I have a question about the Annotated IPG, as written on the Judge Wiki: How official is it? Is it meant only as a basic way for judges to understand the IPG, or should specific pieces be viewed as technically precise instructions for judging?

I'm asking due to a complicated situation I'm trying to understand. I don't think this is the right section of the forum to discuss the situation in question, but it might help to illustrate my point.

AP sacrifices Chromatic Star and draws a card before naming the color of the mana. At BoM2014, the HJs ruled this to be a GL for DEC but during the investigation, Kevin Desprez asked: “How much mana does the player have?” Turns out the player did not have any in their pool, but Kevin said that if that player had i.e. 10 mana each of red and blue, this would not be a GL.

I've been trying to understand why and through reading the Annotated IPG I found this: "An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence." Does this mean that the information gained by drawing the extra card could not reasonably affect the decision of which color to choose when the player already had plenty of mana to cast their spells, or am I just reading too much into details?

Thank you!

I think that if you in fact have 10 mana of each colors, chances that the card you just drew affecting your color choice is rather low because you probably can cast it anyway, so I think that it is reasonable to consider this as an ooos, as not saying the color here is sort of “I really do not care what color it is”

The annotated IPG is a project that has been proof-red and sort of validated, it is probably not official per say, like the listing of the missed triggers and the statement of each one being detrimental or not for each set in the wiki., but is probably appropriate in most cases and a good guideline for a better understanding of each section.

Edited Théo CHENG (Nov. 23, 2014 12:28:39 PM)

The Annotated IPG - as much as we love it! - is not an ‘O’fficial document. It is, however, a great way to gain a better and deeper understanding of the IPG, and - as in this example - the philosophy behind the policy.

d:^D

Hello, I'm Bryan Prillaman, you may remember me from such forum posts as ‘Detrimental Triggers: Why so serious?’ and 'You should love my shoes '.

I am also the project lead for the Annotated IPG.

To answer your question, the annotated IPG is not {O}fficial. Nor does it need to be, any more than a conversation with your local L3. (http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/03/05/no ) It also has the wonderful advantage of having hundreds of judges reading it and applying it…which leads to lots of feedback on points for revision/clarification, so you can trust it as much as you would a Wikipedia article.


We took a fair amount of care in avoiding corner cases and one-of interactions in this document. We often say that if the IPG covered every scenario, it would be thousands of pages long. Well, while the AIPG explains the IPG, it doesn't quiet reach “thousands” of pages nor is that the goal. it's goal is to broaden the context and point out often missed subtleties to assist in understanding a sense document.

-bryan

———————————————
This space intentionally left blank

Edited Scott Marshall (Nov. 23, 2014 01:40:07 PM)