. The world is happier now that clone spells don't target.

I already checked the Alpha printing. It didn't have a target.

Checking the printings, Beta didn't target either. Nor Unlimited. Checking Revised...Nope, none of them target. Although they all do say Clone can't be cast without a creature on the battlefield.

That is hardly the same thing as requiring a target, though. Where are you getting this nonsense that Blue Ward prevented Clone from working?

It wasn't printed as having a target; rules at the time made it function that way:

From the Revised Rules


Choosing a creature to clone was the same as targeting, as I recall. At least I remember being unable to Clone a Scragnoth in the Type 2 of the day.

That's still not a source stating the specific interaction of Clone with protection from blue, but whatever. I wasn't playing at the time, and if they ever invent time traveling I have no intention of going back in time to play Magic the Stone Age.

This is from Crystalkeep, an old website that used to collect official rulings. Though Crystalkeep is long dead, you may still find this if you search the usenet archives on google groups.



And this is the official oracle text of Clone from Sixth Edition till 2001, as you can see in the old Wizards site, rescued from Oblivion by the internet wayback machine here:

Without this wording, your creature spell could be countered by Chalice of the Void's ability.

if it just said "the next creature spell you cast this turn can't be countered."?

It was so that it could look visually consistent with Overmaster. Overmaster, of course, says that so that the spell can still be countered on resolution when it fizzles. Since creatures don't fizzle, it's just superfluous text.

this has already been mentioned. I was addressing Chaikov's claim that using the shorter wording would impact its interaction with chalice of the void.

Oh, it wouldn't, like you said.

Yes, I should have realized earlier what was meant. Need. More. Coffee.

I don't really understand why a fizzling spell uses the same terminology as counter effects.

Mostly because a second term isn't needed. They describe the same process: a spell which needs to be removed from the stack because it isn't going to resolve. That they have different causes (a spell or ability vs. the game rules) is only rarely relevant, and easy to clarify those few times it is.