Welcome to Personal Tutor, where we discuss how to maximize our opportunities for player education. Our goal is to transcend the basic answer to create an informative answer that the player will really remember. You may even find this process helps you come to a better understanding of the rules yourself.

The Scenario:
Ansel Adams and Nicholas Nixon are playing in a Sealed GPT. Ansel calls you over and asks, "Can I target Nicholas's Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver with my Bolt of Keranos?“

What do you tell him?

The Basic Answer:
”No. It targets a creature or player.”

This month we have a scenario that originates from the newest member of the Personal Tutor team, John Brian McCarthy. What is Ansel trying to do? What does he need to know? What can you tell him about the action he wants to perform?

L1s and Judge Candidates, feel free to give your answers immediately. L2s, please wait a day to add your input. L3+, please wait two days.

“No, you cannot target ashoik with your bolt of keranos as it only targets creatures or players. If you want to deal damage to enemy planeswalkers with a spell you have to target the controlling player and upon resolution of that spell you declare that you are redirecting the damage to their planeswalker, and in this instance, you'd scry one off of bolt.”

This is one where I really don't know whether or not my response ends up being coaching, but this is what I'd go with:

“Technically no, just creatures or players, but the planeswalker rules allow you to redirect non-combat damage you would deal to an opponent to a planeswalker controlled by that opponent.”

It just seems “off” somehow.

“While you cannot TARGET the planeswalker, you can redirect damage TO the planewalker after targetting the player. When you hear people say they are going to Bolt Planeswalker A - it is an established shortcut that most players use. Just remember that you have to target the Player first and then chose to redirect the damage. This is important when certain cards (like, Leyline of Sanctity and/or Aegis of the Gods) stop the PLAYER from being targetted because now you cannot redirect damage in that way.”

But after typing this I feel that I may be crossing the line into supplying strategic advice.

Edited Darren Horve (July 3, 2014 11:54:22 AM)

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

“While you cannot TARGET the planeswalker, you can redirect damage TO the planewalker after targetting the player. When you hear people say they are going to Bolt Planeswalker A - it is an established shortcut that most players use. Just remember that you have to target the Player first and then chose to redirect the damage. This is important when certain cards (like, Leyline of Sanctity and/or Aegis of the Gods) stop the PLAYER from being targetted because now you cannot redirect damage in that way.”

But after typing this I feel that I may be crossing the line into supplying strategic advice.

I think everything up to the “this is important when…” was good. i forgot to mention something about the shortcut of “bolt ashiok” which is definitely worth mentioning. Talking about aegis or leyline i would certainly be hesitant about mentioning.

Edited Elliot Garner (July 3, 2014 12:48:41 PM)

"Can I target Nicholas's Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver with my Bolt of Keranos?“

Ansel is trying to bolt Ashiok. The question is a little odd, but the net is probably that he would like to know if he can damage the planeswalker with his spell.

My answer would be:
“Yes, ‘targeting Ashiok’ is a valid shortcut for indicating that you are going to target the player with the Bolt of Keranos, and then if that spell resolves you are going to redirect the damage to Ashiok. If the player has hexproof then you cannot do this as you need to target them initially and can only redirect the damage as a replacement effect once the spell resolves.”

I started to answer completely differently, but Magic is not a game of Gotcha, so I changed my mind. The issue is rather subtle and nitpicky, as far as the shortcut goes. The shortcut says “A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target (…)”. Ansel can't actually target Ashiok, but he can *choose* Ashiok as the Bolt's target, at which point the shortcut kicks in, turning the choice into “I target Nicholas and then redirect the damage to Ashiok on resolution.” Because of the “Magic is not Gotcha” guideline, I believe I can translate the question “can I target X with Y” to “can I choose X as a target for Y”.

So I believe I can give the proper answer that Ansel needs without going into dangerous coaching territory. But I don't feel comfortable with this decision because there is still a nagging feeling in my mind that I shouldn't because of coaching.

“Yes, you can choose his Ashiok as the target for your Bolt. But you don't actually target Ashiok because a planeswalker is not a creature or a player. It's just a shortcut meaning ‘I cast Bolt of Keranos targeting you and I redirect the damage to your Ashiok on resolution’.”

But I would stop there. There are some limitations (only your opponents' planeswalkers, only spells and abilities that deal damage, only non-combat damage, and only if its controller is a legal target) and there is the fact that the choice to redirect can be delayed until the spell or ability resolves. But I wouldn't volunteer those facts since that crosses the line into coaching. For now, I just stick with the issue at hand, where the shortcut is perfectly applicable.

If Ansel is totally unfamiliar with the planeswalker rules I will almost certainly get follow-up questions, and then I will fill in the gaps where I can. But until then, Ansel is at a disadvantage because of inferior understanding of the rules, and I can not take that advantage away from Nicholas.

At Regular REL I get this question often, and there I just go into more detail straight away, for educational reasons. But not at Comp REL.

