Aaron and Nolan play a competitive match.



Both players have 5 life, Aaron has 2 Fireball in hand, while Nolan has a Reverse Damage. Through an earlier Gitaxian Probe, Aaron is aware of Nolan's Reverse Damage.

Aaron knows the Comprehensive Rules very well. He knows you have to announce targets as you cast your spell. He also knows it is legal to cast Fireball without any targets.

Aaron wants to win the game, but has to play around the Reverse Damage.

And so, Aaron announces “I cast Fireball, X is 5.”, and places it on the table, tapping 6 Mountain. While doing so, he makes no move that would indicate to an observer that the Fireball would target Nolan. He simply puts it on the table.

That prompts Nolan to cast the Reverse Damage, thinking it'd bring him victory.

Quickly afterwards, the situation comes to strong disagreements on what happened in the game, a judge is called. Aaron insists he played Fireball without announcing any targets. Nolan can confirm that, but insists that "it's clear that this Fireball was directed/targetting Nolan."

Now my question:
Was Aaron using his rules knowledge to his advantage and bait the Reverse Damage out of Nolan completely legally?
Or, was the Reverse Damage cast only on the assumption that Fireball has a target and would be rewinded because of “unclear communication”. ?

Additional note:
Assuming Nolan lets the Fireball resolve, Aaron would probably claim Nolan was dead. I mean, the target was obvious, no ?

**Edit, I was wrong ‘cause fireball’. Going to leave my presumptions here for continuity and posterity**

Whereas Aaron choose a value of X greater than zero for fireball, he does in fact need to choose targets.

107.1c. If a rule or ability instructs a player to choose “any number,” that player may choose any positive number or zero, unless something (such as damage or counters) is being divided or distributed among “any number” of players and/or objects. In that case, a nonzero number of players and/or objects must be chosen if possible.

Edited Jarrett Boutilier (Oct. 13, 2016 02:10:12 PM)

Aaron cast the spell legally. There is no requirement that he specifically says “Fireball for 5 with no targets”.
Nolan cast the Reverse Damage *on the assumption* that it had a target and that Nolan was the target.
When players make decisions based on assumptions and choose not to clarify what happened before making a play, they are usually not rewarded for this behavior. (“Targeting me for 5?”)
Also, Nolan knew that Aaron had seen the Reverse Damage, so he should have been suspicious by the play. (Not a policy issue, but just another reason why asking for clarification is important)
Regarding the additional note: If Aaron was making an assumption that he was targeting something without any indication, that's an equally poor assumption. Also not very likely to work out for him.

Edited Shawn Doherty (Oct. 11, 2016 10:07:36 AM)

Jarrett, the player does not divide any damage in this scenario. Fireball
does all the division math itself on resolution.

—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

On Oct 11, 2016 7:52 AM, “Jarrett Boutilier” <

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

Was Aaron using his rules knowledge to his advantage and bait the Reverse Damage out of Nolan completely legally?Or, was the Reverse Damage cast only on the assumption that Fireball has a target and would be rewinded because of “unclear communication”. ?

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

Assuming Nolan lets the Fireball resolve, Aaron would probably claim Nolan was dead. I mean, the target was obvious, no ?

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

Nolan can confirm that (Aaron didn't verbally anoounce any targets), but insists that “it's clear that this Fireball was directed/targetting Nolan.”

I would start the investigation by asking both players if Aaron already dealt damage to Nolan with other Fireballs earlier in the match. If yes, then how did Aaron indicate to Nolan he was a target those other times? If Aaron did in fact cast other Fireballs at Nolan without verbally targeting and now Aaron claims this Fireball isn't going to hit his opponent, I'd be inclined to rule against that play and declare that Nolan is indeed targeted because of how Nolan understood Aaron's game actions from past plays.

