Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

If Nick did NOT know that he had to change the targets and he realizes that only when shown by Ashton that the spell will be countered, is that something you want to let him take back? Because he claims it was implied, but in reality I believe that it would be far more likely that he just didn't know and is now creating a story to get it done after the fact.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Nick knew he had to change the target, but just didn't explicitly communicate it. If I was watching this match, and the same series of events took place, except that rather than stopping Nick, Ashton allows the Intuition to resolve “normally” and they just go on with their match, I wouldn't intervene and inform Nick that his spell was countered because he didn't change the target. Why not? Because it is already clear to both players what is happening. That being the case, I don't see how we can deduce that Nick correctly changed the target in that case, but not in the original scenario.

Yes, maybe the fact that Intuition is somewhat weird (you don't immediately expect there to be a target) is relevant, but I'm not sure it should be. If a player casts Reverberate on a Lava Axe and doesn't explicitly say “and change the target to you”, are we going to say “Sorry, you didn't say the magic words, so now you take 10”? This seems counter to how we want “Gotcha” situations to play out. We want players to play Magic, not benefit from technicalities in how things are communicated.

To follow on from Vincent's comments, the Hive Mind trigger requires you to make a decision - you may change the target, or you may keep the target the same. If he hasn't made it clear, it's not up to us or Ashton to assume a decision which suits us. The “assume you chose not to” clause is from Missed Trigger infractions, and this (a) isn't a missed trigger; and (b) isn't a ‘may’ trigger either.

So based on this one could argue it's a GRV for Nick for not resolving his trigger properly, and rewind to the resolution of the trigger.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

To follow on from Vincent's comments, the Hive Mind trigger requires you to make a decision - you may change the target, or you may keep the target the same. If he hasn't made it clear, it's not up to us or Ashton to assume a decision which suits us. The “assume you chose not to” clause is from Missed Trigger infractions, and this (a) isn't a missed trigger; and (b) isn't a ‘may’ trigger either.

So based on this one could argue it's a GRV for Nick for not resolving his trigger properly, and rewind to the resolution of the trigger.

Hive Mind
Inuition


Hive Mind has a “may” in the change target choice. If no choice explicitly is made, it is implied no change. This is definitely a “feel bad” ruling. As it was stated earlier in the thread, 99% of the time this spell is cast assumptions are made without explicit targets named. However, I don't think there is an argument for calling this a GRV.

I've taken a dive into the MTR and CR, I can't find any passages that indicate if you only have one opponent, you default to targeting him/her when casting a spell targeting an opponent. This goes both ways. Neither player can assume that their copy of Intuition is smart targeting.

Given the above is true, I would ask if Ashton indicated a target to Nick when casting his Intuition. If he did, tough luck for Nick. If he didn't, GRV/FtmGS rewind to before the original is Intuition on the stack and play on.

If someone's search-fu is stronger than mine and finds a rule that defaults the targets of opponent in a two player game to the other player, you get a +1 from me. Best I found was the following:

102.2
In a two-player game, a player’s opponent is the other player

Edited Bret Siakel (Jan. 24, 2014 08:44:32 PM)

I think there is an argument to be made here that a shortcut was established if the player originally casting Intuition did not bother to declare a target, instead assuming he was choosing the legal target. This shortcut could then be applied to this situation by assuming that spells with only one legal target would be targeting that choice.

Originally posted by Elliot Raff:

I think there is an argument to be made here that a shortcut was established if the player originally casting Intuition did not bother to declare a target, instead assuming he was choosing the legal target. This shortcut could then be applied to this situation by assuming that spells with only one legal target would be targeting that choice.

Agreed. If there was a shortcut established of target opponent = target only legal target w/o having to be explicit, they either both get it, or both don't.

Catch is, a shortcut like this needs to be explicitly established and agreed upon.

716. Taking Shortcuts
716.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than
explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.

716.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game
understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable

Based off of what we have to go on, it sounds like they are in serious disagreement. I'd ask, but my $$$ is on they have no shortcut established.

Originally posted by Bret Siakel:

Hive Mind has a “may” in the change target choice. If no choice explicitly is made, it is implied no change.

It isn't a ‘may’ trigger though. It's a mandatory trigger, part of which includes the word ‘may’. (It would be a ‘May’ trigger if it said “…may copy…”

So my point is - what lets us imply one choice over the other, when nothing has been communicated?

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It isn't a 'may' trigger though. It's a mandatory trigger, part of which includes the word 'may'.

I'm not quite understanding how this distinction applies to policy. All triggers are mandatory in the sense that they have to be put onto the stack if possible. An example of this being relevant is the interaction with Restoration Angel having Phantasmal Image as the only legal target.

My understanding was that all optional elements of all triggers were assumed to be declined, unless stated otherwise. Are you saying that this assumption is only made when the entirety of the trigger is a single optional element?

