(Originally published on 2026-02-08; last reviewed on 2026-02-08; last updated on 2026-02-08)
With each new set release, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) update the Comprehensive Rules (CR) and the Oracle text of any number of cards. These updates include support for new mechanics, error fixes, and improvements to the wording of rules and cards. In the past, WotC regularly published update bulletins which summarized and explained these changes. They stopped this practice in the fall of 2023, and update bulletins now release only sporadically.
Lorwyn Eclipsed gets one of these rare releases, which gives me an opportunity to compare my own findings with WotC’s stance. First are CR changes and Oracle changes as usual, then I take a look at the official update bulletin, and the final part highlights one change in particular.
Disclaimer: I have no special insight into the inner workings of WotC’s rules team, so any observations are based solely on the published updates and my own knowledge of and experience with Magic’s rules system. While I strive for completeness and correctness, I may have missed some changes; in particular, my process for archiving and comparing Gatherer revisions is still a work in progress. (Then again, WotC often omit minor changes in their own bulletins, so it’s par for the course.)
- Changes to the Comprehensive Rules
- Lorwyn Eclipsed prerelease errata
- Changes to Oracle text
- Changes to Gatherer rulings (nonfunctional)
- A look at the official update bulletin
- An analysis of the update for Zinnia and Ashling
Changes to the Comprehensive Rules
For this section, I recommend having a CR diff open in another window, such as the one found on Academy Ruins.
Rules support for blight
The Lorwyn Eclipsed release introduces the blight keyword action.
The rules entry for blight is 701.68 and the definition itself is in subrule 701.68a. Subrule 701.68b reinforces that a player can only blight if they can blight.
The Lorwyn Eclipsed card Grub, Notorious Auntie instructs a player to blight and refers to “the blighted creature.” Subrule 701.68c defines the blighted creature as the creature the player chose while performing the blight action. The subrule uses the term “object” rather than “permanent,” so it’s future-proofed against updates that add creature spells and creature cards to the list of objects that can be blighted.
The Lorwyn Eclipsed card Warren Torchmaster instructs a player to blight and creates a reflexive triggered ability that triggers when that player blights this way. Subrule 701.68d states that such an ability triggers if the player performs the blight action, regardless of what events actually occur during the action.
Rules support for partner—Friends forever & rules unsupport for friends forever (nonfunctional)
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update removes the friends forever keyword from the CR. This includes its appearance on the list of partner abilities in rule 702.124a and the keyword’s definition in rule 702.124k; subsequent rules get renumbered.
At the same time, the update adds a new variant of the partner—[text] keyword to rule 702.124i. The new variant is “partner—Friends forever.”
The removal of friends forever is a nonfunctional change, since there are no cards whose official Oracle text includes this keyword. If a card existed whose official Oracle text included friends forever, it would of course be a functional change.
If such a hypothetical card had friends forever replaced with partner—Friends forever, it would also be a functional change. Partner—[text] counts for effects that look for an unspecified partner ability, whereas friends forever did not [CR 702.124n]. This is relevant in two ways:
First, a hypothetical legendary creature with partner—Friends forever would get +1/+1 from the effect of Akroma, Vision of Ixidor’s ability. Second, a player wishing to play two commanders in their deck could combine that card with any legendary card that has the partner ability, partner with [name], or partner—[text]. (A legendary card with friends forever could only be combined with another legendary creature card with friends forever.)
Rules support for Something about Ashling, the Limitless
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update adds one sentence to rule 601.2a and a brand new rule 610.5. Both talk about one-shot effects that grant abilities to spells.
I have no idea what these additions are meant to accomplish. Well, actually, I do. With the update of Zinnia, Valley’s Voice in the previous Oracle update and with all the talk surrounding Ashling, the Limitless and the official update bulletin, it was impossible to not pick up on the fact that a supposed fix for Zinnia and Ashling was inbound. A better way to phrase it is that I have no idea how these additions are meant to accomplish anything in that regard. The official update bulletin might shed some light on this, so I defer my analysis until later.
Omitted rules support for Ashling, the Limitless
The Lorwyn Eclipsed card Ashling, the Limitless grants the evoke keyword to Elemental permanent spells.
Evoke is a peculiar and somewhat unique case among keywords that allow a player to pay an alternative cost for a spell.
Such keyword abilities can be categorized based on the zones in which they function. (Keywords that also instruct the player to cast the spell, such as madness, are excluded from this.)
The first group are abilities that allow a player to cast the spell from an unusual zone (e.g. flashback, escape) or with an “alternative set of characteristics” (e.g. morph, More Than Meets the Eye). These abilities function in the zone they allow the object to be cast from (such as the graveyard) or in any zone the object can be cast from otherwise.
This allows these abilities to work as intended. For example, if flashback abilities functioned on the stack rather than in the graveyard, then there would be no effect that allowed a player to start casting a card with flashback from their graveyard; the flashback ability would be practically useless.
It also makes sense for the abilities with an alternative set of characteristics. If such an ability functioned on the stack, then the alternative characteristics would only start to apply during the casting process, after the spell’s controller had chosen to pay the alternative cost. For example, a spell cast using its More Than Meets the Eye ability might start the casting process as a creature spell and end it as a noncreature spell.
This can create issues if different casting permissions for creature spells and noncreature spells are involved. Rule 601.3 handles similar issues and could be expanded, but this approach would be error-prone due to the maintenance required. (Also, the play pattern of morph and disguise abilities would change dramatically if the spell were put onto the stack face up and then turned face down.)
Putting the spell onto the stack with the alternative characteristics already in place makes casting permissions much easier to handle. And for this to work, the abilities need to function in every zone from which the object can be cast from.
The second group are abilities that neither allow casting the spell from an unusual zone nor casting it with an alternative set of characteristics. Their alternative costs may be tied to certain conditions (e.g. spectacle, freerunning) or grant benefits (e.g. overload, cleave), drawbacks (e.g. impending, warp), or a combination thereof (e.g. emerge, blitz). For their intended behavior, these abilities do not need to function in the zone the spell is cast from, so they function only on the stack.
To reiterate: There are abilities that function in the zone the spell is cast from, and there are abilities that function on the stack. When a player announces that they cast a spell, the first group of abilities must be present before the spell is put onto the stack, since these abilities influence whether that player has permission to cast the spell. This also means that the decision to pay their alternative costs is effectively made before the spell is put onto the stack.
The second group does not influence the casting process in such a way. They only need to be present after the spell has moved to the stack to work as intended. Which brings me to evoke.
