Arya is attacking with one creature, Ned declares no blockers.
Arya cas't Warriors' Lesson but doesn't declare any target.
Then, after damage, Arya proceed to draw, and Ned calls a judge, because Arya doesn't target anything with Warriors' lesson.

Ruling by intent doesn't exist anymore, but I believe Arya just quickly play her card because the play was logic and the board state was really clear. I believe that I don't need to back-up, just let Arya draw and the game goes on.

But what does support this in the IPG or the MTR ? How to explain it to Ned ?

Edited Maxime Hoube (May 3, 2016 09:17:24 AM)

I'd say to Ned that casting Warrior's Lesson after no blockers have been declared on the one creature that's attacking looks to me like a shortcut. If needed, I'd also ask him if he truly believed that Arya cast it with zero targets, or whether he was hoping to somehow create an infraction out of nothing. If he looks like he's about to answer “yes” to that first part I'll be sure to remind him that lying to a judge is a serious thing.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

I'd say to Ned that casting Warrior's Lesson after no blockers have been declared on the one creature that's attacking looks to me like a shortcut. If needed, I'd also ask him if he truly believed that Arya cast it with zero targets, or whether he was hoping to somehow create an infraction out of nothing. If he looks like he's about to answer “yes” to that first part I'll be sure to remind him that lying to a judge is a serious thing.

Thanks you for the answer, it seems a proper way to handle it.

Are we really going to let Arya draw here? While her intent was clear, casting the spell with no targets is a perfectly legal action, and that's technically what she did. Consider the example of AP attacking with a 3/3 with trample, and NAP blocks with a 2/2. Neither player writes down a loss of one life for NAP. If next turn, AP remembers the trample, are we going to let her have it just because that was her intent?

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Are we really going to let Arya draw here?

Yes, we are.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

While her intent was clear, casting the spell with no targets is a perfectly legal action, and that's technically what she did. Consider the example of AP attacking with a 3/3 with trample, and NAP blocks with a 2/2. Neither player writes down a loss of one life for NAP. If next turn, AP remembers the trample, are we going to let her have it just because that was her intent?

“next turn” transforms this into a completely different scenario.

As a side note, why does Warriors' Lesson have that specific wording? I can't figure out that.

(Set aside being useful for rules quizs, when you need an example of “casting a spell for nothing”).

As a side note, why does Warriors' Lesson have that specific wording?

Because sometimes you want to cast it with only one target.

Edited Pascal Gemis (May 4, 2016 03:15:02 AM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

… casting the spell with no targets is a perfectly legal action, and that's technically what she did.

Honestly, though, do you really believe that that's what happened? I certainly don't. And I think that's the crux of the matter. Arya has made a very clear and straight forward play, and Ned is hoping to game a penalty out of not 100% technically accurate MTGO game play.

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

As a side note, why does Warriors' Lesson have that specific wording?

Because sometimes you want to cast it with only one target.

Then, you could write "Until end of turn, one or two target creatures you control each gain “Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, draw a card.”

We do not have any influence on how WotC want their cards to work. As it is printed now, it can target 0, 1 or 2 creatures. I think this is not a very productive way to have this discussion develop any further, and I think Mark already gave the only sensible explanation here.

Side question: would the ruling be different if it was day 2 of a GP or a PT?
The only difference between professional and competitive REL are “expectations of tighter technical play” as spelled out in IPG. Is this the case where there is difference between the two RELs?

I don't see myself ruling differently at Professional REL. For me it still comes down to “Does anyone here genuinely believe that there are zero targets”, and if anyone answers “Yes” I'll need to be strongly convinced that they haven't just lied to me.

I'm not claiming that Arya meant to declare 0 targets. But intent isn't everything. If a player says “attack you with my Grizzly Bears”, then later tries to assign the damage to a planeswalker, it doesn't matter what he meant to do, what matters is what he did. Arya may have had the intent to target her creature, but choosing 0 targets was a perfectly legal action too. What if Ned saw that Arya had chosen 0 targets, and used that information to decide how to block?

Originally posted by Isaac King:

If a player says “attack you with my Grizzly Bears”, then later tries to assign the damage to a planeswalker, it doesn't matter what he meant to do, what matters is what he did.

We have a shortcut for that:

A player is assumed to be attacking another player with his or her creatures and not any planeswalkers that player may control unless the attacking player specifies otherwise.

It happens fairly frequently that a player chooses to attack a player instead of a planeswalker, so the shortcut defines what happens if a player doesn't communicate otherwise. I'd argue that it almost never occurs that a player casts a spell that is solely designed benefit his or her attacking creature, but chooses not to target it instead - if a player is doing that, he or she would be expected to say so to alert his or her opponent to the extraordinary nature of his or her action.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

What if Ned saw that Arya had chosen 0 targets, and used that information to decide how to block?

As Mark suggested, if NAP told me that he chose not to block because he believed that AP selected no creatures, and that chose blockers instead of clarifying because that seemed most likely to him, I'm probably sending someone to grab some paper and print the FAQ.

The original scenario indicates that the spell was cast after no blockers were declared.

I would want to know why the opponent thought it was cast with no targets.

We as judges like it when players don't play too slowly, we actively encourage players to skip through steps and phases without specifying when they are passing priority, even though the game specifically requires it.

The actions were to attack with 1 creature, opponent chooses not to block, so AP casts a spell that can target up to 2 creatures that will put an ability on the creature to draw a card when it deals damage. Technically yes, AP should have specified there was a target, are we going to hold every player to perfect technical play when we don't want players to player using perfect technical play - I pass priority in my upkeep. I draw a card, I pass priority. I pass priority move to combat? etc etc.

Now had there been more than 1 creature attacking, and had blockers not been declared yet, then I would want slightly better communication as to which creature or creatures were being targeted.