Originally posted by Glenn Fisher:

My understanding was that all optional elements of all triggers were assumed to be declined, unless stated otherwise. Are you saying that this assumption is only made when the entirety of the trigger is a single optional element?

While this concept can be found when Judging at Regular, it is not applicable here since the described situation is supposed to happen at REL competitive.
(Usually, the trigger is forgotten if you do not choose to perform whatever the “may” action is though)

Rather, the IPG states the following about triggered abilities:

[...]

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:

[...]

• A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

[...]

Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

[...]

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

[...]

As for Hive Mind's triggered ability, it is one of the above mentioned triggers(bold part), as it does something else except creating a copy of a spell or ability and requires a choice upon resolution, and Nick(NAP) is expected to demonstrate its awareness by taking all physical actions it calls for and making all appropriate choices made on resolution of that ability.
Obviously, he failed to do so correctly(he did not announce a choice that the trigger called for), but since he otherwise acknowledged the triggered ability, any such errors are Game Rule Violations, and handled appropriately.
In that case, failing to announce a choice for an object previously or currently on the stack(as appropriate, in this case “previously” since the trigger has already resolved) will not be partially fixed, and the situation should either be rewinded completely, or the game-state is left as is. If you do not rewind, the copy's target will be the same target as the one chosen for the original Intuition.
(In addition, appropriate penalties should be handed out)

Mark Mc Govern
So my point is - what lets us imply one choice over the other, when nothing has been communicated?

As far as I know, we can not assume either choice to have been made.
The only official source I could find that allows us to imply one over the other is a passage from the Judging at Regular document, and I assume it may cause some confusion when trying to apply it to another Rules Enforcement Level:

If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it.

However, note this document, and the philosophy it is based on, are in no way applicable here.
None of its policies carry over, none of its procedures carry over, and we can not apply it to anything happening at REL competitive.
When judging at competitive REL, treat this document as though it does not exist.

Since the IPG has its own way to handle triggered ability, and resolving them incorrectly(or not at all), we should only apply any procedure documented in it, and this does, as far as I am aware of, and in conjunction with the Magic Tournament Rules lead to the result described above. (Excluding penalties, to simplify matters)


Edit: Now that I think about it, Storm and Cipher seem to be rather poor examples for triggers that do nothing except creating copies of a spell or ability, as this is only true for Storm if the spell has no targets, and it is never true for Cipher as the trigger allows you to cast the copy from exile in addition to creating it.

Edited Sebastian Stückl (Jan. 25, 2014 02:14:14 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

So my point is - what lets us imply one choice over the other, when nothing has been communicated?

Intuition requires a target. So does the copy. To not have a target would be a GRV.

Nick does not need to choose a target for the copy. It already has a target. He has the option of changing that target to something else, but that change needs to be demonstrated to his opponent. Ashton explicitly asked him he if was ready to resolve the copy. By agreeing to resolve, he demonstrated he did not make changes to the legal copy of Intuition on the stack.

This all changes if there was no target declared on the original Intuition.

Thought Exercise: How would peoples opinion change is Hive Mind read like this:

Hive Mind
Whenever a player casts an instant or sorcery spell, each other player copies that spell. Each of those players choose different targets for his or her copy.

There has to be a difference between how we approach “may” and “required to” or there would be no reason for some cards to use the word “may.”

PS: I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've always hated that some cards have “may” aspects, and others don't. I feel like that just leads into feel bad situations because of a lack of communication between players when assumptions are made.

I'd agree that Ashton commited a GRV if he did not announce a target for Intuition when he cast it, and we can rewind the game to there. If he did choose a target, I still say there is nothing that can be done, much as that seems unfair.

Thought Exercise

This would mean a GRV for Nick for not announcing new targets, although we should explain its only a warning, even though it seems pointless.

The new wording does raise issues though. If Ashton had a Witchbane Orb in play, what happens to Nick's copy of Intuition?

Originally posted by Bret Siakel:

Mark Mc Govern
So my point is - what lets us imply one choice over the other, when nothing has been communicated?

Intuition requires a target. So does the copy. To not have a target would be a GRV.

Nick does not need to choose a target for the copy. It already has a target. He has the option of changing that target to something else, but that change needs to be demonstrated to his opponent. Ashton explicitly asked him he if was ready to resolve the copy. By agreeing to resolve, he demonstrated he did not make changes to the legal copy of Intuition on the stack.

This all changes if there was no target declared on the original Intuition.

Why? If there is only 1 legal choice for a target, do we actually go around handing out Warnings for not declaring a target? This seems really silly and draconian.

Thought Exercise: How would peoples opinion change is Hive Mind read like this:

Hive Mind
Whenever a player casts an instant or sorcery spell, each other player copies that spell. Each of those players choose different targets for his or her copy.