On the surface, evoke is clearly an example of the second group. It does not allow the spell to be cast from a zone from which it couldn’t already be cast in some other way, and it does not change the spell’s characteristics at all. So, it should function on the stack. Which makes evoke’s definition in rule 702.74a so peculiar:
Evoke represents two abilities: a static ability that functions in any zone from which the card with evoke can be cast and a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Evoke [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “When this permanent enters, if its evoke cost was paid, its controller sacrifices it.” Casting a spell for its evoke cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
CR 702.74a
The evoke static ability functions in the zone the spell is cast from. It is the only keyword ability that does this without also doing one of the things that would require it to behave this way.
I came across this oddity recently (somewhere in the last two years) and could not find a satisfactory explanation anywhere. Or any explanation at all, really. The Lorwyn update bulletin does not comment on evoke’s design and the rest of the internet is also silent on this topic.
The best I came up with is that the two previous keywords with alternative costs (flashback and morph) both belong to the first group and that evoke’s definition was copy-pasted from these predecessors.
What makes this even more bizarre is that the very next set, Morningtide, introduced the prowl keyword. Prowl allows an alternative cost to be paid and some creature cards with prowl have enters-the-battlefield abilities that check whether the prowl cost was paid. But unlike evoke, it functions on the stack. Again, no explanation in the update bulletin, and no other rules changes at the time that might even be remotely connected. Eighteen years later, evoke is still the only keyword of this kind.
Whatever the reasons behind this wording, the result is clear. If a player wants to cast an object using evoke, the object needs to have evoke before it is put onto the stack.
Ashling, the Limitless grants evoke to spells. With the current definition of evoke, the granted abilities do not work as intended. Given that this definition is inconsistent with all other keyword definitions, aligning it with the rest of the CR would have been an elegant way to make Ashling’s ability work as intended.
A second update suggested by the release of Ashling concerns permanents with multiple instances of evoke. Unlike additional costs, alternative costs have no blanket rule that an ability which looks for an alternative cost being paid is linked to one specific instance of that cost. Some keywords like blitz have a rule dedicated to establishing that connection, but they are the exception.
So, if a permanent cast for an evoke cost enters the battlefield and if it has multiple instances of evoke, all its evoke triggered abilities trigger, not just the one that “belongs” to the cost actually paid.
Omitted rules support for the five Champions
The Lorwyn Eclipsed release includes a cycle of five creature cards that are callbacks to the champion keyword ability. As an additional cost to cast one of those cards, its controller exiles a permanent or card from their hand; a leaves-the-battlefield triggered ability returns “the exiled card” to its owner’s hand.
Such abilities are usually implemented as linked abilities, meaning that the leaves-the-battlefield ability would only refer to the card exiled as an additional cost; if the spell or permanent gained another ability that also caused cards to be exiled, the leaves-the-battlefield ability would ignore those cards [CR 607.1]. The definitions for linked abilities are comparatively strict though, and these five cards do not meet the criteria of any such definition.
The closest one is rule 607.2q. It covers abilities of a permanent spell that cause cards to be exiled while paying the spell’s total cost, and abilities of the permanent that spell becomes. However, this rule only covers abilities which refer to cards “exiled with [this object].” The five cards refer to “the exiled card” and thus do not fall under rule 607.2q.
As a result, the leaves-the-battlefield ability is not linked to the other ability and refers to any cards exiled with the spell/permanent. Examples are cards exiled with a delve ability and cards exiled with the ability granted by Blue Mage’s Cane.
Changing targets, in example text (nonfunctional)
The card Arc Trail got a slight rewrite of its rules text as part of the Magic: The Gathering | Avatar: The Last Airbender update. The card and its rules text appear in the example for rule 115.7e, but the rewrite was not applied to that example.
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update changes the rules text cited in the example to the current one.
Changes to card types, supertypes, and/or subtypes
New creature type: Sorcerer.
Changes to ability words
New ability word: Vivid.
Changes to glossary entries
New glossary entry: Blight.
Removed glossary entry: Friends Forever (along with its typo).
A variant of the partner ability that lets two legendary creature cardss [sic] be your commander in the Commander variant rather than one if both have the “friends forever” ability. See rule 702.124, “Partner,” and rule 903, “Commander.”
Legal information
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update removes three empty lines from the blank section between the credits and the legal information at the end of the CR.
Lorwyn Eclipsed prerelease errata
Note: Most of the time, I list only the changed parts of a card’s Oracle text, rather than the complete text of the card.
All subtypes removed (functional)
WotC issued a large number of prerelease errata which change subtypes to (as yet undefined) card types. These errata affect all cards newly printed in the Lorwyn Eclipsed release, as well as all reprint versions that are part of the release.
The errata replace the em dash on the type line with a hyphen-minus. Since the CR use a long dash to differentiate between card types and subtypes [CR 205.3b], removing the em dash automatically moves the former subtypes into the card-type part of the type line.
As a result, each card printed with the creature card type and the Kithkin and Soldier subtypes now has the creature card type, two undefined card types named “kithkin” and “soldier,” and no subtypes. Other cards and reprint versions are affected accordingly.
All color indicators removed (functional)
WotC issued prerelease errata for the seven cards in the Lorwyn Eclipsed release printed with a color indicator. The errata remove the color indicators of those cards; with no color-setting abilities, the back faces of those cards are colorless.
These errata apply to: Brigid, Doun’s Mind, Isilu, Carrier of Twilight, Oko, Shadowmoor Scion, Sygg, Wanderbrine Shield, Grub, Notorious Auntie, Ashling, Rimebound, and Trystan, Penitent Culler.
Mutable Explorer (functional)
WotC issued a prerelease erratum which adds additional instructions to Mutable Explorer’s enters-the-battlefield ability. After creating the Mutavault token, the ability’s controller is instructed to add {C} and to . . . have Mutable Explorer become a 2/2 creature with all creature types in addition to its other types until end of turn. I guess.
Printed ability text:
When this creature enters, create a tapped Mutavault token. (It’s a land with “{T}: Add {C}” and “{1}: This token becomes a 2/2 creature with all creature types until end of turn. It’s still a land.”)
Oracle ability text:
When this creature enters, create a tapped Mutavault token. (It’s a land with “{T}: Add {C}” and “{1}: This token becomes a 2/2 creature with all creature types until end of turn. It’s still a land.”)
Sapling Nursery (functional)
WotC issued a prerelease erratum which removes the activated ability from Sapling Nursery’s rules text.
Printed rules text:
Affinity for Forests (This spell costs {1} less to cast for each Forest you control.)
Landfall — Whenever a land you control enters, create a 3/4 green Treefolk creature token with reach.
{1}{G}, Exile this enchantment: Treefolk and Forests you control gain indestructible until end of turn.
Oracle rules text:
Affinity for Forests (This spell costs {1} less to cast for each Forest you control.)
Landfall – Whenever a land you control enters, create a 3/4 green Treefolk creature token with reach.
{1}{G}, Exile this enchantment: Treefolk and Forests you control gain indestructible until end of turn.
