This question came up at a Regular REL Legacy event where the players worked out a solution themselves, but I'm curious how people would have been handled at a Competitive REL tournament.

After resolving a Show and Tell, Ashton put in an Omniscience and Nick put in a Hive Mind. Ashton then cast Intuition and Nick pointed to his Hive Mind indicating the trigger. Ashton said something like “I've got no effects before your copy resolves, do you?” Nick shook his head and picked up his library, at which point Ashton explained that Nick's copy of Intuition was still targeting Nick, and was countered on resolution due to no legal targets.

Clearly it's reasonable for Ashton to expect his opponent to play precisely. How would you handle Nick's argument that the change of target to Ashton (the only target that would allow the spell to resolve) was implied by him going to resolve the spell?

Intuition says target opponent. Nick has to cast the copy, and he can't choose an illegal target for the spell (himself). This isn't a case of a spell fizzling, at worst Nick chose an illegal target and we rewind to him choosing a target for the copy.

Educate the player on both clear communication, the difference between ‘choosing illegal targets’ and ‘targets becoming illegal’. Also touch on the fact that magic isn't a game of ‘gotcha’, and shortcuts do exist that handle a large variety of situations.

Edit: missed that Hive Mind just creates the copy on the stack.

Edited David Jimenez III (Jan. 23, 2014 04:11:10 PM)

Easy to handle the argument. If he is claiming that the reolution implies it, then I rule it doesn't and he is out of luck. He forgot to change the targets, and that IS a skill check. By the time the copy is resolving, it is too late to change targets, as that should have been done during the reolution Hive Mind trigger. Unless they have established a shortcut to do this, it's too late.

On the other hand, if he is claiming that the act of pointing to Hive Mind implies the target switch, I'd be willing to listen a bit more closely. But not much. Again, have they established a shortcut?

Lastly, I'd consider out-of-order-sequencing. That is a possibility at first. But in the end, I would likely discard it. If there is a significant chance that Nick did NOT KNOW to change the target - and I think there is - then OoOS should not apply. Never let OoOS give a player a reprieve from forgetting some key piece of MTG logic. If he doesn't know the timing, that's fine, but if he forgot or didn't know that he had to change the trigger to work here, then that is NOT fine for OoOs. That a thing can happen in only one legal way doesn't mean that it happened that way.

So, I'd be inclined to let the spell be countered, unless Nick can convince me in some way that he knew what he was doing, and I don't see that happening here without an established shortcut.

Let's face it: isn't there a solid possibility that Nick simply forgot - albeit momentarily - the exact functionality of Intuition, and that he didn't realize it until his opponent called him out on it? It's Nick's Hive Mind, and he should be careful in how he uses it. I think he blew this skill check.

Eric Shukan
Woburn, MA USA

—– Original Message —–
From: Glenn Fisher
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:40 PM
Subject: Comminucating New Targets (Competitive REL)


This question came up at a Regular REL Legacy event where the players worked out a solution themselves, but I'm curious how people would have been handled at a Competitive REL tournament.

After resolving a Show and Tell, Ashton put in an Omniscience and Nick put in a Hive Mind. Ashton then cast Intuition and Nick pointed to his Hive Mind indicating the trigger. Ashton said something like “I've got no effects before your copy resolves, do you?” Nick shook his head and picked up his library, at which point Ashton explained that Nick's copy of Intuition was still targeting Nick, and was countered on resolution due to no legal targets.

Clearly it's reasonable for Ashton to expect his opponent to play precisely. How would you handle Nick's argument that the change of target to Ashton (the only target that would allow the spell to resolve) was implied by him going to resolve the spell?

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/546083/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8094/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8094/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

Nick has to cast the copy, and he can't choose an illegal target for the spell (himself).

Hive Mind reads “Whenever a player casts an instant or sorcery spell, each other player copies that spell. Each of those players may choose new targets for his or her copy.” Nick isn't casting a copy, he is just getting one and has the option to change targets. While it's not a great strategic move, it is certainly a legal option to keep the same target and let his spell fizzle.

