(Originally published on 2026-02-08; last reviewed on 2026-02-08; last updated on 2026-02-08)
In my article on the Lorwyn Eclipsed update, I did a short analysis of the part that concerned Zinnia, Valley’s Voice and Ashling, the Limitless. The goal of that update was to correct a perceived issue with their functionality. My conclusion was that the update fails to achieve this goal and that the chosen approach clashes with several core concepts of the Comprehensive Rules (CR).
I closed the article with a note that the CR already contain rules which handle the perceived issue in a far more elegant way. In this companion article, I first take a closer look at those rules and the cards they cover or should cover, and then devise a concept for closing the gaps and harmonizing some related rules.
- A retrospective
- The status quo
- Things to consider for a revised rule 611.3d
- Crafting a revision of rule 611.3d
- Proposal for a revision of rule 611.3d and related text
- Conclusion
A retrospective
Henzie “Toolbox” Torre
The Streets of New Capenna Commander card Henzie “Toolbox” Torre is one of those innocent-looking cards which can fool even rules experts. Its blitz-granting ability seems so simple and clear in its purpose that it may take a while to realize the issues that come with it.
Those issues are twofold: the first concerns the moment when a blitzed creature spell resolves and enters the battlefield, and the second concerns Henzie’s fate after a blitzed creature spell has been cast. And both issues arise from the fact that the blitz keyword represents more than one ability.
For the first issue, let Alex cast Sower of Chaos while she controls Henzie. On the stack, Sower of Chaos is a creature spell with mana value 4, so the effect of Henzie’s ability grants it blitz. Which means the effect grants three abilities, as defined in blitz’s rules entry 702.152.
Blitz represents three abilities: two static abilities that function while the card with blitz is on the stack, one of which may create a delayed triggered ability, and a static ability that functions while the object with blitz is on the battlefield. “Blitz [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost,” “If this spell’s blitz cost was paid, sacrifice the permanent this spell becomes at the beginning of the next end step,” and “As long as this permanent’s blitz cost was paid, it has haste and ‘When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card.’” Casting a spell for its blitz cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
CR 702.152a
The first ability functions on the stack and is relevant during the casting process. Suppose that Alex pays the blitz cost. The creature spell is cast and after all players pass priority, it resolves. Since the spell is a creature spell with mana value 4 the whole time, the effect of Henzie’s ability applies to it that entire time, including while the spell resolves.
The second ability also functions on the stack and is relevant while the spell resolves. During the spell’s resolution, Alex creates the delayed triggered ability and puts the spell onto the battlefield. In this moment, rule 400.7 strikes and severs the connection between the effect of Henzie’s ability and Sower of Chaos.
An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. This rule has the following exceptions.
CR 400.7
When an object changes its zone, it becomes a brand new object and leaves behind everything tied to its stay in the previous zone: counters, Auras and Equipment attached to it, damage marked on it, and most importantly here, effects that applied to it. This rule is a basic building block of the CR and comes up in countless scenarios.
Here, the rule causes the effect of Henzie’s ability to lose track of Sower of Chaos when it moves from the stack to the battlefield. As a result, Sower of Chaos is not affected by that effect anymore and it doesn’t have the blitz abilities on the battlefield.
This hardly matters for the first two abilities, since they already fulfilled their function, but it has an immense impact on the last ability. That ability functions on the battlefield and its effect grants Sower of Chaos haste and the dies triggered ability. Or at least it would, if Sower of Chaos had that ability.
The end result is that Alex casts Sower of Chaos for the blitz cost and that she sacrifices it during her end step, but it doesn’t gain haste or the dies triggered ability. Which is quite a deviation from Henzie’s intended functionality.
Of course, another concept that’s core to the CR is that each rule has an exception. Rule 400.7 says so right in its text and its exceptions are almost as basic as the rule itself. But none of the exceptions at the time of Streets of New Capenna’s release matched Henzie’s ability and its effect. A new exception was eventually added, which I briefly review in the next section.
For the second issue, assume that the exception to rule 400.7 is in place. Alex casts Sower of Chaos and pays its blitz cost, but this time, Nona responds and destroys Henzie with Murder.
Yet another basic concept of the CR is that effects generated by static abilities apply only as long as the object with the ability is in the correct zone (almost always the battlefield). As soon as the object leaves that zone, the effects generated by its static abilities cease to be and do not apply anymore to whatever they previously applied to.
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
In the current scenario, the effect of Henzie’s ability stops as soon as Henzie leaves the battlefield during Murder’s resolution. As a result, the creature spell stops having the three blitz abilities. The first ability already fulfilled its function, so its loss is negligible, but the other two abilities had yet to do something. The end result is that Alex casts Sower of Chaos for the blitz cost, but it doesn’t gain haste or the dies triggered ability, and Alex doesn’t sacrifice it during her end step. Again, a significant difference to Henzie’s intended functionality.