Ashling, the Limitless (functional)
WotC issued a prerelease erratum for the evoke-granting ability of Ashling, the Limitless. First, the ability’s effect now applies only to Elemental permanent spells rather than all Elemental spells cast by Ashling’s controller.
Second, the erratum changes the ability from simply granting evoke to spells to . . . doing something else. On its own, this change would remove most of the ability’s expected utility, just like the update to the rules text of Zinnia, Valley’s Voice in the Magic: The Gathering—FINAL FANTASY holidays update.
There are CR changes though, which almost certainly relate to Zinnia and Ashling. As mentioned above, I postpone my analysis until I have read the official update bulletin.
Printed ability text:
Elemental spells you cast from your hand have evoke {4}. (If you cast a spell for its evoke cost, it’s sacrificed when it enters.)
Oracle ability text:
Elemental permanent spells you cast from your hand gain evoke {4} as you cast them. (If you cast a spell for its evoke cost, it’s sacrificed when it enters.)
Omni-Changeling (nonfunctional)
WotC issued a prerelease erratum which adds additional text after Omni-Changeling’s convoke keyword. The text doesn’t really make sense to me.
Printed ability text:
Convoke (Your creatures can help cast this spell. Each creature you tap while casting this spell pays for {1} or one mana of that creature’s color.)
Oracle ability text:
Convoke (Your creatures can help cast this spell. Each creature you tap while casting this spell pays for {1} or one mana of that creature’s color.)
Changes to Oracle text
Note: Most of the time, I list only the changed parts of a card’s Oracle text, rather than the complete text of the card.
Templating (nonfunctional)
All cards in the Lorwyn Eclipsed release conform to the templating guidelines for self-references introduced with the Magic: The Gathering Foundations release. Likewise, the Lorwyn Eclipsed update contains no feature reductions for cards that violate these guidelines, and no fixes for typos introduced by the guidelines’ rollout in the Aetherdrift update.
This makes the Lorwyn Eclipsed update the first (regular) update of this kind since the Aetherdrift update.
Removed types (functional)
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update removes all types from two cards. Recent updates had already removed and then restored those cards’ rules text and rulings.
This update applies to: Aerathi Berserker and Strutting Turkey.
Old types (example):
Creature – Human Berserker
New types (example):
—
Restored types (functional)
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update restores the types of three cards. Their types had been removed as part of the Magic: The Gathering—FINAL FANTASY update, which had also removed their rules text. (The Edge of Eternities update then restored the rules text, the Magic: The Gathering | Marvel’s Spider-Man update removed the rules text of Who // What // When // Where // Why a second time, and the December update for the Magic: The Gathering—FINAL FANTASY holiday release restored it again.)
This update applies to: Little Girl, Who // What // When // Where // Why, and Gleemax.
Old types (example):
—
New types (example):
Creature — Human Child
Retroactive Sorcerers (functional)
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update introduces the Sorcerer creature type and adds it to twenty-two previously existing creature cards.
This update applies to: Prodigal Sorcerer, Sorceress Queen, Krovikan Sorcerer, Capricious Sorcerer, Apprentice Sorcerer, Dakmor Sorceress, Multani, Maro-Sorcerer, Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer, Gempalm Sorcerer, Vulshok Sorcerer, Serendib Sorcerer, Sighted-Caste Sorcerer, Etherium-Horn Sorcerer, Silumgar Sorcerer, Sorcerer of the Fang, Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer, Rockslide Sorcerer, Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, Wild-Magic Sorcerer, Bloodboil Sorcerer, Greensleeves, Maro-Sorcerer, and Johann, Apprentice Sorcerer.
Old types (example):
Creature – Human Wizard
New types (example):
Creature — Human Wizard Sorcerer
Four other creature cards with “Sorcerer” or “Sorceress” in their name remain unchanged. Those are: Hades, Sorcerer of Eld, Kuja, Genome Sorcerer, Ultimecia, Time Sorceress, and Edea, Possessed Sorceress.
Crash Through (nonfunctional)
In the previous Gatherer update, WotC corrected a typo in Crash Through’s reminder text. The Lorwyn Eclipsed update reintroduces that typo.
Old ability text:
Creatures you control gain trample until end of turn. (Each of those creatures can deal excess combat damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.)
New ability text:
Creatures you control gain trample until end of turn. (Each of those creature [sic] can deal excess combat damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.)
Changes to Gatherer rulings (nonfunctional)
Spry and Mighty
One ruling in the Release Notes reads
If you control only one creature as Spry and Mighty resolves, you’ll choose that creature. X will be 0, but the chosen creature will still get trample.
The Gatherer page’s corresponding ruling instead reads
If you don’t control two creatures as Spry and Mighty resolves, the spell won’t do anything.
Neither ruling matches the outcome dictated by the Comprehensive Rules. If only one creature is chosen, the other creature and its power are undefined. If a calculation would use an undefined value, it uses 0 instead; in the case of Spry and Mighty, the difference between the chosen creature’s power and 0 is calculated [CR 107.2]. As a result, X is the power of the chosen creature (or its absolute value, if the power is negative).
If Spry and Mighty’s controller controls no creatures at all, then X is indeed 0 and nothing happens.
Painter’s Servant
The Lorwyn Eclipsed release features many callbacks to the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block, one of which is Painter’s Servant. The card itself is an iconic combo enabler and one of the rulings on its Gatherer page is pure nostalgia.
Each card becomes a new object as it changes zones, so this effect will apply to it from scratch in the new zone. Zone-change replacement abilities that care about the new color (like “[color] permanents enter tapped”) won’t work because those effects are applied as the card is entering its new zone. Zone-change triggered abilities that care about the new color (like “when a [color] permanent enters” or “when you cast a [color] spell”) will work because those effects apply after the card is already in its new zone.
First are phrases like “zone-change replacement abilities.” The phrase “replacement ability” appears only on the Gatherer pages of Painter’s Servant and three cards from the original Innistrad block (and that of Mystic Reflection, whose rulings, I guess, are based on those Innistrad block cards).
Second is the content of the ruling. It describes a previous version of the rules for applying enters-the-battlefield replacement effects (a newfangled term for zone-change replacement abilities). That version was replaced a mere eight years ago with the Ixalan update.
I imagine that, for any other update, this ruling would have been updated to use both current terms and current rules. But for a nostalgia trip like Lorwyn Eclipsed, keeping an outdated ruling the way it is makes much more sense.
Eirdu, Carrier of Dawn
One ruling on Eirdu, Carrier of Dawn’s Gatherer page claims that, if Eirdu leaves the battlefield while its controller casts a creature spell, that player cannot use convoke to pay the spell’s cost. This ruling is misleading as this is only true if Eirdu leaves the battlefield while the spell’s controller activates mana abilities.
If you sacrifice Eirdu while casting a creature spell (to activate a mana ability, for example), the spell won’t have convoke when you pay its costs unless it has convoke some other way.
