I'm with Paul and Chris. We all know what the player is trying to do, he just is't aware of how that technicly happens. The problem with the whole question becomes relevant if (and only if?) the player would be able to become hexproof or is already hexproof. So technicly speaking always relevant.

Like said, there is even a shortcut definition of a player “targetting a planeswalker”. So he's basicly asking us “can I shortcut”. I would answer him that “targetting a planeswalker” like this is never actually possible, but that his phrasing (which he probably uses a while by now) basically means a type of shortcut that implies both the targetting (of an enemy controller) with a damage spell/ability and the redirection towards the walker.

I honestly don't see how explaining how this works is unfair to the opponent. Ansel knows perfectly what he wants to do and he even knows the shortcut, so explain. I do not agree with Paul Baranay that we can simply answer “yes”, because than we will get bullshit afterwards with players being surprized that suddenly their shortcut doesn't work when a Witchbane Orb is in play.

Because when an Orb would be in play you and the same question is asked we would answer very strangely “no” than and we would not be able to explain why because than we would be giving tactical advice as we would need to delve into “well you can not target your opponent in the first place…” Which would result in tactical knowledge that the witchbane orb needs to be destroyed first…

Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

Is there no love for rephrasing the question here?

“You want to know if you can TARGET Ashiok, or deal damage to him?”

Although we don't want to turn this into a Gotcha moment, we also don' want to assume the player knows what he's trying to do. Do we? Are we really going to help a player learn how to play the game at Competitive? It's very probable the player knows what he wants to do, but in the event he doesn't know that rule is it fair to the opponent to teach him? How would that differ from telling a player he can destroy a pro White creature with Supreme Verdict, or that Pithing Needle naming Loxodon Smiter isn't going to help much?

It isn't any different.

Supreme Verdict:

“This is how protection works: It prevents damage, enchant/equip/(fine fortification), blocking and targeting. If you aren't doing those things protection doesn't apply.”

This isn't strategic advice. It's a fact about the rules.
I haven't said anything about what his cards do, or what he may want to do, but have answered his question by citing (or paraphrasing) comp rules.

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

As it happens, I agree with Chris – I dislike feigning ignorance and
turning Ansel's question into a “question” of our own. But I think that,
since the tournament rules themselves talk about “targeting a planeswalker”
with a direct damage spell (which we all know isn't how it actually works),
it's acceptable to answer “yes” to Ansel's question. No if's, and's, or
but's; just say yes.

I agree this os acceptable, given shortcut policy, but I don't think it fits a general guideline about coaching, or serves our role in this situation in the best possible way. But yeah, I think a simple yes is certainly okay.

I don't think in this scenario it's acceptable to just say “Yes” and be done with it. That's false information we're giving to a player. The only technically correct answer is “No, Bolt of Keranos can only target creatures or planeswalkers”.

I think if you're going to answer “Yes”, you have to back it up with how that fits into the rules. Otherwise, next round when the same player tries to target a planeswalker with a hexproof opponent, we're going to have some real bad feelings.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this week's Personal Tutor. As some of you noted, the core question here is whether to answer the technical question or the actual question the player asked.

Some of you answered “No,” noting that since Bolt of Keranos targets a creature or player, and Ashiok is neither a creature nor a player, this answer is technically correct, but let's look at what the MTR says about non-combat damage and planeswalkers:

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

Because this shortcut is in place, if the player said, “Bolt of Karanos targeting Ashiok,” we wouldn't apply a GRV - even though the player technically is choosing to “target” a planeswalker with a spell that can only target creatures or players, the shortcut makes it clear what he's actually doing. As a result, telling the player he can't “target” Ashiok with his bolt is misleading.

There were some valid concerns raised in this thread about coaching - we don't want players to perceive that we're explaining correct lines of play to their opponents. But in this case, Ansel has already determined what he wants to do, and is just checking the legality - we're not providing him with any new insights on the board state or which move he should make.

Here's our answer:

Yes, you can say that, but the game actually does something slightly different.

Bolt of Keranos says it targets a creature or player. Any time you deal non-combat damage to an opponent, you may redirect that damage to a planeswalker he or she controls. There is an official Tournament Shortcut that says when you pick a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that targets an opponent, it really means you target the player and redirect the damage.

So you can say “Bolt targeting your Ashiok.” It just means “Bolt targeting you, redirect the damage to Ashiok.”

This answer has the advantage of:

• Answering the question Ansel asked
  
• Illustrating the shortcut so that both players know why this answer is correct, even though Bolt of Keranos doesn't specify planeswalkers
  
• Avoiding any additional coaching or expanding the scenario beyond what was asked. There's no reason to mention things like damage prevention effects or hexproof. Mentioning other specific cards or possible future interactions or lines of play that the player never mentioned is serious coaching territory.
  
• Succinctly answering the question and getting the players back to their game without the need for a time extension.
  
• Introducing the players to the idea of “shortcuts” and that we recognize that players will often make statements that skip technical steps, but which most players can understand - this can be particularly helpful with players who play mostly online.
  

We like a lot of the answers provided on this thread - Ernst Jan Plugge does a solid job of providing answers that explains the shortcut quickly and unambiguously. Paul Baranay points out the critical reception difference between starting with a “yes, because…” and starting with a “no, but…”.

Thanks to everyone who responded, and we'll be back with a new scenario next month! If you would like to contribute a scenario for discussion, suggest an area of rules or policy about which you would like to see a scenario, or become a member of the Personal Tutor team, please send Joshua Feingold a forum message.