If Nona waits until Sower of Chaos has resolved and entered the battlefield, destroying Henzie results in a worse outcome for Alex. Sower of Chaos stops having the blitz abilities, but this time, the second ability was still present when Sower of Chaos resolved, so the delayed triggered ability exists and Alex has to sacrifice Sower of Chaos. This is the same end result as in the first issue and still a major departure from Henzie’s intended functionality.
Henzie and Serra Paragon
A few months after Streets of New Capenna, the Dominaria United card Serra Paragon came with practically the same issues. Instead of granting a set of abilities, the effect of its static ability allows permanent cards to be played from the graveyard and grants objects played this way an ability that functions on the battlefield.
The results were much the same. If the card was cast as a spell, rule 400.7h allowed the effect to track the card to the stack and grant the spell the ability, but the effect lost track of the spell when it resolved. Even if the card was played as a land and thus moved from the graveyard directly to the battlefield, the effect lost track of it because there was no exception for tracking a played land. In either case, the permanent never gained the ability it was supposed to have.
It took several attempts, but eventually, a handful of rules were added to the CR that addressed the issues surrounding both cards. The following two exceptions were added to rule 400.7:
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
If an effect allows a land card to be played, other parts of that effect can find the new object that land card becomes after it moves to the battlefield as a result of being played this way.
CR 400.7i
The second exception covers lands played with the effect of Serra Paragon’s ability, and the first exception covers spells that are cast with that effect or that are affected by the effect of Henzie’s ability.
Both exceptions are similar to previously existing exceptions and their wording closely follows those predecessors. One detail I like is that the first exception only applies to effects that absolutely need it: if a granted ability functions only on the stack, such as cascade, it is more intuitive for a permanent spell to lose that now-irrelevant ability upon entering the battlefield.
The other issue could not be solved as elegantly. It is part of a static ability’s DNA that its effect is directly tied to the ability’s existence. If the ability goes, so does its effect. There were no previous exceptions (well, one obscure one; see below), so a new concept had to be designed.
Such a concept needs to meet several goals. First and foremost, the ability-granting effect has to continue to exist, even if the generating ability ceases to exist, for as long as necessary. In Henzie’s case, if Henzie leaves the battlefield or loses its abilities, any blitzed spell or permanent should continue to have blitz.
However, the effect should not simply apply to all appropriate objects, but only to objects to which it already applied. In Henzie’s case, spells cast after Henzie leaves the battlefield should not gain blitz, regardless of any other objects that correctly continue to have blitz.
Third, the concept should only apply to effects which need it. That is, its wording has to include effects like that of Henzie’s ability, and exclude other effects which should not continue to exist beyond their generating abilities.
In layperson’s terms, the effect needs to stick to the objects it’s already attached to, without sticking to any unrelated objects. And this stickiness must be restricted to appropriate effects and not introduce side effects. The result was rule 611.3d.
Continuous effects from static abilities may allow a player to play a land or cast a permanent spell, or may grant an ability to a permanent spell or card that allows it to be cast. If the effect also grants that object an ability that functions only on the battlefield, that ability lasts as long as stated by the effect granting that permission or ability. If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
CR 611.3d
The first sentence describes the play/casting permission granted by the effect of Serra Paragon’s ability, and the first of the three blitz abilities granted by the effect of Henzie’s ability. The first half of the second sentence describes the triggered ability granted to the land or spell, and the third of the three blitz abilities. Together, they describe the effects which need some of that stickiness.
The second half of that sentence, combined with the third sentence, then states that the effect continues to apply for as long as it says it does. In the case of Serra Paragon and Henzie, the duration is indefinite. (The first and so far only card with a definite duration to its effect is Thundermane Dragon from Tarkir: Dragonstorm Commander.)
The last sentence highlights that this is an explicit exception to the general rule. (One of the many things missing from the Zinnia and Ashling update.)
My initial opinion of this rule was extremely negative. Rules that deal with exceptions are often clunky to read because of the long and precise definitions required to single out those exceptions, and rule 611.3d is a prime example.
Another issue with such rules is that a definition may be too narrow. Such a definition may inadvertently exclude some scenarios in which the rule should apply. (Those scenarios don’t even have to exist yet: it is best practice to future-proof new rules by considering likely developments in that area.) Rule 611.3d also scores high on this metric, as detailed in the next sections.