If Eirdu is moved to another zone to pay an additional or alternative cost of the spell, the spell’s controller can pay the mana component of the total cost first, and then move Eirdu to another zone [CR 601.2h]. If they do, the spell still has convoke during the mana payment, so it can still be convoked.
Only if the spell’s controller deliberately chooses to move Eirdu first would they be denied the option to convoke. It’s unlikely that a player would choose that line of play, and since Release Notes and Gatherer rulings are primarily concerned with practical aspects, such a ruling should disregard that line of play.
This means that, from a Gatherer ruling’s point of view, removing Eirdu to activate a mana ability is not an example, but rather the only way the rest of that ruling can ever apply.
Glen Elendra’s Answer
One ruling on the Gatherer page of Glen Elendra’s Anwer states that Glen Elendra’s Anwer cannot target mana abilities. This is also true for any other kind of activated or triggered ability, since Glen Elendra’s Anwer does not have any targets.
Glen Elendra’s Answer can’t target mana abilities. An activated mana ability is one that could add mana as it resolves, doesn’t have a target, and isn’t a loyalty ability. A triggered mana ability is one that could add mana as it resolves and triggers based on an activated mana ability.
Ashling Rekindled
Ashling Rekindled’s Gatherer page is the only new page in the Lorwyn Eclipsed update that features the rulings on nonmodal double-faced cards from the Lorwyn Eclipsed Release Notes. The Release Notes use the outdated term “transforming double-faced cards” while the Gatherer page uses the current term “nonmodal double-faced cards.”
This set of rulings contains a standard ruling that incorrectly implies that basic land types affect an object’s color identity.
In the Commander variant, a double-faced card’s color identity is determined by the mana costs and mana symbols in the rules text of both faces combined. If either face has a color indicator or basic land type, those are also considered. For example, Oko, Lorwyn Liege’s color identity is green and blue, since its front face is blue, its rules text contains a green mana symbol, and its back face has a green color indicator as well as a blue mana symbol in its rules text.
Lasting Tarfire
One ruling on Lasting Tarfire’s Gatherer page uses “your end step” where it should say “the end step.”
Lasting Tarfire’s ability will check as your end step starts to see if you put a counter on a creature this turn. If you didn’t, the ability won’t trigger at all. Putting a counter on a creature during your end step won’t cause the ability to trigger.
Spinerock Tyrant
One ruling on Spinerock Tyrant’s Gatherer page features a typo: it uses “choose new ones” where it should say “choose a new one.”
The copy will have the same target unless you choose new ones [sic]. If you change the target, the new target must be legal.
Ashling’s Command
One ruling on the Gatherer page of Ashling’s Command uses “creature” where it should say “permanent.”
If the copied permanent is copying something else, then the token enters as whatever that creature copied.
Catharsis, Deceit, Emptiness, Vibrance, and Wistfulness
One ruling on the Gatherer pages of the five Elemental Incarnations features a typo: it uses “were spent” where it should say “was spent.”
The same typo appears in rulings on the Gatherer pages of Repel Intruders, River’s Grasp, Torrent of Souls, Firespout, and Dawnglow Infusion. So, one could also think of this as a callback to the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block.
Catharsis’s first and second abilities check to see if at least two mana of the appropriate colors were spent [sic] to pay Catharsis’s cost. It doesn’t matter if more than two mana of that color was spent; the effect isn’t multiplied.
Maralen, Fae Ascendant
One ruling on Maralen, Fae Ascendant’s Gatherer page has nothing to do with that card’s function.
If an exiled card has {X} in its mana cost, X is 0 for the purpose of determining its mana value.
Ashling, the Limitless
One ruling in the Release Notes reads
Ashling, the Limitless has received an update to its Oracle text. The updated text appears above. Specifically, an Elemental permanent spell you cast from your hand will keep its granted evoke ability even if Ashling leaves the battlefield before that spell resolves. For a more detailed explanation, see the Lorwyn Eclipsed update bulletin here.
The Gatherer page’s corresponding ruling has a slightly different text and introduces a typo.
If Ashling leaves the battlefield after you’ve cast an Elemental permanent spell and paid its evoke cost but before that spell resolves, the permanent that spell becomes will still have evoke when it enters. As such, the triggered ability represented by evoke will still trigger, and when that abiltiy [sic] resolves, you’ll still have to sacrifice that permanent.
One ruling on that Gatherer page uses “that creature” where it should say “that permanent.”
The token created by Ashling’s last ability copies exactly what was printed on the original permanent and nothing else (unless that creature was copying something else; see below). It doesn’t copy whether that permanent was tapped or untapped, whether it had any counters on it or Auras and Equipment attached to it, or any non-copy effects that changed its power, toughness, types, color, and so on.
Version-specific rulings
In the Magic: The Gathering—FINAL FANTASY update, WotC experimented with a new Gatherer feature: custom rulings for specific card versions.
Previously, all versions of a given card had the same set of rulings on their Gatherer pages. The new feature changed this by giving new versions of select cards a different set of rulings; the old versions kept their rulings so that there were two sets of rulings for some cards on Gatherer.
In the following update, Edge of Eternities, WotC removed the brand new feature, and each card had once again a unified set of rulings across all its Gatherer pages.
The Lorwyn Eclipsed update reintroduces this feature. Just like the previous time, some cards reprinted in this release gain additional rulings for the Gatherer pages of specifically the reprint versions. For now, these reprint-exclusive rulings are just duplicates of existing rulings.
This update applies to the Gatherer pages of the Lorwyn Eclipsed versions of: Overgrown Tomb, Nameless Inversion, Springleaf Drum, Bloom Tender, Goatnap, and Run Away Together.
A look at the official update bulletin
Now that I have listed all changes to the CR, to official Oracle text, and to other Gatherer information, it’s time to take a look at the official update bulletin. Let’s see if there isn’t something that sheds light on the strangeness surrounding Zinnia and Ashling.
610.5
This rule defines the function for the new template on Zinnia, Valley’s Voice, which now also appears on Ashling, the Limitless. Both of those cards have received Oracle updates, so take a look further down this article for more information on their function.
Okay. Zinnia and Ashling have a function. No word yet on how that function is supposed to function, but otherwise a good start.
601.2a
We’ve added some language to this rule to define the point at which one-shot effects that cause spells to gain abilities as they’re cast apply (which is the function described in the new 610.5). See the Oracle update entries for Zinnia, Valley’s Voice and Ashling, the Limitless for more information.
More teasers. Still no idea how this is supposed to work, and this paragraph again offers nothing beyond what the rule says. Let’s hope it all comes together in the third act.
702.124
We’ve issued errata to cards that have the friends forever ability to align their templates with the new cards that have partner—Father & son and partner—Survivors.
So, zero errata?