Intuition

Hive Mind

Hive Mind copies the spell on the stack, it does not cause the other players to cast a copy of the spell. This means the copy can have an illegal target when it goes to resolve, if the player controlling the copy does not change the target.

I can't find a flaw in Ashton's reasoning. I don't think there is a shortcut that explicitly says that copies are assumed to be targeting legal targets, and Nick failed to say anything about choosing new targets. It's not a very good customer service situation, but I can't see a way out of it.

Except Hive Mind doesn't allow you to cast the copy. You copy the spell, and so you just put the copy on the stack, no casting involved.

As for the shortcuts, was this the problem? Or did Nick not understand the implications of Intuition when he copied it? The latter is VERY possible, and he should not be allowed a second chance at it if this were the case.

Consider also that he might even KNOW that he didn't understand it and is now lying with a story about the resolution implying the target change. That may be at least as likely as a genuine OoOS. Of course, you are probably not going to be able to deteremine this lie in real life, so I wouldn't go hunting for it, but I want to put that out there to show the point that using OoOS here is very, very dangerous.

Eric S.

—– Original Message —–
From: David Jimenez III
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Comminucating New Targets (Competitive REL)


Intuition says target opponent. Nick has to cast the copy, and he can't choose an illegal target for the spell (himself). This isn't a case of a spell fizzling, at worst Nick chose an illegal target and we rewind to him choosing a target for the copy.

Educate the player on both clear communication, the difference between ‘choosing illegal targets’ and ‘targets becoming illegal’. Also touch on the fact that magic isn't a game of ‘gotcha’, and shortcuts do exist that handle a large variety of situations.

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

As for the shortcuts, was this the problem? Or did Nick not understand the implications of Intuition when he copied it? The latter is VERY possible, and he should not be allowed a second chance at it if this were the case.

How is this philosophy different from Missed Triggers? Intuition is Ashton's card, not Nick's, so if Nick, for example, didn't know that it said “target opponent” (rather than “an opponent” for example, which would make more sense, because having your tutor fizzle due to a Leyline of Sanctity is unintuitive), can we really hold Nick to that? Your ruling is of course technically correct (the best kind of correct!), but I think the philosophy regarding treating situations requiring knowledge of the opponent's cards is divided in this case. Can you clarify the seeming disjunction in philosophy here for me? Thanks.

EDIT: Specifically, I should be clear regarding which part of Missed Triggers I'm referring to. I'm specifically referring to the part where we don't give FtMGS to NAP for AP missing a trigger (and vice-versa).

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 23, 2014 04:38:03 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Intuition is Ashton's card, not Nick's, so if Nick, for example, didn't know that it said “target opponent” (rather than “an opponent” for example, which would make more sense, because having your tutor fizzle due to a Leyline of Sanctity is unintuitive), can we really hold Nick to that?

When he copies Intuition, he controls that copy and is responsible for it. As for your parallel with Missed Trigger, I suppose this is similar to a trigger like the one that Kataki, War's Wage creates. Even though your opponent's creature may have the actual text on it, it gives your creature the ability and you are responsible for keeping track of it.

Are we at all concerned that Ashton is getting Nick on a technicality that
he himself didn't observe? After all, he didn't announce a target for
Intuition in the first place, did he? The fact that there are no other
legal targets doesn't technically absolve Ashton of his responsibility to
properly announce his spell, does it?

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Are we at all concerned that Ashton is getting Nick on a technicality that
he himself didn't observe? After all, he didn't announce a target for
Intuition in the first place, did he? The fact that there are no other
legal targets doesn't technically absolve Ashton of his responsibility to
properly announce his spell, does it?

Hive Mind creates a copy and places it on the stack. He MAY choose new targets, but the default action is to put it on the stack with the same target(s). Because he isn't casting Intuition, it is legal for him to place it on the stack with an illegal target (although he couldn't change it to a different illegal target). There was no GRV and so Ashton is not guilty of anything.