For Serra Paragon in particular, I would have vastly preferred an update to its Oracle text that changed the ability-granting part to a triggered ability. This would have been a functional change, but also an alignment with other cards that have similar abilities. (Namely fellow Dominaria United card Rivaz of the Claw, and Adventures in the Forgotten Realms Commander card Galea, Kindler of Hope. Galea’s wording would have been my preferred choice.)
I am still not happy about Serra Paragon’s treatment, but at this point, it’s unlikely to change. Furthermore, I don’t see a good way to errata Henzie’s ability, and the number of Henzie-like cards grows each year, so a supporting rule is the logical way.
On a positive note, I’ve come to appreciate the simplicity of the part that makes the effect stick. The rule wants the effect to last, so it simply states that to be the case. It may feel a bit cheap, but this is how pretty much every exception in the CR works: one rule states that A is true, and another rule states that, in specific situations, B is true instead. The effect of a static ability outlasting that ability even has a precedent in Titania’s Song.
The part of the rule which defines what effects it applies to is still not great, though. Which brings me to the different ways to look at rule 611.3d.
The status quo
Applying rule 611.3d as intended, as written, or very as written
As intended
Going with the intent behind rule 611.3d, it obviously applies to the effect of Serra Paragon’s ability. It says so right in the Unfinity update bulletin.
The stated intent is that, if a player plays a land or casts a spell this way, the permanent should get the attached ability. The same goes for Henzie “Toolbox” Torre: if a player pays the blitz cost, they should get all the attached benefits and drawbacks. What does this mean for Zinnia, Valley’s Voice and Ashling, the Limitless?
Well, if a paid blitz cost should come with all the blitz features, I think it’s only natural that a paid offspring cost should come with the offspring benefit. And a paid evoke cost should come with the evoke drawback. In each case, the effect grants an ability that allows the player to pay a cost, and an ability that functions on the battlefield.
If intent is the primary factor, then rule 611.3d applies to all three cards: Henzie, Zinnia, and Ashling. Right out of the box, without any errata to Zinnia and Ashling’s rules text, and without a competing and poorly thought-out rules set.
As written
If I set aside the intent and focus on the wording of rule 611.3d, things still look good for Serra Paragon. Henzie, however, faces some issues.
To benefit from rule 611.3d, a continuous effect needs to grant “an ability to a permanent spell or card that allows it to be cast.” This begs some questions. What exactly does the blitz ability allow a player to do? Does it grant a permission to cast a spell? (The CR define neither allow nor permission as a game term, so I use them interchangeably.)
When I think of permissions to cast a spell, I primarily think of zones and timing. By default, rule 302.1 gives me permission to cast a creature spell from my hand, during my main phase, if the stack is empty and I have priority. The escape keyword ability allows me to cast a creature spell from my graveyard instead, with the same timing; conversely, the flash keyword ability allows me to cast a creature spell anytime I have priority.
The effect of Elsha of the Infinite’s ability grants me permission to cast sorcery spells from an unusual zone and with an unusual timing. If a resolving spell or ability allows me to cast a creature spell from exile during its resolution, I ignore all the aspects of the rules-based permission, including the priority part.
Then there are mechanics that allow me to cast a spell with an alternative set of characteristics. Rule 715.3 allows me to cast an adventurer card as an Adventure. The morph keyword ability allows me to cast a card as a face-down 2/2 creature spell.
Blitz doesn’t do any of those things. It allows me to pay an alternative cost rather than the spell’s mana cost, and that’s it. Paying that cost has no influence on the rest of the casting process; nothing about the spell, its zone of origin, or its timing changes. Blitz doesn’t play in the same league as the other mechanics.
“Flashback allows me to cast the card from my graveyard.” “Flash allows me to cast this spell at instant speed.” “Morph allows me to cast this card face down.” “Blitz allows me to pay the blitz cost.” One of these is not like the others. (I admit to making the blitz description worse than it could be. My point still stands.)
So, if wording is the primary factor, then the blitz ability does not allow a spell to be cast, and rule 611.3d does not apply to Henzie. Neither does it apply to Zinnia or Ashling. Something should be done to correct this, and between revising rule 611.3d and introducing the changes from the Lorwyn Eclipsed update, the former is by far the better choice.
Very as written
There is one way of looking at rule 611.3d which leads to Henzie and Ashling being covered by it, but which excludes Zinnia. This approach is rather farfetched, so I mainly include it for completeness’s sake. It requires focusing only on the presence of the word allow, without any regard for its meaning (as described above) or a consistent treatment of keyword abilities.