Oracle Changes
In addition to the following more substantial rules text updates, we made a few minor changes to reminder text as well as some minor nonfunctional templating adjustments that aren’t worth mentioning here.
To clarify: “a few minor changes to reminder text” means changing exactly one card’s reminder text, by reverting a grammatical fix? And “some minor nonfunctional templating adjustments” means removing or restoring types to cards, and removing color indicators and abilities from newly released cards?
Notably, things are not mentioned because they “aren’t worth mentioning.” I find this an improvement over recent update bulletins that claimed these things weren’t “interesting.” Deciding for the reader what is and is not interesting doesn’t look great; if the author instead decides that something isn’t worth it to them, the minutiae is still omitted, but at least I feel less patronized.
Partners: Permanent Pals
With the release of a recent Secret Lair drop, we debuted legendary creatures with a new template for partner abilities. Since these abilities have the same function as friends forever, we’ve issued errata to the seven legendary creature cards from the Secret Lair x Stranger Things drop that use friends forever and their SLX counterparts. This errata changes that ability to “Partner—Friends forever.” As an example, here’s Hargilde, Kindly Runechanter.
Ah, now I get it. The errata are not for official Oracle text, but for some random other card text. A bit confusing to list this under “Oracle Changes,” but it became clear eventually.
Speaking of confusion: I fear the claim that partner—[text] has the same function as friends forever will cause confusion. As I noted in the CR section, changing one to the other results in two functional changes, with one of them having quite an impact on commander selection during deckbuilding. (Maybe the Commander Format Panel plans to introduce a “flavor” bracket that only allows flavorful commander combinations; that would restrict most of the cross-ability combinations.)
Zinnia and Ashling’s Excellent Templating Adventure
Zinnia, Valley’s Voice is a bit of an oddball. By adding offspring to creature spells, Zinnia gives those spells both an optional additional cost and an ability that functions from the battlefield that cares whether that cost was paid. This can get a bit confusing in some cases. For example, say you cast a creature spell while you control Zinnia and you pay the offspring cost, and then Zinnia leaves the battlefield before that spell resolves. Even though you paid the offspring cost, you don’t get a 1/1 when that creature enters because the creature spell lost offspring when Zinnia left the battlefield. If you’re surprised to hear that, I guarantee you’re not alone!
With that in mind, we’ve created a new template for the last ability of Zinnia, Valley’s Voice as well as rules support for that template. We’ve also applied this template to Ashling, the Limitless from Lorwyn Eclipsed Commander since that ability is quite similar and the intent behind its ability is the same. This is a functional change; both Zinnia and Ashling will grant abilities to appropriate spells as you cast them, and the permanents those spells become will have those abilities regardless of whether Zinnia or Ashling are still on the battlefield when those spells resolve.
Finally, the grand reveal! And it reveals: nothing. Two hundred words spent on essentially nothing.
The author thinks that Zinnia’s previous wording made spells lose offspring as soon as Zinnia left the battlefield. That much was clear from the beginning: if they didn’t think something was wrong, they wouldn’t change it. (Whether their assessment is correct is up for debate.)
So, they devised a new template. Again, nothing that wasn’t already known. And they applied it to another card with the same issue. How unexpected. And the new template is supposed to make the abilities work as intended. Who would’ve thought that?
The one thing not readily apparent from the CR and Oracle changes, the unique selling point of an update bulletin, is missing: how this new template is supposed to work. I guess rules enthusiasts just aren’t the target audience of these articles anymore. Oh well.
Regardless, the changes themselves still allow an analysis, and in a way, the total lack of an explanation makes this easier. I think I even found the reason why the bulletin offers no explanation.
So, what is up with Zinnia and Ashling’s new template?
An analysis of the update for Zinnia and Ashling
As a reminder, the update adds one sentence to rule 601.2a and a brand new rule 610.5. Both rules and Ashling’s old and new wording are also found below, with the new sentence highlighted. Take a look and form your own opinion, if you haven’t already.
To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. Any continuous effects that modify the characteristics of the spell as you start casting it begin as it is put on the stack (see rule 611.2f). Any one-shot effects that cause the spell to gain abilities as you cast it apply as it is put on the stack (see rule 610.5). The spell remains on the stack until it resolves, it’s countered, or a rule or effect moves it elsewhere.
CR 601.2a
Some static abilities create one-shot effects that cause spells a player casts to gain an ability as that player casts them. These effects begin to apply to appropriate spells at the time the player puts such a spell on the stack. See rule 601.2a.
CR 610.5
Printed ability text:
Elemental spells you cast from your hand have evoke {4}. (If you cast a spell for its evoke cost, it’s sacrificed when it enters.)
Oracle ability text:
Elemental permanent spells you cast from your hand gain evoke {4} as you cast them. (If you cast a spell for its evoke cost, it’s sacrificed when it enters.)
. . .
After giving it some thought, I came to the conclusion—and I fear I’m still giving too much credit—that the new template and the supporting rules are utter nonsense. A steaming pile of bus. Devoid of meaning. The worst abomination to defile the venerable halls of the Comprehensive Rules since—actually, I cannot remember a worse update than this.
Over the last years, there have been a number of half-baked updates, but this one wins by a light-year. It’s not half-baked, it’s unbaked. It’s as if the creator misplaced the recipe, so they threw together a bunch of random ingredients. Without tasting the result. And then forgot to put their dough into the oven. And then served this to their guests as a delicious chocolate cake. But not every brown mass labeled chocolate turns out to be chocolate.
One-shot effects that grant abilities? One-shot effects? That grant abilities? If I were given this “explanation” by anyone or anything but the CR, I would think they were out to troll me. Or serving me slop hallucinated by generative AI.
Let’s make one thing absolutely clear though: WotC’s rules team is not to blame for this travesty. They are highly paid experts with a deep understanding of Magic’s rules system. Like the rest of WotC, they are intensely passionate about the game and strive to make Magic the best it can be. It is literally impossible that these fine folks would not recognize this addition for the gibberish it is. Never in a million years would the rules team contaminate the CR with such total drivel. So, someone else must have done this behind their back.
That’s right: Some malicious entity must have infiltrated WotC’s company network and manipulated the CR, Gatherer, and the update bulletin. Remember the prerelease weekend when the links to the CR were broken? Probably a side effect of the saboteur uploading new files. Maybe they’re from a rival company; maybe they’re a foreign actor seeking to harm the American economy. Whoever they are, the case is clear: if they’re not stopped, they will continue to damage the rules until everything is thrown into chaos. So if you know how to contact the rules team or anyone else at WotC, let them know they’ve been hacked.
Now, I expect everyone with basic knowledge of the CR to immediately see the huge flaws in this supposed update. As such, the following analysis is mostly to get some of the anger off my chest.
