1) AP casts Sundering Titan.
NAP: “Resolves. Targets?”
AP: “this, this and this land of yours”
NAP: "tap those lands for mana, cast Boros Charm, my permanents are indestructible"

(Sundering Titan ability doesn't target)

——————————————————————————————————————–

2) AP casts Sidisi, Undead Vizier.

NAP: “Resolves. Target?”
AP: “this creature”

pause.

NAP casts Hero's Downfall on the “targeted” creature.
AP: “Judge, I can still choose another creature, right?”
———————————————————————————————————————-

In the first scenario, it all happened so fast I could stop the game only after Boros Charm was cast.
In the second scenario, I had a strong feeling AP knew what it was about to happen, and tried to gain some information from his opponent before reacting.

What would you do?

In scenario 1 it sounds like the NAP allowed Sundering titan to resolve but not the actual ability. While the ability doesn't target you are able to ask what lands he intends on destroying without the ability resolving. Nothing was done out of order, the NAP asked for additional information that the AP did not have to give (but did), I would rule Boros charm resolves and sundering titans ability is still on the stack.

Much like in scenario 1 the trigger goes on the stack and, while having priority, the NAP asks for some additional information (What creature do you intend on sacrificing). While AP is under no obligation to answer this and can even lie about his intents (Saying he's going to sacrifice his most powerful creature or something) it is still on the NAP to make a decision as about what to do with his priority. If AP called me over I would explain that once hero's downfall resolves the exploit ability is still on the stack and he can choose any creature (or none) to sacrifice.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

1) AP casts Sundering Titan.
NAP: “Resolves. Targets?”
AP: “this, this and this land of yours”
NAP: "tap those lands for mana, cast Boros Charm, my permanents are indestructible"

(Sundering Titan ability doesn't target)

——————————————————————————————————————–

2) AP casts Sidisi, Undead Vizier.

NAP: “Resolves. Target?”
AP: “this creature”

pause.

NAP casts Hero's Downfall on the “targeted” creature.
AP: “Judge, I can still choose another creature, right?”
———————————————————————————————————————-

In the first scenario, it all happened so fast I could stop the game only after Boros Charm was cast.
In the second scenario, I had a strong feeling AP knew what it was about to happen, and tried to gain some information from his opponent before reacting.

What would you do?

Although poorly worded (there are no targets at all), NAP asks for the information he is not entitled to have before the triggered ability resolves. So, I believe the following shortcut described in MTR 4.2 is applicable here:

“If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be
passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.”

Allowing a NAP to resolve Boros Charm or Downfall would mean that his attempt to fish for information was successful, and I personally am not happy with it.

This is the same as the old good pithing needle. I agree with Lev 100%

MTR on shortcuts :

If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made
until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or
ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be
passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.

Scenario 1 : NAP tried to cast a spell when he didn't have priority. GRV and backup. When he asked for the targets, he allowed the spell to resolve. Same thing with asking the color on God's Willing.

Scenario 2 : Same thing here, the first time NAP knows which creature is sacrified, it's already in the graveyard. GRV and backup.

Edited Jaurès Chabalier (Sept. 23, 2015 08:48:01 AM)

So, in these situations, the NAP is not asking for “choices”, he is asking
for “targets”. Targets are chosen during the announcement of a trigger,
not resolution. It seems that the NAP is confused about what the trigger
does. This is different than asking for a color choice or something
similar that happens during resolution, so I think it would not be
appropriate to apply the shortcut listed by others.

i disagree - whether NAP uses the words “target” or “choice”, they're still asking for information on choices that are only made on resolution. Most players don't know the difference between a choice and a target. And most APs in this situation are going to just assume that when NAP asks for targets, he means Choices, and respond accordingly. Very very few APs are going to go “aha! He said targets. Which means my ability is not yet resolving. I should say nothing”.

So either this situation just involves technically imprecise language (use of the word “targets” where not appropriate) or NAP is trying to use wordplay and English language tricks to get around the rules on shortcuts - which doesn't work for combat related shortcuts so shouldn't work here.

Either way, NAP has missed the opportunity to respond in this instance.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

i disagree - whether NAP uses the words “target” or “choice”, they're still asking for information on choices that are only made on resolution. Most players don't know the difference between a choice and a target. And most APs in this situation are going to just assume that when NAP asks for targets, he means Choices, and respond accordingly. Very very few APs are going to go “aha! He said targets. Which means my ability is not yet resolving. I should say nothing”.

So either this situation just involves technically imprecise language (use of the word “targets” where not appropriate) or NAP is trying to use wordplay and English language tricks to get around the rules on shortcuts - which doesn't work for combat related shortcuts so shouldn't work here.