On the other hand, if Aaron never threw a Fireball at Nolan before and there were no shortcuts established between the players about how Aaron would non-verbally choose targets for his damage-dealing spells, then I might have to agree with Aaron that Fireball is on the stack flying toward Nolan. Nolan after all could have asked Aaron to clarify what that Fireball was targeting before making any game décisions.

@Eric: If Aaron never play before a fireball, but play others spells like lightning bolt… You will include it??

I think all “direct damage spells” (even every “target spell”) counts to give us a measure of the intentionality of Aaron or the trickly…
If Aaron allways before tells targets or move the card to touch his target… and now don´t do it… I think it´s fair this win move.

Originally posted by Iván R. Molia:

@Eric: If Aaron never play before a fireball, but play others spells like lightning bolt… You will include it??

Oops. I meant to type “that damage-dealing spell” instead of “his damage dealing spells”. Sorry about causing confusion.

I wouldn't include Lightning Bolt to determine Aaron's intentions with Fireball because Bolt actually needs to have a target whereas Fireball doesn't.

The text of rule 107.1c just mentions something being “divided”, not necessarily a division that a player needs to make decisions for. Is there another rule or policy that makes “X > 0 but no targets” a legal declaration when possible legal targets exist?

Not to derail the discussion, but so everyone knows:
Fireball is a corner case. It is a spell that deals damage to (up to)
multiple things without requiring the damage to be divided on
announcement. It is a spell that has been confusing players and judges
since the beginning of Magic. It is perfectly acceptable to choose X to be
greater than 0 and to have no targets. Please do not let the minutia of
the card distract you from the policy discussion.

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

Additional note:
Assuming Nolan lets the Fireball resolve, Aaron would probably claim Nolan was dead. I mean, the target was obvious, no ?

This “additional note” makes this situation cheating. If Aaron is intentionally leaving the targets ambiguous until Nolan does (or doesn't) let it resolve, he's violating game rules to gain advantage.

Edited Eli Meyer (Oct. 11, 2016 08:11:48 PM)

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

I wouldn't include Lightning Bolt to determine Aaron's intentions with Fireball because Bolt actually needs to have a target whereas Fireball doesn't.

I think that if Aaron was playing the whole game before this situation “targeting” the targets of his spells by “moving/touching the spell to its target” and the tricky fireball was completly diferent, and with a lightning Aaron move-target Nolan and now don´t do that… I undestood that the fireball have no targets.

Was a poor comunication and a ugly trick??
Yes, ofc…

Was legal??
I think yes…

(cheating discarted theory ^_^ with the Additional note… cheat is too an option to investigate)

Just putting this here, as it's a similar situation:

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/26849/

Let me turn this situation around:

I am at 5 life, my opponent casts “Fireball for 5” (without announcing a target). I have Reverse Damage in Hand, and I know that he has a second fireball and another 6 mana.
Can I now let it resolve, and then claim that “he didn't announce me as a target, hence I do not die”?

I don't think any judge would ever rule in my favor in this situation. It is completely obvious to everyone that he means to target me, and I do not get to play ‘gotcha!’ and angleshoot my opponent out of his fireball.



And then, if that is the case, how can a player ever not assume that if his opponent just casts fireball for a lethal amount without properly declaring his opponent as a target, that he is in fact the target?
How can the Fireball-casting player get to ‘gotcha!’ the nonactive player in a situation where the nonactive player can never, ever ‘gotcha!’ the active player if he does not respond?

Thread is closed, hence I can only edit:
While I can accept that we rule this way - and will do so accordingly, putting the burden of clarifying the gamestate on the responding player, rather than on the player casting the spell, feels very wrong.
It means that not communicating your intentions properly gives you an advantage, and as such, encourages leaving as much information as possible as vague as possible in order to gain an an advantage.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Oct. 12, 2016 01:52:34 PM)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

how can a player ever not assume

By asking clarifying questions. Acting on your assumptions is a really bad strategy, and judges should not be expected to improve that strategy.

I'm not sure there's any redeeming value left in this thread, so I'll just bring it to a close, now…

d:^D