Formal aspects
Where to begin? Each rule points to the other, which is not helpful when deciding which one is the main rule and which one is just a reference. The sentence in rule 601.2a seems less important though: it mentions this new kind of “one-shot effect,” but does not define it or say where it comes from. Everything it says is also found in rule 610.5, so that rule is what matters.
“Some static abilities create one-shot effects […].” What? Static abilities can now create one-shot effects? How? For more than twenty-five years, static abilities have not been known to create one-shot effects. Continuous effects, yes, but never one-shot effects. The closest one gets is if the continuous effect is a replacement effect. That replacement effect may cause some event in the game to create a one-shot effect; but that is still not a one-shot effect created by that static ability.
The explanation for this alone could fill an entire article, if it existed. But the saboteur clearly knew they would draw too much attention if they started to justify their absurdities. Better to leave out the details, so as to pass at least the most cursory of glances.
What does the rest of the CR say about static abilities? Section 604, “Handling Static Abilities,” begins as follows:
Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they’re simply true.
CR 604.1
So, a static ability does something all the time. One might even use the word “continuously.” Except now, when it does a one-shot effect, which is something that happens only once and has no duration. Not contradictory at all. Next:
Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 113.6.
CR 604.2
This is what generations of players, judges, and rules enthusiasts have learned. (Well, maybe not the first group.) Static abilities equal continuous effects. And their effects last as long as the abilities continue to exist. Again, absolutely no contradiction with the new paradigm. Or take the description of static abilities in section 113, “Abilities”:
Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”
CR 113.3d
So, this first part already collides with a basic aspect of Magic’s rules system that has twenty-five years’ worth of history and numerous mentions in the CR.
And here the saboteur made their first mistake: no rules team would ever introduce such a cataclysmic update with one tiny rule stuck to the end of one section. They would place this information in a prominent spot; they would rewrite all the rules I cited (and more) to incorporate the changes; they would add cross-references. In other words, they would properly integrate the changes into the document’s structure.
Now, the concept of a static ability creating one-shot effects flies in the face of everything the CR have to say about static abilities. But what about one-shot effects? Let’s see section 609, “Effects”:
An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.
CR 609.1
More of the same. Resolving objects create one-shot effects and/or continuous effects, while static abilities create continuous effects. Except when a sorry excuse for a game rule claims they create “one-shot effects” instead.
Again, the saboteur tips their hand by failing to formally incorporate their changes into the CR. From this alone, one can easily conclude that this update is phony.
With the formal aspects (mostly) done, I now turn to the functional aspects of this ridiculous concept.
The nature of one-shot effects
“one-shot effects that cause spells […] to gain an ability […].” And here I must interrupt again and voice my frustration at seeing such a word salad in the CR. A one-shot effect causes an object to gain an ability? What on Dominaria is going on here? Let’s see the start of section 610, “One-Shot Effects”:
A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, creating a token, and moving an object from one zone to another.
CR 610.1
Yes, granting an object an ability is a perfect example of something that happens once and doesn’t have a duration. In Ashling’s case, the spell gains evoke and then immediately stops having evoke, because the ability-granting effect does not have a duration! Which means the spell doesn’t get evoke in any meaningful way, because there is no game state where it has the ability, because that would require the one-shot effect to have a duration! Plainly stated, a one-shot effect granting an ability is a contradiction in terms.
But wait! Rule 610.5 has something to say on that very topic: “These effects begin to apply to appropriate spells […].” Oh, now the “one-shot effect” “begins to apply.” And if it begins to apply, it will probably apply some more to that poor spell. Meaning that the effect without a duration has a duration. Clear as mud.
And during its duration, this duration-less effect will most likely apply the whole time, rather than intermittently. One might even use the word “continuous” to describe it. That’s right, it’s a continuous one-shot effect, surpassing even the most hideous amalgams that ever shambled out of a stitcher’s laboratory.
I just cannot wrap my head around this. How did the saboteur manage to put down these words without going mad? It’s so many fundamentally opposed things smashed together. A one-shot effect is one-and-done. You carry out the instruction and then you forget about it. Nothing remembers the effect afterward. Because it’s not necessary.
If I ask myself which zone a specific card is in, I don’t start with its initial location in a player’s deck at the start of the game and then apply every single movement to the library, to the hand, and so forth up to the latest effect or action. I just look at the zones of the game and note where it is.
The same happens if a one-shot effect puts counters on a permanent. I don’t go through the permanent’s whole history of receiving and losing counters, adding and subtracting as needed; I just count the counters that are currently there. Now that I rant about it, it seems like most one-shot effects cause a physical change in a tabletop game: moving objects to new zones, life total changes, counters, attaching Auras and Equipment . . .
After a quick walk through the CR, I have nearly two dozen kinds of one-shot effects that come with a physical change and only six without, and one of the latter, setting a designation, often comes with counters or a helper card. That seems good enough for a rule of thumb: one-shot effects cause a physical change in the game state. And it’s also because of this visible change that a history of one-shot effects is not needed. Once any immediate triggered abilities have been dealt with, nothing cares from what zone a permanent entered the battlefield or how it got its +1/+1 counters. (As always, exceptions prove the rule.) Well, at least one useful thing came out of all this.
The nature of continuous effects
Let’s contrast this with continuous effects:
A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.
CR 611.1
A continuous effect modifies something for a certain duration. But that modification is rarely visible in a tabletop game: if I cast Giant Growth on a creature, there is no visible indicator of the +3/+3 bonus afterward. Copy effects, text-changing effects, color-changing, ability-changing, and power- and toughness-changing effects—none of these come with a visible indicator. The same goes for effects that affect players or game rules: restrictions on casting, attacking, and blocking, hand-size modifications, “can’t” effects, “as though” effects, and so many others are not visualized.
Control-changing effects are visualized by moving the permanent to the controlling player’s part of the table, and type-changing effects may be visualized if the permanent becomes a creature, by moving it next to other creatures for combat purposes. Rarely, a power- and toughness-setting effect is visualized with a die (like a Tarmogoyf die). Playing with the hand or the top card of the library revealed has a visible component. But these effects are in the minority.
In a nutshell: Continuous effects do something for a certain duration. For the most part, they do not come with a visual indicator, so one has to remember these effects while they exist. And their history is important, because those effects can influence each other. All of which is the opposite of one-shot effects. Except for these fabulous new “continuous one-shot effects.”
Recognizing the new kind of “one-shot effect”
Now, if a static ability can generate a continuous effect or a one-shot effect (or both; who knows what the future holds?), and if those effects (try to) do the same thing, then the CR should properly define them, so that one can correctly identify which is which. On that topic, rule 610.5 says this:
Some static abilities create one-shot effects that cause spells a player casts to gain an ability as that player casts them.
That’s it. That’s all. That’s not a definition. A description, but not a usable definition. Not even a little bit.
