For reference, here's the text of MoW:

"You may resolve your [intrigue] claim against any number of opponents."

Does this mean that you can choose not to resolve your claim against the opponent who defending against your challenge ?The conditional "may" also suggests that the number could be zero, like on other cards. Read as intended, I'd guess no, that this is an ability that's meant to fire in addition to your normal claim, -- but as written, the ability doesn't say "any number of additional opponents," or "may also resolve" which would suggest that it's definitely a seperate additional claim, which leaves the possibility open.

Nope, you've got it right. You can do this against any number of opponents - including none, and you can do it against all but the actual opponent you won against. That's one of the real advantages of this title as a bargaining tool "Let me get an unopposed against you, and I'll take claim out on the other two, putting us ahead!"

The only rule that someone might throw at you to oppose this is "p. 21xxAn effect that can choose “any number” of targets does not successfully resolve (and cannot change the game state) if zero of those targets are chosen." - but remember, this is not a triggered ability, so it doesn't have to succesfully resolve (If it were an Interrupt to claim, you could only initiate it if you chose at least 1 opponent, but since the game forces this to happen, it doesn't care about the end result happening succesfully). You wouldn't be able to react to "After claim is applied" though, as it would never have happend.

You can do this against any number of opponents - including none, and you can do it against all but the actual opponent you won against. That's one of the real advantages of this title as a bargaining tool "Let me get an unopposed against you, and I'll take claim out on the other two, putting us ahead!"

Yes, this. ALL DAY.

Nope, you've got it right. You can do this against any number of opponents - including none, and you can do it against all but the actual opponent you won against. That's one of the real advantages of this title as a bargaining tool "Let me get an unopposed against you, and I'll take claim out on the other two, putting us ahead!"

That's totally what sprung to mind when I read it. My FLGS, where we were playing with the coreset since it just came in, did not agree with this assessment though. I suppose I'll debate rules lawyering about it, for the greater good of harmony, but still yet bask in the glow of being right.

The important thing to recall is that the rule saying that a card ability must be able to change the game state in order to initiate only applies to abilities that are not mandatory.

Mandatory abilities initiate when the rules say they do, even if there is no game change from their resolution, or if there is no way they can resolve successfully.

(For example, the "When Revealed" on Confiscation initiates in the order determined by the First Player, even if no players have any attachments in play.) Along those same lines, mandatory abilities that allow players to choose various conditions once they initiate (like the Title) may have their conditions chosen in such a way as that no practical effect occurs (like choosing to have NO players resolve INT claim).