With this approach, the blitz ability allows a player to cast a spell because its definition includes the phrase “You may cast this [object]”:
Blitz represents three abilities: two static abilities that function while the card with blitz is on the stack, one of which may create a delayed triggered ability, and a static ability that functions while the object with blitz is on the battlefield. “Blitz [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost,” “If this spell’s blitz cost was paid, sacrifice the permanent this spell becomes at the beginning of the next end step,” and “As long as this permanent’s blitz cost was paid, it has haste and ‘When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card.’” Casting a spell for its blitz cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
CR 702.152a
Evoke’s definition also includes this magical phrase:
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
Offspring’s definition does not feature the phrase. It only allows a player to pay a cost “as” they cast a spell.
Offspring represents two abilities. “Offspring [cost]” means “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell” and “When this permanent enters, if its offspring cost was paid, create a token that’s a copy of it, except it’s 1/1.”
CR 702.175a
So, this approach manages to split the three cards into two groups: Henzie and Ashling are covered by rule 611.3d and work as intended, while Zinnia does not.
As I wrote at the beginning, this approach totally ignores how a given keyword works and looks only for the presence of specific words, even if they don’t make sense in the context of that keyword.
Furthermore, this leads to a wildly inconsistent treatment of keywords. The keyword definitions in the CR feature an astonishing range of templates, and new wordings are constantly introduced. With this approach, offspring is not a permission, but evoke is. Overload is not a permission, but cleave is. Impending is not a permission, but web-slinging is.
I hope it has become clear that this way of interpreting rule 611.3d is not the right approach. Unifying the templates used for keyword definitions is a good idea though, and part of the concept I present in the last part of this article.
Some more words on permissions
If the previous two sections were not convincing enough, there are also technical reasons why a blitz ability does not grant a permission to cast a spell, regardless of the exact words used in the ability’s definition.
Section 601, “Casting Spells,” states that a casting permission must exist before the casting process is started.
To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3). If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step listed below while performing that step, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 732, “Handling Illegal Actions”). [Emphasis mine]
CR 601.2
A player can begin to cast a spell only if a rule or effect allows that player to cast it and no rule or effect prohibits that player from casting it.
CR 601.3
Notably, this means the permission must exist before the spell is put onto the stack. But the blitz ability only functions on the stack, and in Henzie’s case, it doesn’t even exist until the spell has been moved to the stack. So, it’s actually impossible for a blitz ability to grant a working casting permission.
Rule 601.3 features several subrules with exceptions, in order to facilitate the casting of specific kinds of spells. None of those exceptions apply to blitz, however, and this is not an oversight, because blitz has nothing to do with whether a spell is legal to cast.
To sum this all up: No matter how one interprets rule 611.3d—with the focus on intent or on wording—Henzie, Zinnia, and Ashling are treated the same. Either they are all covered, or they are all excluded. But even with the focus on intent, it should be clear that rule 611.3d stands to gain from an update to its wording.
And then there are all the cards that are absolutely not covered by this rule, but absolutely should be.
All the cards rule 611.3d should cover, but definitely doesn’t
The introduction of rule 611.3d was met with many cheers. Finally, the issues were solved and all the cards worked as intended.
But after the initial euphoria subsided, one had to think, “Are these really all the cards? Aren’t there more cards that grant multi-ability keywords? And does the wording of rule 611.3d cover them? Let’s take a look.”
Following this train of thought, the first stop was Innistrad: Midnight Hunt, which released one year earlier. The card in question is Lier, Disciple of the Drowned and the keyword is flashback.
Flashback appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard and another that functions while the card is on the stack. “Flashback [cost]” means “You may cast this card from your graveyard if the resulting spell is an instant or sorcery spell by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.” Casting a spell using its flashback ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
CR 702.34a
Let’s see . . . multiple abilities represented by one keyword? Check. One of these abilities is relevant for the casting process? Check. The other ability only becomes relevant after the casting process? Check. And if the first ability is “used,” the second ability should be “alive” until the spell resolves or otherwise leaves the stack? Check. Is it covered by rule 611.3d or any other rule? Nope.
Rule 611.3d only applies to permanent cards and only if the second ability functions on the battlefield. Flashback is only ever granted to nonpermanent cards and the second ability represented by flashback functions on the stack, as one would expect of an ability designed for nonpermanent cards. Therefore, the rule does not apply. (Did I mention that the rule’s wording is too narrow?)
So, the effect of Lier’s ability behaves like a regular effect generated by a static ability and ceases to apply as soon as Lier leaves the battlefield. In the case of flashback, this is pure upside for the spell’s controller and it even works out if Lier only leaves the battlefield during the spell’s resolution.