“Some static abilities create one-shot effects […].” Which static abilities? They are not detailed any further, so everything has to rest on a reader’s ability to differentiate a one-shot effect from a continuous effect. That is, given the text of a static ability, does this text match a one-shot effect or a continuous effect?
“[…] one-shot effects that cause spells a player casts to gain an ability as that player casts them.” That is a clear description of what the “one-shot effect” does, but it is not a definition of the effect itself. If I know that I’m looking at a one-shot effect, I can use this description to determine whether it should apply as I put a spell onto the stack. But that’s not the problem: the problem is recognizing whether I’m looking at a one-shot effect in the first place. That is, the rule fails to explain how such a “one-shot effect” differs from a continuous effect that also grants an ability to a spell as that spell is cast. And this lack of explanation is not surprising, because there can be no coherent explanation within the framework of the CR.
As seen in the rules I cited so far, the CR don’t define one-shot effects by specific words, terms, or phrases. Rather, the CR define them by what they do, by their function. The same goes for continuous effects. And granting abilities is not what a one-shot effect does. Thus, if Ashling’s shiny new wording reads
Elemental permanent spells you cast from your hand gain evoke {4} as you cast them. (If you cast a spell for its evoke cost, it’s sacrificed when it enters.)
then there is nothing about this wording that indicates this to be a one-shot effect. The effect grants an object an ability: the CR associate such a function with a continuous effect. The effect starts to apply to the object as it’s cast: this makes the effect apply only to specific spells, and it works seamlessly for a continuous effect.
The use of the word gain is a red herring. The CR don’t assign the words gain and have different meanings or even make them the exclusive indicators for ability granting [CR 113.1a][CR 113.10]. Continuous effects from static abilities consistently use have while continuous effects from resolving spells and abilities consistently use gain, but that is just an editorial preference. Functionally, the two words are interchangeable.
If rule 610.5 wants to define its weird “one-shot effects” via the word gain (with the implication that continuous effects are defined by the word have), then it needs to provide templates with those words. Compare rule 611.2e, which differentiates between these and related words in a very specific context:
If a resolving spell or ability both puts a nontoken permanent onto the battlefield and creates a continuous effect stating that the permanent “is [characteristic],” that it “has [characteristic],” or that it doesn’t have a particular characteristic, that continuous effect applies simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. This characteristic is usually a color or a creature type. If the continuous effect says the permanent “becomes [characteristic]” or “gains [an ability],” that effect applies after the permanent is on the battlefield.
CR 611.2e
Here, the words are not used, but mentioned as part of specific templates. Templates are such a basic part of the CR, it’s astonishing that the saboteur made this blunder. Then again, if they aim to rip apart the rules’ consistency, they are off to a great start.
Thus, everything about Ashling’s new wording still suggests that this is a continuous effect. The additions to the CR do not contain an applicable definition, or any definition at all, that would identify the ability’s effect as a one-shot effect.
The functionality of the new kind of “one-shot effect”
So far, the update fails on a formal level because it’s not properly integrated into the CR document. It also fails on a terminological level, because it uses terms in a radically different way from the rest of the CR without addressing the resulting issues.
But let’s assume that with sufficient motivation and doublethink, one were able to push past this. Does the update work on a functional level? Do spells retain the evoke abilities if Ashling leaves the battlefield?
So, I control Ashling and I cast an Elemental permanent spell from my hand. When exactly does that spell gain the evoke abilities?
Rule 601.2i has something to say on this. Before the Lorwyn Eclipsed update, this was the deciding rule for Zinnia’s current wording. The relevant part is highlighted.
Once the steps described in 601.2a–h are completed, effects that modify the characteristics of the spell as it’s cast are applied, then the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, they get priority.
CR 601.2i
This rule somewhat clashes with the new ones. Does the effect of Ashling’s ability apply as the spell is put onto the stack or at the completion of the casting process? Fortunately, the rules differ in that the new ones are more specific: they narrow down “effects” to “one-shot effects” and “characteristics” to “abilities.” As a rule of thumb, if a rule conflicts with a more specialized rule, the specialized rule takes precedence, and I don’t see a reason to do otherwise. So, that issue is resolved. The spell gains the evoke abilities right at the start and I can choose to pay the evoke cost at the expected time.
Let’s assume that nothing untoward happens to Ashling or the spell. Does the spell retain the evoke abilities when it resolves and I put it onto the battlefield? Or does it lose the abilities because it becomes a new object?
Rule 400.7 and its subrules define an extensive list of exceptions, where objects and effects can track an object moving to a new zone. And one of these exceptions actually covers the paradoxical “one-shot effects.”
Effects from static abilities that grant an ability to a permanent spell that functions on the battlefield continue to apply to the permanent that spell becomes (see rule 611.3d).
CR 400.7b
(When this rule refers to “effects,” it means only continuous effects, of course. The authors of this rule could not have anticipated a monstrosity like “static abilities create one-shot effects,” so they simply wrote “effects.” Still, the rule exists and its wording is applicable, so let’s go with it.)
With that problem solved, the spell resolves and I put it onto the battlefield. The permanent is still affected by the ability-adding effect, so its evoke triggered ability triggers. Great, the most basic scenario works.
Let’s modify the scenario and have Ashling leave the battlefield before the spell resolves. Does the “continuous one-shot effect” continue to apply to the spell? Who knows? Nothing about this kind of “one-shot effect” is defined by the new rules. And the existing rules don’t address the issue either, because they are meant to make sense.
To humor the saboteur, let’s assume that “continuous one-shot effects” work like one-shot effects insofar that they are never reverted, regardless of what happens to their “source.” (At least not directly. A one-shot effect causing a zone change is of course undone by a second zone change in the opposite direction. But that requires a second effect, and the first effect still happened. Also, source is not used as the rules term here.)
With that generous assumption, the spell continues to have evoke, no matter what happens to Ashling. Hooray, mission accomplished!
Going beyond the most basic scenarios
Let’s do something else a rules team would do: consider any scenario other than the immediate one. How do the new rules hold up when applied to related scenarios?
Let’s say I control Ashling and I cast an Elemental permanent spell from my hand. I pay the evoke cost, but before the spell resolves, Dress Down enters the battlefield. Does the evoke triggered ability trigger when the spell resolves and I put it onto the battlefield?
This scenario raises the question of how a “continuous one-shot effect” interacts with continuous effects. With Ashling’s printed wording, the evoke abilities are clearly granted by a continuous effect, and the CR would provide a clear answer in section 613, “Interaction of Continuous Effects.”
Namely, there would be two abilities each generating a continuous effect, Ashling’s and Dress Down’s. Both effects would belong to layer 6 of the layer system, so their order of application would be determined by timestamps and dependency. Ashling is a creature and would be affected by the effect of Dress Down’s ability, which would remove Ashling’s ability; this constitutes a dependency, so the effect of Dress Down’s ability would apply first. The effect of Ashling’s ability would not apply and the Elemental permanent would not have evoke.