I hate the planeswalker redirection rule. To me, it feels incredibly awkward and unintuitive. As a player, it was very confusing to me, and as a judge, it's tough for me to be effective when asked a question like this. As other posts have demonstrated, it is difficult to sufficiently answer this question without coaching the player, and to me that smells of an unnecessarily complex rule.

So, my first instinct is to give a “yes and no, but play like it's yes and ask me again after your match” answer and then just hover at the table to catch any mistakes that happen. That's a pretty crappy answer, though, so let me try again.

"Your spell cannot target the Planeswalker, however its damage can be redirected from your opponent to his Planeswalker.

That's not bad. Pretty good, actually.

Ansel is trying to use Bolt of Keranos to deal damage to Ashiok. His specific question “Can I target Ashiok” would be answered ‘no’. But, he can use this card on its own to achieve the desired effect. I don't think the knowledge of how to do so accounts for particular strategic advice, it's just a matter of how the rules do or don't work. Additionally, there's a defined shortcut for players to say things like “Bolt your Ashiok” and have a meaningful game outcome.

So, I think it's fine to answer “no, but…” with an explanation of the planeswalker redirection rule. Since we're in a game, I wouldn't add example interactions (like shroud on a player), as those veer into strategic advice. If the player wants to know about those, it's their skill to anticipate the rules interaction and ask about it.

My answer would be something like:

“You can use Bolt of Keranos to deal damage to Ashiok. However, when you do this, you're not actually targeting Ashiok - You're targeting Nicholas, and when the spell resolves and deals damage, instead of dealing 3 damage to Nicholas, you can choose to deal 3 damage to a planeswalker he controls instead. This is a special rule for planeswalkers.

You'll often hear players saying things like ‘Bolt your Ashiok’ or ‘Bolt, targeting your Ashiok’. This isn't actually targeting, it's just a shorthand for ‘Bolt targeting you, and I’m going to redirect the damage to Ashiok”

I think that answering “No, but…” or “You can't target it, however…” is incredibly unfair to Nicholas (the opponent in this scenario). Moreover, that specific phrasing could easily cause our hypothetical opponent to get upset – “I thought judges weren't supposed to offer strategic advice!”

On the other hand, most of us seem to agree that we should help Ansel do what he's trying to do.

How do we balance these two conflicting goals? Well, as other episodes of Personal Tutor have shown us, the specific phrasing we use when giving a ruling (even a straightforward rules question like this) can greatly impact how our words are received by the players.

I think the best way to resolve this tension is to actually answer “Yes” to the original question. This answer is misleading from the perspective of the Comprehensive Rules, but correct from the perspective of the Tournament Rules. The relevant section of the MTR states: “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.”

Given that, my ideal response would be something like this: “Yes, you can target Ashiok with Bolt of Keranos. What that actually means is you're targeting Nicholas, but redirecting the damage to Ashiok as the Bolt resolves.” While this conveys the same information that many other people have proposed, I think it avoids giving Nicholas the impression that we're providing Ansel with strategic advice.

Discussing how the shortcut interacts with something like Aegis of the Gods can be very helpful for helping players understand the shortcut…outside the current game. I think doing so during the match crosses the line into strategic advice, for both players.

Since we have an established shortcut in the MTR (Section 4.2) that Paul referenced to, I agree with his ideal response.

The goal of shortcuts is to make the game less technical so that players don't have to play precisely as the Comp Rules dictate; they play in a more human fashion.

It sounds like Ansel's intent is to redirect the Bolt damage to Ashiok. If we give Ansel the technical correct answer, I feel that is an incredibly poor customer service moment. We aren't robots, and learning how to combine some human understanding into tourney rulings benefits both us and the players.

Another option:

“Lets turn your question into a question about rules instead of cards: It sounds like you want to know about noncombat damage and planeswalkers?”

#edit#
At which point, yes, explain both the short cut and relevant planeswalker rules.

#edit 2#
The reason I prefer this approach, is its really hard to be coaching if you don't talk about specific choices the player can/cant di, but instead remind/teach them what the rules allow/disallow.

Edited Chad Havas (July 8, 2014 03:13:00 AM)

When i first read the the scenario i was honestly thinking myself “Am i crossing the line of coaching if i answer the question?” because the question itself is worded kinda odly, and a pure technical answer has this bad taste of giving strategic advice to Ansel.

I'm with Paul here, the phrasing of the answer can make a big difference from both players perspective. I would also take the chance and explain the planeswalker redirection rule because it will help both players in future situations, for example if they face an opponent with hexproof.

I like Chad's approach: when i come to a table i like to ask question about the current situation, usually to confirm my understanding of the game state and the question i get asked (it eats up some seconds but i want to be 100% sure to give the right answer instead of a snapcall). Is it acceptable to shift the original question from targeting to damaging the planeswalker (for example "So you want to deal damage to Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver with that Bolt of Keranos ?") ? This will give the option to answer the question in a way where it doesnt sound like a strategic advice and we are still on the correct technical side.

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?

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.