Let Alex control Lier and have Evacuation in her graveyard. She casts the card using flashback. When Evacuation resolves, it returns Lier to Alex’s hand. Then Alex is instructed to put the spell into her graveyard. Since Lier is not on the battlefield, there is no effect that grants Evacuation the two flashback abilities, so there is no replacement effect that replaces Evacuation going to the graveyard with Evacuation going into exile. The end result is that Evacuation goes to Alex’s graveyard, ready to be flashbacked again as soon as Lier returns to the battlefield.
Just to cover all the bases, the effect of Lier’s ability initially applies to cards in the graveyard, and it should follow them to the stack, similar to how the effect of Henzie’s ability follows the spell from the stack to the battlefield. For this, an exception already existed in rule 400.7g, so at least one issue was avoided.
If an effect grants a nonland card an ability that allows it to be cast, that ability will continue to apply to the new object that card became after it moved to the stack as a result of being cast this way.
CR 400.7g
(This exception was introduced in the Alara Reborn update for the explicit purpose of letting a flashback-granting effect track the card to the stack.)
Going further back, there was one more stop in the form of the plane card Otaria, released in Planechase, and one had to realize that the issue which rule 611.3d tries to address has existed in the game since 2009. (And there is one related group of even older cards which I address in a later section.)
So, the pre-rule-611.3d era holds one keyword with two cards not covered by the rule.
Since the introduction of rule 611.3d, flashback gained three more cards in Viral Spawning, Return the Past, and Iroh, Grand Lotus. Its close cousin, jump-start, got Niv-Mizzet, Supreme. Warp is represented by Tannuk, Steadfast Second. And of course, offspring has Zinnia, Valley’s Voice, and evoke has Ashling, the Limitless. (Blitz got a second card with The Caldaia, and Serra Paragon got company in the form of The Eighth Doctor and Thundermane Dragon.)
Like flashback, jump-start is not covered by rule 611.3d and for the exact same reasons. Warp is designed for permanent spells, but the second ability represented by this keyword functions on the stack rather than on the battlefield, so it too is outside the range of rule 611.3d. And offspring and evoke join blitz in the interpretation-dependent group. The Serra Paragon group is fine, however.
That makes seven cards definitely not covered by rule 611.3d, four that are maybe covered, and three that are definitely covered.
Now that all the present issues are identified, it’s time to look for a good solution.
Things to consider for a revised rule 611.3d
Categorizing the keywords
Going through the keywords defined in the CR, about twenty of them are relevant to this topic. Additionally, there are cards like Serra Paragon that do not use keywords.
As mentioned in the last section, Serra Paragon is joined by The Eighth Doctor and Thundermane Dragon. The effects of their static abilities have the following in common:
- They allow lands and/or spells with specific qualities to be played from a specific zone.
- If a player plays a card this way, the land or spell gains a specific ability that functions on the battlefield.
Thundermane Dragon grants its ability only until end of turn, while the other two grant their abilities indefinitely.
So, this first group combines a direct permission to play a card with a granted ability.
The second group consists of Henzie “Toolbox” Torre, The Caldaia, Zinnia, Valley’s Voice, Tannuk, Steadfast Second, and Ashling, the Limitless. The effects of their static abilities have the following in common:
- They grant a spell an ability that allows an alternative or additional cost to be paid.
- They grant the spell one or more other abilities that function on the stack and/or the battlefield.
So, this second group combines an ability offering an alternative or additional cost with one or more additional abilities (that are tied to that cost). There are no casting permissions involved, because the effects only apply after a permission has been chosen and the spell has moved to the stack.
Other keywords belonging to this group but which do not have a card with a keyword-granting ability include buyback, overload, dash, awaken, cleave, squad, gift, and impending.
The third and final group consists of Otaria, Lier, Disciple of the Drowned, Viral Spawning, Niv-Mizzet, Supreme, Return the Past, and Iroh, Grand Lotus. The effects of their static abilities have the following in common:
- They grant a card an ability that allows it to be cast for an alternative or additional cost.
- They grant the card a second ability that functions on the stack.
So, this third group mixes elements of the first two: it combines an ability that grants a casting permission with another ability. Both the casting permission and the other ability are tied to a specific cost.
Other keywords belonging to this group but which do not have a card with a keyword-granting ability include aftermath and harmonize. The former does not come with a cost though, so maybe I should rethink that part.
While I don’t expect Wizards of the Coast (WotC) to print a card that grants aftermath to split cards in graveyards anytime soon, there’s no real reason to require a cost, either. The critical point is the casting permission and whether the card is cast with that permission. Any conditions imposed by the permission are secondary.
So, let’s discard the part about the Lier group imposing a specific cost.
When comparing the three groups, the first parts are pretty distinct: one allows a player to play a card directly, without an ability, another one grants a card an ability that allows a player to cast it, and one grants a spell an ability that allows the casting player to pay a specific cost. They will likely require three separate descriptions.