Either way, NAP has missed the opportunity to respond in this instance.

Also, keep in mind the “language barrier” - at a GP, for example, I would expect that players coming from different nations understand one another less than perfectly. I would pay less attention to the exact words said, and more to what really happened.

What wonderful example to be able to teach players to communicate properly and to ask if you are unsure of what your opponent means. Personally I'm going to ask both players what they meant by and understood it to mean when NAP said “Target” but I do generally agree with Mark that if it was unclear and either player thought the ability to be resolving I'm going to rule that it is. Like with many other shortcuts I think how the player can interpret a word is more important than the words used, we don't want this to be a game of words after all.

To me, this is a fine example of the intent of

Originally posted by MTR 4.1:

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game.

However, it seems clear in both cases that NAP is responding with the triggered ability on the stack, even if they use poor language to do so. (Note that I'm basing that solely on Francesco's telling of the scenarios; this is a situation that will benefit greatly from actually being there.) If that is their intent, then they can still respond to the ability.

While we can argue that “Targets” implies “you can make the choices”, and that NAP needs to be more correct in their wording, we must also acknowledge that AP assumed “Targets?” means “Choices?”, and didn't attempt to confirm or correct that understanding.

Given all of that:
1) AP assumed that both the Titan and its ability were resolving, NAP clearly wants to respond to the ability; Boros Charm is allowed, and is now on the stack. (AP may want to counter it, if they can.)
2) NAP doesn't have a way to kill the creature that is chosen for Exploit, but can kill a creature before Exploit resolves; that's what has happened, here. Exploit is still on the stack, and Hero's Downfall is on the stack on top of Exploit.

d:^D

Scott,
I find it funny, but I believe that exactly the opposite solution is in line with the quoted text…

It might seem that NAP believes that he has an opportunity to answer the triggered ability. This is true and mighr be an example of “better understanding of rules”. However, my perception of NAP is that he believes he has an opportunity to answer before the ability resolves, but after the choice is made. Which is not true and definately doesn't fall under “better understanding of rules”.

While I agree that there is a shared blame whenever a miscommunication occurs, I cannot realistically expect AP to start explaining the difference between the ‘targets’ and ‘other choices’ at Competitive REL to the opponent.

With that said I have strong concern about rewarding poor wording, wrong understanding of the rules and, most important, potentially abusable and unenforcable behavior.

As a side note, I believe that ruling you are proposing creates a Gotcha moment. If we are talking applicability of shortcuts: following your logic, if NAP nodded in responce to naming the lands and started putting them into his graveyard, AP would be able to stop him, change his mind and choose other lands to destroy. And since the shortcut is not applicable here, judge would not be able to make AP stick to his choice.

I don't see any judge familiar with MTR ruling this way without consulting this thread.

Lev

Edit: abusable, not abusive…

Edited Lev Kotlyar (Sept. 23, 2015 02:49:50 PM)

Lev, your points are good. I kinda *want* to reward AP for their knowledge, or just not reward NAP's use of “Targets?” when there aren't any.

However - and note that I started my prior conclusion with that, which is English (American?) for “ignore that, because…” - in both examples, it won't matter if NAP understands how the Titan or Exploit abilities work; they still can do what they want, in response to either the triggers or the original spell that created the triggers.

Imagine, if AP does a little bit better with communication:
1) Sundering Titan
NAP: Resolves. Targets?
AP: no targets, just choices.
NAP: so, I can't respond?
AP (or a Judge): the ability is on the stack, you can respond before it resolves; lands are chosen on resolution, not targeted.
NAP: OK, Boros Charm!
AP: :p

2) Exploit and Sidisi
NAP: Resolves. Target?
AP: it doesn't target…
NAP: huh … well, I really don't want you to have ~that~ creature anyway, Hero's Downfall!
AP: :p

In the original examples, since AP didn't correct the apparent misunderstanding, but instead assumed he could proceed on the basis of that misunderstanding, he hasn't really demonstrated a superior rules knowledge - he's *assumed* one. Not the same thing, in my opinion.

d:^D

Tricky, if you ask me.

If we rule in favor of NAP (effect still on the stack, you may play in response), we are legitimating NAP asking “target?” on purpose, in order to get information.
What if NAP says “ok, go ahead” and AP says “in resolution, I choose this one instead”?

If we rule in favor of AP (effect is resolving, rewind spell played in response), we are legitimating AP declaring “bogus” targets, in order to get information. In scenario 2, AP gained information: “So, you have Hero's Downfall in your hand”.