There has to be a difference between how we approach “may” and “required to” or there would be no reason for some cards to use the word “may.”

I don't think this wording does what you think it does. It doesn't actually fix the problem. Because Ashton's Intuition is not a copy created by Hive Mind, Hive Mind 2 does not check that Nick's copy has a different target than Ashton's copy. Hence the situation is the same. A spell's target is a copiable characteristic, so implied targetting by copying is a legal option by the rules.

That aside, if your intent is to create a card which forces the player to choose a different target, that card is functionally different from Hive Mind, in that, say you cast Slaughter Pact with only 1 creature in play, then you couldn't choose a different target. This discussion is largely pointless due to the fact that the “new” card is actually functionally different from the old card, rather than simply turning a “may” into a “must” as intended. I don't think there is a clean way to do what you want within the rules without printing all sorts of rules jargon on the card.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 27, 2014 05:14:45 AM)

Lyle, what rule supports allowing the player to not choose a target when
there is only one legal one? It's not in the General Shortcuts. While
yes, we wouldn't intervene in a match to give a Warning for such an action
given that both players understood what was going on, we're in this game
now since a Judge was called for and it's very possible that a GRV has been
committed and both players did NOT understand what was going on (Ashton
understood he was targeting Nick, but Nick thought the choice was made on
resolution and didn't think Ashton had to target anyone).

Even thought I brought it up, I'm uncertain whether we actually want to be
backing up for this, but I think it's worth discussing. I am in favor of
not rewarding Ashton for rules lawyering, particularly if it is likely that
he was just playing Intuition earlier in the match/tournament and not
announcing a target or anything and only now is taking advantage of the
technicality that he has been ignoring earlier.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Why? If there is only 1 legal choice for a target, do we actually go around handing out Warnings for not declaring a target? This seems really silly and draconian.

I agree, and would never advocate for a second that judges walking by matches should be issuing GRVs for players implying targets based off of logical assumptions. We are all human, not machines.

Here is the difference, the player(s) called me over. If Ashton didn't declare a target because the target was obvious, he doesn't get to say Nick failed to change that target to the obvious player on the copied Intuition. If no target was declared on the original Intuition, one of two things happened; either they agreed to a shortcut (previously mentioned in a prior post) or Ashton committed a GRV.

Think about the kinds of questions we'd ask, and the answers we'd get...
What happened?
Ashton: (summary)… He didn't change the target, it's countered on resolution because he is an illegal target right?

Who was the original target?
Ashton: Nick was.

Did you actually target him?
Ashton: Not specifically, but he is the only legal target.

So you assumed when casting that the only legal target was chosen?
Ashton: Yes

Why can't we assume that Nick didn't also do the same?
Ashton: …

For me, it comes down to not playing word games with players and holding them both equally accountable. One of three outcomes occurs:

1. Players agreed on a shortcut of obvious target is the target - Ashton wants to break this shortcut, so we let Nick manually chose his target.
   
2. Ashton is playing gotcha magic by not naming a target, then expecting his opponent to be required to - GRV, rewind to before the illegal action.
   
3. Ashton did name a target, and Nick forgot/didn't know to change it on his on copy - Nothing to do here. Copy is countered upon resolution.
   

:D

It occurs to me that there is a wrinkle that may or may not be relevant.

There are two printings of Intuition. One is from Tempest, and specifies
“target opponent.” The other is a Judge Foil and says “an opponent.”
Obviously, the Oracle text agrees with the Tempest version. However, any
Intuition used in tournament play will have the old border and one of these
wordings, and the Judge foil is obviously the newer one.

Certainly Nick has some responsibility for knowing what the cards in the
game in question do. However, if Ashton has been shortcutting the
targeting of Intuition and is using copies of the card that do not refer to
a target, it seems exceedingly unfair to penalize Nick when his opponent
has been playing the card wrong and has made no indication of the actual
wording of the card until a “gotcha” moment occurred.

ashton's shortcut of casting intuition makes perfect sense: there's only
one possible legal way to cast it (which is targeting nick) so it's not
unclear what's actually happening. however, with nick's intuition, it's
legal for him to either keep it targeting himself, or to target ashton.
it's not “obvious” what is the correct thing to do: maybe nick only has 3
cards left in his library and he doesn't want to deck, for example, or he
has a great card on top of his library from a previous brainstorm and
doesn't want to shuffle. the default is not to change the target, so we
should not back up or issue any penalties.
the people who are trying to back this up and let nick get his hand held
just because they are annoyed that ashton's trick worked, you guys are
looking at judging all wrong. it's not your job to make sure everyone knew
all the rules and implications of their game actions before they made a
play that didn't work out. it's your job to make sure that the people who
DO know the rules and interactions better are able to use that to their
advantage, as it is in fact a desirable skill to test as mentioned in the
documents.