In contrast, the second parts are quite similar to one another. Each time, the affected object (or the object it becomes by being played this way) also gains one or more abilities.
Now, one of the issues with the current wording of rule 611.3d is that it only accepts abilities that function on the battlefield, and several keywords include abilities that function only on the stack. In the lists above, I added the stack where needed, but why not take this a step further and ask oneself whether a zone restriction is needed at all?
The stack and the battlefield are already set, and giving a spell an ability that functions in these zones is reasonable. Giving a spell an ability that functions in the graveyard or in exile, on the other hand, seems . . . unlikely. There’s no automatic way for a spell to get from the stack to the exile zone or into a player’s hand or library (not to mention the command zone), so the effect would need to do additional things besides granting that ability.
An ability that works in the graveyard could make sense for nonpermanent spells, but it’s far more likely to be granted directly to cards in the graveyard, without going through the extra step of giving a spell this ability.
But even if such a “Sengir Paragon” were printed, there’s no reason why a revised rule 611.3d should not also apply to it. The whole thing about abilities that function on the battlefield is a red herring. What matters is that there’s a casting permission or a specific cost, and one or more abilities tied to that permission or cost. And if a player casts a spell using that permission or cost, then the object should retain the connected abilities until they have fulfilled their purpose.
Making sure that the object arrives in the correct zone with those abilities is the job of Sengir Paragon’s ability, with some help from rule 400.7. Rule 611.3d just makes sure the abilities don’t go away if Sengir Paragon leaves the battlefield in the meantime. Therefore, rule 611.3d should not care about the zones in which the additional abilities function.
What about cast triggers?
One thing I glossed over with regards to the abilities that function on the stack is the kind of ability.
The stack-based abilities included in the keywords I looked at so far are all static abilities or rarely spell abilities. They are either relevant the whole time that the spell is on the stack, or only during the spell’s resolution.
Three keywords, however, combine an additional cost with a triggered ability. That ability triggers when the spell becomes cast and copies it one or more times. Interestingly, each of these keywords has multiple cards: replicate has Djinn Illuminatus, Threefold Signal, Hatchery Sliver, and Ian Chesterton; conspire has Wort, the Raidmother, Rassilon, the War President, and Raiding Schemes; and casualty has Anhelo, the Painter and Ashad, the Lone Cyberman.
Of the three, casualty provides the simplest example: if Alex casts Sol Ring while she controls Ashad, the Lone Cyberman, she may choose to pay the additional cost and sacrifice Ashad to pay for it. Sol Ring immediately stops having casualty, and when it officially becomes cast, there is no casualty ability that could trigger. The end result is that Alex sacrifices Ashad but she doesn’t copy the spell.
(Some of these keywords and their cards are even older than Otaria, but their behavior has never been changed by a rules update. One likely reason is that none of the cards are as high-profile as Serra Paragon. Another good reason is their different play pattern, compared to the Henzie group.
With Henzie, Zinnia, and the others, Nona can respond to Alex’s spell and remove the keyword-granting permanent before the spell resolves. This is not possible with the replicate group, as the triggered ability has already triggered by the time Nona first gets priority. In other words, the only player who can cause Alex to miss out on the replicate trigger despite paying the replicate cost is Alex herself. This requires some setup, most likely sacrificing the replicate-granting permanent for mana, and the choice is entirely Alex’s.)
Revising rule 611.3d could change this behavior. If I continue to not distinguish between triggered abilities and other kinds of abilities, then the replicate group gets the same protection afforded to the Henzie group.
On the one hand, this is a functional change to a very longstanding behavior. On the other hand, this behavior is different from that of the Henzie group, it’s relatively obscure, and the change would make the cards stronger. Players rarely object to changes that make their cards better. It’s also in line with the intention for Zinnia and Ashling: if a player pays the cost, they should get what they paid for.
There are also costs on the rules side of things. If the replicate group is supposed to function as before, a revised rule 611.3d needs to exclude them from its definition. Which could get arbitrarily difficult should WotC introduce a keyword that combines a static ability with a triggered ability.
All in all, I prefer aligning the keywords’ behavior and having a simpler rule over preserving their current behavior.
To close out this section and for completeness’s sake, there is yet another group of multi-ability keywords whose behavior gets changed. These keywords represent abilities that are only relevant during the casting process, and they include emerge, represented by Herigast, Erupting Nullkite, and sticker kicker, represented by Wicker Picker.
Here, my revision of rule 611.3d doesn’t even cause a direct change to the keywords’ behavior, since both abilities have performed their function by the time Herigast or Wicker Picker might get sacrificed for mana (or something similar). The sole difference is that the spell continues to have the keyword until it leaves the stack. Currently, the only card that cares about spells with either keyword is Foul Emissary.
