A question has been put forward by a player in a local Facebook that has me in two minds:

Angie taps out for Show and Tell. Nathan casts Flusterstorm targeting it. Angie Force of Will's the Flusterstorm, Nathan Force of Will's Angie's Force of Will, Angie Force of Will's Nathan Force of Will. After the 3 Force of Will's resolve Nathan points out Angie can't pay for the storm copy of flusterstorm. What happens?

My feelings are that Nathan has pointed out the copy when it would have a visual effect on the game and thus has met the requirements not to have missed it. However thinking on it Flusterstorm requires a target which means that Nathan should point it out when the copy goes onto the stack does not changing the target have an effect on this meaning Nathan has the copy or by not pointing out the copy when it first went on the stack missed it?

You are not required to state the target of Storm copies. There is a default choice of leaving the target the same.

Edit to add citations:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1:

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).
…
If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”), resolve it choosing the default option.

CR 702.39a
Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. “Storm” means “When you cast this spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.”

Edited Joshua Feingold (Feb. 4, 2014 08:27:24 AM)

If I understand the series of events, you described:

S&T
Flusterstorm ^ S&T
(Storm Trigger)
FoW ^Flusterstorm
FoW ^ FoW
FoW ^ FoW

As presented, there's a trigger in here that hasn't resolved, so there was no need to declare the Flusterstorm target's copy.

The storm trigger doesn't just resolve and copy Flusterstorm without being acknowledged.
EDIT- TURNS OUT IT DOES! Thanks Mark

Sounds like Nathan didn't forget his trigger and Angie jumped to counter the original Flusterstorm with the trigger on the stack.

I'd rule that the trigger resolves and Nathan targets S&T with the copy of Flusterstorm. Proceed.

All in all, it seems to me that Angie FoW battled for that single copy of Flusterstorm in the hopes Nathan didn't remember to storm. He did when it mattered- when we go to resolve the trigger at its proper place in the stack.

Edited Evan Cherry (Feb. 4, 2014 01:44:28 PM)

Evan there's a passage in the IPG which throws a wrench in the works:

“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”

So the IPG assumes the storm trigger has resolved automatically - almost like a shortcut from the MTR. The “as described above” probably applies to the part of the IPG where it says triggers with targets must be announced when they're put on the stack.

The storm trigger doesn't have a target, the spells have targets. And you
can choose not to change them.

I believe that line is in there more as protection for players who don't
announce the storm (Or cipher) trigger but still expect to get storm
copies. I really doubt it's there to be a gotcha for someone who is playing
100% correctly.

Philosophy behind missed trigger policy is that we assume players remembered their triggers unless they demonstrate they forgot. We could argue for days about the exact point in which we expect players to demonstrate they forgot (and I'd love to, btw) but I think it's pretty hard to defend that in this case Fusterstorm players forgot his/her trigger. As soon as the trigger mattered he/she remembered, that's perfectly aligned with policy for a player NOT missing his triggers.

If his/her opponent argues I love to ask them “do you really think he forgot the trigger?” It's pretty hard to argue honestly that it was a missed trigger when they are really rules lawyering their way out of the situation.

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

Philosophy behind missed trigger policy is that we assume players remembered their triggers unless they demonstrate they forgot. We could argue for days about the exact point in which we expect players to demonstrate they forgot (and I'd love to, btw) but I think it's pretty hard to defend that in this case Fusterstorm players forgot his/her trigger. As soon as the trigger mattered he/she remembered, that's perfectly aligned with policy for a player NOT missing his triggers.

If his/her opponent argues I love to ask them “do you really think he forgot the trigger?” It's pretty hard to argue honestly that it was a missed trigger when they are really rules lawyering their way out of the situation.

Actually we have a list in the IPG stating when a trigger is missed. What is being discussed is does the not changing the target of a storm copy mean that you don't need to declare the target of that copy when it's created.

Missed that- thanks Mark!

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

If his/her opponent argues I love to ask them “do you really think he forgot the trigger?” It's pretty hard to argue honestly that it was a missed trigger when they are really rules lawyering their way out of the situation.

Forgetting a trigger is irrelevant to the Missed Trigger policy - if a player genuinely forgets that they have a triggered ability to deal with, and remember it at the relevant time, they have not missed the trigger. A reminder that the infraction is not called Forgotten Trigger ;)

~ Jack.
L2, London.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Actually we have a list in the IPG stating when a trigger is missed. What is being discussed is does the not changing the target of a storm copy mean that you don't need to declare the target of that copy when it's created.

I really don't see anything in that list which applies to this situation, rendering the trigger missed.

The player seems perfectly aware of it, there's nothing here that the opponent needed to know about the trigger in order to respond to it properly, and the “effect” of that trigger is being communicated at the appropriate time. Even if we presume that the storm trigger resolved automatically just after Flusterstorm was cast, the only legal target for it was Show and Tell. Changing the target of the copy is moot.

I think a case could be made that there was some unclear communication in this situation, potentially allowing either party to game the situation, but that's not an MT infraction. It's not any infraction, except what normally happens when the players decide to play the game without talking to their opponent.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I really don't see anything in that list which applies to this situation, rendering the trigger missed.

The player seems perfectly aware of it, there's nothing here that the opponent needed to know about the trigger in order to respond to it properly, and the “effect” of that trigger is being communicated at the appropriate time. Even if we presume that the storm trigger resolved automatically just after Flusterstorm was cast, the only legal target for it was Show and Tell. Changing the target of the copy is moot.

The trigger has resolved straight away due to the section of policy Mark quoted earlier, at which point we apply the same rules to that copy of the spell as we do to a trigger to determine if it is missed.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

The trigger has resolved straight away due to the section of policy Mark quoted earlier, at which point we apply the same rules to that copy of the spell as we do to a trigger to determine if it is missed.

What section of policy of that applies here? Specifically, what bullet actually applies by which the player “needs to demonstrate awareness” of the trigger in order for it not to be missed?

The closes one that might apply is the “A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution”, but there's no choice with the trigger. The trigger resolves automatically and puts the copy onto the stack with a default choice of target per CR 706.10c. (The section of that rule in CR 702.39a seems more a reminder rule.) As far as I can tell, the trigger requires no actual choice by NAP.

While you can conjecture that the bullet should apply to “force” NAP to announce the choice for the copy, I don't see how that applies here. Again, I see this as a situation where we have a player (or players) who may not be clearly. This, to me, is not a situation where the policy organically applies.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Even if we presume that the storm trigger resolved automatically just after Flusterstorm was cast, the only legal target for it was Show and Tell. Changing the target of the copy is moot.

I might've just completely misread Flusterstorm, but its stormcopies can actually target the original Flusterstorm, so S&T is not the only legal target if the storm trigger resolved immediately (before FoWs are cast and the original is eventually countered), right?

EDIT: Not that it changes much for your argument, just to clarify/avoid missunderstandings

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Feb. 4, 2014 10:18:10 AM)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

I might've just completely misread Flusterstorm, but its stormcopies can actually target the original Flusterstorm, so S&T is not the only legal target if the storm trigger resolved immediately (before FoWs are cast and the original is eventually countered), right?

Very well, perhaps “only legal target” is the wrong wording. The “only target that makes sense” is perhaps a better phrasing. Mea culpa for my technical incorrectness. My point remains that NAP's actions indicate he's going to counter AP's spell, not his own.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

What section of policy of that applies here? Specifically, what bullet actually applies by which the player “needs to demonstrate awareness” of the trigger in order for it not to be missed?

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