Let’s remove the dependency by substituting a noncreature Ashling. One with the Stars or Machine God’s Effigy works for this purpose. Without dependency, the order of effects comes down to their timestamps. In this scenario, each effect’s timestamp corresponds to the moment when the respective permanent entered the battlefield. Dress Down entered the battlefield after Ashling, so the effect of Dress Down’s ability would apply second and the Elemental permanent would not have evoke when it entered the battlefield.
If Dress Down had entered the battlefield before the noncreature Ashling, the effects would apply in the other order and the Elemental permanent would have evoke. Either way, the CR would provide a well-established system that gives a clear answer. If I treat the effect of Ashling’s ability as a “continuous one-shot effect” instead, all that clarity goes away.
Going with my earlier concession of having the “continuous one-shot effect” be independent of Ashling and its ability, there should not be a dependency between the evoke-granting effect and the ability-removing effect. So what is the timestamp of the “continuous one-shot effect”?
It’s unknown. Rule 613.7 and its subrules do not define the timestamp of a one-shot effect, no matter which kind. And the magnificent new rule doesn’t define it either. What do?
Option one is to apply the “continuous one-shot effect” at the end, after layer 6. That would mean that the Elemental permanent always had evoke, no matter when Dress Down entered the battlefield. It would not have its printed abilities, however, and any abilities granted by continuous effects might or might not be removed by the effect of Dress Down’s ability, depending on the details. This does not seem like an intuitive and thus desirable outcome.
Option two goes to the other extreme and applies the “continuous one-shot effect” at the very start, before the layers. That would mean that the Elemental permanent never had evoke, no matter when Dress Down entered the battlefield. As before, it would not have its printed abilities, but it might have abilities granted by continuous effects, depending on the details. This is an improvement over option one, but the different treatment of abilities granted by a “continuous one-shot effect” or a continuous effect is still not intuitive.
Option two also comes with its own complications. If the “continuous one-shot effect” applies before layer 1, then the evoke abilities are overwritten by any copy effect. For example, if I replace Dress Down with Essence of the Wild and Clash of Realities under my control, the permanent enters as a copy of Essence of the Wild. That copy effect overwrites the evoke abilities and the permanent’s printed abilities, but the enters-the-battlefield ability granted by the continuous effect of Clash of Realities’s ability is completely unaffected.
So, if applying the “continuous one-shot effect” before the layers or after the layers is not the solution, option three has to lie somewhere in the middle. Besides copy effects, there are text-changing effects and type-changing effects that can have similar consequences for the “continuous one-shot effect,” so the next spot is just before layer 6. This avoids the unintuitive interactions with effects from the lower layers.
However, any ability-removing effect like the one generated by Dress Down’s ability still applies after the “continuous one-shot effect,” no matter the details, while abilities granted by continuous effects still depend on timestamps and dependencies. The different treatment of “continuous one-shot effects” and continuous effects persists.
If applying the “continuous one-shot effect” before layer 6 or after layer 6 does not lead to a satisfying outcome, option four must be to apply it inside layer 6. But that leads right back to the issue of timestamps. Without a timestamp, how do I know the order in which to apply all the ability-changing effects, be they “continuous one-shot effects” or continuous effects?
It’s time for option five: pointing out that this whole exercise is based on faulty assumptions. Even if I assigned the “continuous one-shot effect” a timestamp, the outcome would still not be the desired one. Because the layer system is about the interaction of continuous effects. And when determining an object’s characteristics, one-shot effects are not considered:
The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:
CR 613.1
It’s right there, at the start of section 613. To determine the characteristic values of an object, its printed values and applicable continuous effects are used. At no point are one-shot effects brought into the mix. And this continues throughout the CR: rules 613.5, 110.3, 112.3, 601.3e, and 614.12 all specify continuous effects. None of them care about one-shot effects of any kind.
Should some part of the update still be intact, it unravels here. Ignore all the interactions with Dress Down and continuous effects, whether Ashling leaves the battlefield, and all the other additions, and go back to the most basic scenario of casting an Elemental permanent spell. Even that falls apart, because that spell does not have evoke. Because the CR do not consider one-shot effects when determining the spell’s characteristic values. Hundreds of Ashlings and their abilities could create hundreds of “continuous one-shot effects” that all applied to that spell until the heat death of the Multiverse, and not once would that spell gain evoke this way. The CR would look at the printed values (no granted evoke there), add continuous effects (which these are not), and take that result. Hilarious.
Now, one could take the update and try to fix all the issues I detailed. But when I take a one-shot effect, and I give it a duration like a continuous effect, and I give it a timestamp like a continuous effect, and I make it interact with continuous effects like a continuous effect, then I have to wonder: is that still a one-shot effect? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, shouldn’t I admit defeat and recognize it for what it really is: a continuous effect?
Conclusion
In my analysis, I have shown how this supposed fix for Zinnia and Ashling not only falls short of its goal, but also fails to meet the CR’s formal standards. A failure of unprecedented magnitude that can only be explained by malicious actions from an outsider.
I wonder what the saboteur hoped to achieve. Why spend all the effort on hacking into WotC’s network without raising alarm, only to then publish such an obvious hoax? Did they really think the community would be so clueless as to not recognize this as fake? I haven’t done a search yet, but I expect that, by the time I finally have this published, the internet will already be full of content lambasting the rules update, and this article will be just one more drop in the ocean.
Still, if just to cover all the bases, if you, dear reader, know how to contact WotC’s rules team or anyone else at WotC, let them know they were infiltrated by a hostile entity who manipulates the very foundations of Magic gameplay. If left unchecked, there is no telling what other horrors they may unleash. (State-based actions that use the stack? Spells that don’t use the stack? Replacement effects that change an event after it already happened? Cards that remain in the game when their owner leaves it?)
To end on a positive note, the perceived issue with Zinnia and Ashling’s printed wording requires neither an update to their rules text, nor the introduction of new rules. All the rules required are already present in the CR.
The central rule is 611.3d. This rule was introduced for cards like Henzie “Toolbox” Torre, and it applies as much to Zinnia and Ashling as it does to Henzie. If one applies the rule as intended, it covers all three cards. If one applies it as written, it covers none of them, not even Henzie. However, it only requires some adjustments to its wording to rectify this issue. (There is a third viewpoint where the rule applies to Henzie and Ashling but not to Zinnia, but it requires a very narrow focus on the word allow with no regard for a given keyword’s function or a consistent treatment of keywords.)
This is yet further evidence that the published update is fake: the rules team would never introduce a set of rules that is not only redundant to an existing one, but also inferior in every regard. Since this update bulletin is already long enough, I have published my analysis of the existing system and its likely improvements in a separate article.