Under current rules, if Alex controls Herigast, she can cast a creature spell and choose to sacrifice Foul Emissary for the emerge cost. After determining the total cost, she can sacrifice Herigast to one mana ability or another. The spell immediately loses emerge and when Alex pays the spell’s total cost, she sacrifices Foul Emissary, but its ability doesn’t trigger.
Under a revised rule 611.3d, the spell would continue to have emerge and Foul Emissary’s ability would trigger.
Should unused keywords stick?
Another thing I dislike about the current rule 611.3d is that the blitz abilities granted by the effect of Henzie’s ability continue to apply to spells and permanents even if they go unused.
Let Alex cast Sower of Chaos while she controls Henzie. She decides against paying the blitz cost. Sower of Chaos resolves and enters the battlefield. It still has blitz. Several turns later, Henzie leaves the battlefield. Sower of Chaos still has blitz and continues to have blitz until it leaves the battlefield too.
Or let Alex cast Sower of Chaos while Henzie is not on the battlefield. If Henzie enters the battlefield under Alex’s control before Sower of Chaos resolves, the creature spell gains blitz since it’s a creature spell cast by Alex. Sower of Chaos has blitz indefinitely, even though Alex never had the chance to pay the blitz cost.
This doesn’t seem particularly intuitive to me. Granted, the impact on gameplay is minimal, since it only ever becomes relevant if something cares about a permanent having that specific keyword or having no abilities at all. I’m just bothered by all those abilities sitting on creatures, collecting dust, never doing anything useful. I prefer my battlefield to be clean and tidy.
So, my revision of rule 611.3d introduces the condition that the alternative or additional cost must be paid in order for the rule to apply. This issue only exists for the Henzie group: Serra Paragon has the ability already tied to the use of its permission, and the effects of the Lier group track the card to the stack only if their permissions are used.
Crafting a revision of rule 611.3d
A revised rule for Serra Paragon
Let’s start with a version for the Serra Paragon group, broken into its individual components.
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may allow a player to play a land or cast a spell.
This part stays close to the original:
Continuous effects from static abilities may allow a player to play a land or cast a permanent spell […].
It’s a bit more formal at the beginning and there is one functional change, as my revision drops “permanent” from the spell’s description.
This is mostly for future-proofing. There aren’t a lot of keywords that could be reasonably given to a nonpermanent spell this way, and most custom abilities are more likely to be implemented as a direct effect of the static ability (e.g. “If a spell cast this way would be put into your graveyard, exile it instead.”). Still, it pays to be thorough, and there’s one less word.
The next sentence:
Such an effect may also grant a land played that way or a spell cast that way one or more abilities.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
If the effect also grants that object an ability that functions only on the battlefield […].
Since this version only covers the Serra Paragon group, I can replace the generic “that object.” The second change highlights that the effect may grant more than one ability. And again, a functional change that drops the “functions on the battlefield” requirement.
As I detailed in a previous section, the only likely zones for a granted ability to function in are the stack and the battlefield. If a nonpermanent spell gains any abilities this way, the ones that function on the stack will do their thing, while the ones that function on the battlefield are useless either way; once the spell leaves the stack, the effect stops to apply and the spell loses all those abilities, as one would expect.
If a permanent spell gains at least one ability this way that functions on the battlefield, rule 400.7b ensures that the effect tracks the spell to the battlefield so that the permanent continues to have all the abilities, even the ones that only function on the stack. (This is actually a slight positive: since the permanent has at least one relevant ability, the now-useless abilities don’t change whether the permanent counts as having no abilities, and they avoid questions like “Does the creature have blitz if it only has one of the three abilities represented by that keyword?”)
If a permanent spell only gains abilities this way that function on the stack, rule 400.7b does not apply and the permanent enters without any of those abilities. Which is the intended outcome.
The third sentence:
If an effect meets both criteria, the effect applies to that land or spell for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
[…] that ability lasts as long as stated by the effect granting that permission or ability. If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.
There are no functional changes this time, but some of the terms need correction. “that ability lasts” correctly describes the outcome, but abilities don’t last. Rather, the effects granting those abilities last.
Let Alex control Serra Paragon. She casts a spell from her graveyard using the effect of Serra Paragon’s ability. The spell gains the triggered ability. Nona responds to the spell and destroys Serra Paragon. Taken at face value, the current rule 611.3d lets the spell keep the ability it gained, but has the effect granting that ability immediately expire, like a normal effect. This causes two issues.
