so here is a situation that might occur:

Player A plays in a competitive REL legacy tournament (yes, they do exist). He just cast Ad Nauseam, drew an insane amount of cards, cast a whole lot of spells, knows that his opponent won`t have any way to interact and in the end casts Tendrils of Agony with a storm count of >10.
He does NOT annouce storm as a triggered ability.
After waiting for a few seconds, Player N would like to resolve Tendrils (the original spell) and upon further discussion, a judge is called.

I know that at a competitive REL we expect a more technical play from the players, but what should we do in a situation like this? Everybody knows that Player A should be the winner and it is common sense that Player N just accepts his loss in a situation like this. What if he does not and rules lawyers on the change in the IPG?

Given that the player is sitting there waiting for player B to die, I'd say that's acknowlegement.

The answer is no. This situation is pretty clear and immediate. The policy is not in place to let people rules lawyer what is clearly the end of the game.

Toby - if we extrapolate that to Steppe Lynx's Landfall trigger, or exalted triggers, then are we not back where we were before the change in policy?

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Toby - if we extrapolate that to Steppe Lynx's Landfall trigger, or exalted triggers, then are we not back where we were before the change in policy?

I don't see how that extrapolates. The AP takes actions after a Steppe Lynx trigger that indicate the window has passed. What actions have been taken here? It's not like AP is about to attack or do anything interesting, since he believes NAP is dead.

just to have fun, what if he cast grape shot, with a storm counter of 18, but just says grape shot you, they both say ok, and he taps a staff of nim. they forgot to write down life totals before the staff's ability… is that an action enough for a gotcha, even if it seems pretty obvious that he wanted to target you 19 times with a grape shot and kill with the staff???

Originally posted by Gustavo Otero De Leon:

is that an action enough for a gotcha

or, a little more general:
What if NAP has an ability to do something irrelevant (cracking a fetchland, activate Sensei's Divining Top,…)?

This scenerio was brought up to me by a local player who is well known for rules lawyering and trying to gain every possible edge. So please don´t get me wrong: I like the recent change to the IPG but I need some guideline on how to argue in a situation like this.

Christian, the trigger is only missed "once the controller of the trigger has taken action after the point at which the trigger should have resolved.“

Sure, NAP can activate Top or a fetchland and put that on top of the stack…

…and then, that will resolve, and we're right back at the original scenario, with Player A waiting for his opponent to die. :)

The storm player would have to do something that indicates Grapeshot has resolved and he's moving on (like saying ”okay, take 1 from my Grapeshot, now I cast Past in Flames") for the storm trigger to be considered missed.

I think Paul has pointed out exactly where we are. The new policy tests whether players demonstrate awareness of their triggered abilities, not whether they say them aloud before “rules lawyers” can call them missed.

I feel like staring blankly at his opponent and saying “you're dead” while holding tendrils of agony above the middle of the table constitutes an acknowledgement. Similarly, getting to the verbal announcement of life total changes and saying, “you take 20, putting you to 0,” constitutes an acknowledgement.