Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

The question is: Is not changing the target the same as choosing that target and thus doesn't need to be acklowedged?

My understanding of the word “may” generally indicates an optional action for the player to take. That is, the player “may” change the copy's target. If there were a reason for NAP to change the target, I'd reasonably expect him to make a statement to the affirmative.

That being said, I would point out the following from MIPG 2.1: “Triggered abilities are **assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated**, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities, although this does not mean that they can cause triggers to be missed. If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.”

Again, while NAP's lack of communication on exercising the option to change the target, I don't see how that qualifies as presuming the trigger is missed. The argument could be that the bullet is met, but I personally don't believe that to be the case here. Furthermore, given that the original scenario proposed gets into both players taking a fair number of spells being cast, I could even see that AP preempted NAP's chance to say anything when AP cast the first Force of Will.

This situation seems to be pretty much the “How can we break the policy?” and take it to some significant extremes.

There's also the consideration that interpreting the MT Storm copy policy in this way would render it largely ineffective. Tendrils of Agony, probably the most common Storm spell in use, also designates a target player. Are we really going to argue that a Tendrils player missed her Storm trigger because she failed to indicate that her Storm copies were not changing targets?

This situation seems effectively the same.

Sent from my iPad

This doesn't sound like missed trigger at all. This sounds like the following happened:

Show and Tell -> Flusterstorm -> Flusterstorm Storm trigger -> FoW -> FoW -> FoW -> … -> FoW

Then all the FoWs resolve, now the stack is Show -> Flusterstorm -> Storm trigger -> NAP says “You can't pay”. In this case, to me “You can't pay” means “I resolve my Storm trigger, by mentioning the fact that you have to pay for more than 1 copy of flusterstorm”. NAP did not miss his trigger at all, and S&T is countered.

Lyle - The point is the Flusterstorm trigger has already resolved (always automatically resolves) so the stack would be:

Show and Tell -> Flusterstorm -> Flusterstorm Copy -> FoW -> FoW -> Fow

The reason I brought it up is that there is the potential for someone to interpret that by not mentioning the Flusterstorm copy you have missed it due to the first bullet point (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) when we look at the situation

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Lyle - The point is the Flusterstorm trigger has already resolved (always automatically resolves) so the stack would be:

I do not believe that the IPG's sentence “Triggered abilities that do nothing except create delayed triggered abilities automatically resolve without requiring acknowledgment.” means that such triggers resolve immediately, and in fact I would think that a rather far-fetched interpretation. To my understanding, it only means that such triggers will never be considered missed, even if the controller makes no indication until the time of the delayed trigger. But this sentence doesn't say anything at all about the timing of the resolution of such triggers, and you cannot read from it that the Storm trigger has already resolved.

I'm not saying to rule out any assessment of the situation that interprets the trigger as already resolved; I just don't believe you can use the this part of the IPG to justify, or even force, this interpretation.

Originally posted by Sebastian Reinfeldt:

I do not believe that the IPG's sentence “Triggered abilities that do nothing except create delayed triggered abilities automatically resolve without requiring acknowledgment.” means that such triggers resolve immediately, and in fact I would think that a rather far-fetched interpretation. To my understanding, it only means that such triggers will never be considered missed, even if the controller makes no indication until the time of the delayed trigger. But this sentence doesn't say anything at all about the timing of the resolution of such triggers, and you cannot read from it that the Storm trigger has already resolved.

I'm not saying to rule out any assessment of the situation that interprets the trigger as already resolved; I just don't believe you can use the this part of the IPG to justify, or even force, this interpretation.

It's more the line of

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

I'm with Sebastian here. Automatically resolve doesn't mean automatically
resolve immediately. The FoWs can still be in response to the trigger.

IMO when N pointed out that the Flusterstorm copy could not be paid for, it
was exactly at the correct point required to demonstrate awareness of the
Storm trigger - when it resolved.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

You are of course right, and I quoted the wrong line. Too early in the morning.

But again, I don't see how that line says anything about the timing of the resolution of such triggers. I interpret this sentence exactly the same as the one I mistakenly quoted: it says nothing whatsoever about the timing, it only says that we will never consider such a trigger missed. I still hold that you cannot use this sentence of the IPG to justify a claim that the Storm trigger has, or should have, already resolved.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

This seems like the rule not being made clear. The intent of the rule is pretty obviously “if you are trying to resolve something which should be underneath an invisible game object on the stack, it is assumed you are resolving the invisible game object first and passing priority in a way that makes sense”. If we're assuming your interpretation here, then a whole bunch of things don't make sense. For example:

Player A casts 9 spells, then casts Tendrils of Agony. Player B attempts to Stifle the Storm trigger. Player A says “well, that trigger has already automatically resolved, too bad, take 20”.

This is obviously not the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule is obviously to include a shortcut that makes players less responsible for invisible game objects, not to make a “gotcha” moment for anyone playing a Storm deck.

Remember that the “rules” being quoted are part of the IPG, not the Comp Rules. They define how we handle certain situations; they do not change the actual rules of the game.

And yes, the intent of those “auto-resolve” conditions are to prevent gotchas, not to render Stifle impotent.

If you enhance the original only slightly:
“You can't pay for the Flusterstorm copy!”
“Oh, so you did remember the Storm trigger? OK, Pact of Negation. S&T resolves!”

d:^D