Originally posted by Cameron Bachman:

I get Nick's error, my point is that Ashton is still responsible for announcing his spell properly, which includes choosing a target. From the description of the original scenario, he did not do so. That would be a GPE-GRV, of course. Failing to choose a target is not covered under the Tournament Shortcuts section of the MTR, so it certainly seems that Ashton has indeed committed a GRV…which in this case, might include a backup?

Lyle, I think an relevant distinction here is that while Intuition is Ashton's card, Hive Mind is Nick's.

With triggers, you're not responsible for your opponent's stuff. They brought it, it's their problem (mostly). But if you end up with an Akroan Horse, even though it's their card, it's your trigger, and your problem.

Same thing here. Nick is taking Ashton's card and using it by copying the spell on the stack. He's taking control of something of his opponent's, and it's intentional (which isn't the case with Akroan Horse). Philosophically, that seems perfectly fine to me.

Don't steal it if you weren't sure you really wanted it =)

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Are we at all concerned that Ashton is getting Nick on a technicality that
he himself didn't observe? After all, he didn't announce a target for
Intuition in the first place, did he? The fact that there are no other
legal targets doesn't technically absolve Ashton of his responsibility to
properly announce his spell, does it?

The problem here is that many spells that target players aren't announced as such, they are just pointed at said player which communicates enough. But copies aren't physical so you can't point them.

However it's still a good idea to ask Ashton how he cast Intuition. He might not have said anything, but did he point it at Nick? What did he do to indicate targets? (How is Intuition usually cast anyway? What do most players do?)


So with casting spells, we have pointing. For triggered abilities, we have:

A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.

So basically players never have to say anything about target opponent except in this case. That makes it feel-bad, but I don't see any way around it. Nick needs to announce whether he changes the target. (Because perhaps Ashton casts Despise and Nick knows the only creature in Ashton's hand is Obstinate Baloth, so he'd like for his copy to not resolve. Or Ashton casts Rain of Daggers and Nick is at 1 life. Etc.)

However maybe a shortcut can be added to the TR that “target opponent is always assumed to target the opponent in a 2-player game when cast/activated/changed unless explicitly stated otherwise”?
With such a shortcut the exception for missed triggers is also not needed. I think.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 24, 2014 03:59:43 AM)

The statement below begs the question. If you want to say that we should back up for such a GRV, then you never have to answer the question that was asked. This isn't a solution so much as an avoidance. If you really want to go down that road, do it.

And then get back to this problem, because the original scenario claims that Intuition was cast, so we assume it was done legally. It also states that Hive Mind was used, so the copies were made legally.

And now it comes down to this: 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.

OoOS expressely forbids letting someone get back something that they missed at the time.


—-
—-
I get Nick's error, my point is that Ashton is still responsible for announcing his spell properly, which includes choosing a target. From the description of the original scenario, he did not do so. That would be a GPE-GRV, of course. Failing to choose a target is not covered under the Tournament Shortcuts section of the MTR, so it certainly seems that Ashton has indeed committed a GRV.which in this case, might include a backup?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

How is Intuition usually cast anyway? What do most players do?

In my (anecdotal) experience, for cards such as Gifts Ungiven, Intuition, even most of the time with things like Duress or even Thoughtseize and Hymn to Tourach (which say “target player”, in fact, not “target opponent”) the target is almost never (like 95% of the time) decared explicitly. Most players just know: If it's bad, it's probably targetting the opponent, if it's good, it's usually targetting yourself. The one exception to this is Vendilion Clique, although some players get themselves into trouble by thinking they're the one targetted and revealing their hand automatically.

Back to the original topic, Intuition: I have not seen Intuition cast all that much (maybe 10-20 times), but I have never seen “Intuition, targetting you”. I've also never seen “Gifts Ungiven, targetting you” despite having played the card myself. The only time the target thing has ever come up is the interaction with Leyline of Sanctity, which is known for Gifts because Leyline is (was) heavily played in Modern in the same metagame as Gifts, but as Leyline is not as popular in Legacy, the interaction with Inutition almost never arises, and hence I would expect players to not be familiar with it (except more experienced players, I suppose).

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 24, 2014 07:12:48 AM)