First, when the permanent spell resolves and enters the battlefield, there is no effect granting it an ability, just the ability itself, so rule 400.7b is not applicable and the permanent enters without that ability. Second, even if the permanent still had the ability, the ability itself doesn’t have a timestamp. Only the effect had a timestamp, so it would be unclear how other continuous effects would interact with that ability. (The lack of a timestamp is also one of the many issues with the Zinnia and Ashling update.)
One bonus issue comes up when the rule is applied to Henzie “Toolbox” Torre’s ability. The current rule uses “that ability,” which refers to the ability that functions on the battlefield. But blitz also includes an ability that functions on the stack, during the spell’s resolution. Taken at face value, if Henzie leaves the battlefield before a blitzed creature spell resolves, that spell keeps the blitz ability that functions on the battlefield, but loses the ability that creates the delayed triggered ability. The end result is that the creature has haste and the dies triggered ability, but it’s not sacrificed during the end step. Yet another deviation from Henzie’s intended functionality.
So, ability needs to be replaced with effect. And because precision is important, the effect does not simply last or apply, but it applies to the land or spell that gained an ability. In other words, the effect of Serra Paragon’s ability continues to apply indefinitely, but only to the spells and permanents played with it; the rest of the effect still ceases to apply. Notably, it does not continue to grant a permission to play lands or cast spells.
The last part:
It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
I like adding an explicit sentence here on how this rule is an exception from the general rule. It’s a bit clunky and I wish I had a better wording for the conditions under which an effect normally ceases to exist, but for now, that’s part of my draft.
Here is the complete version:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may allow a player to play a land or cast a spell. Such an effect may also grant a land played that way or a spell cast that way one or more abilities. If an effect meets both criteria, the effect applies to that land or spell for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
And the current version in the CR:
Continuous effects from static abilities may allow a player to play a land or cast a permanent spell, or may grant an ability to a permanent spell or card that allows it to be cast. If the effect also grants that object an ability that functions only on the battlefield, that ability lasts as long as stated by the effect granting that permission or ability. If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
CR 611.3d
A revised rule for Henzie “Toolbox” Torre
The first sentence:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may grant a spell an ability that allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
Continuous effects from static abilities […] may grant an ability to a permanent spell or card that allows it to be cast.
As noted in an earlier section, blitz and similar keywords don’t really allow a spell to be cast. They don’t have the “feeling” of a permission, and they don’t work as permissions on a technical level. Rather, they simply allow an alternative or additional cost to be paid, and my revision states just that.
It also drops “permanent” from the spell’s description, for the same reasons given for the Serra Paragon version in the previous section.
The second sentence:
Such an effect may also grant that spell one or more other abilities.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
If the effect also grants that object an ability that functions only on the battlefield […].
This sentence reads much like the one from the Serra Paragon version, for the exact same reasons. “A land played that way or a spell cast that way” becomes “that spell” for obvious reasons, and “one or more abilities” becomes “one or more other abilities” because there’s already the ability with the alternative or additional cost.
The third sentence:
If an effect meets both criteria and if the spell’s controller chooses to pay that cost, the effect applies to that object for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
[…] that ability lasts as long as stated by the effect granting that permission or ability. If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.
Again, this sentence mirrors its counterpart from the Serra Paragon version, and everything said there also applies here. One thing to note is that the effect only continues to apply if the player pays the cost (or rather, chooses to pay the cost). This meets my goal of not giving permanents unused and useless abilities.
The last part is identical to the Serra Paragon version, so the complete version for Henzie reads as follows:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may grant a spell an ability that allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost. Such an effect may also grant that spell one or more other abilities. If an effect meets both criteria and if the spell’s controller chooses to pay that cost, the effect applies to that object for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
A revised rule for Lier, Disciple of the Drowned
The first sentence:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may grant a card an ability that allows a player to cast that card.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
Continuous effects from static abilities […] may grant an ability to a permanent spell or card that allows it to be cast.
As before, my revision applies the rule to any spell, not just a permanent spell. In this case, it goes beyond mere future-proofing, since the rule needs to cover flashback and jump-start.
The second sentence:
Such an effect may also grant that card one or more other abilities.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
If the effect also grants that object an ability that functions only on the battlefield […].
For this group of keywords in particular, the restriction to abilities that function on the battlefield makes no sense.
The third sentence:
If an effect meets both criteria, the effect applies to a spell cast using the first ability for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated.
And its counterpart in the current rule:
[…] that ability lasts as long as stated by the effect granting that permission or ability. If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.
Unlike in the Henzie version, the restriction to spells cast this way is not necessary to ensure that spells lose the granted abilities if they go unused. If the effect of Lier’s ability grants a sorcery card flashback and that card is cast another way (using a printed flashback ability, for example), then rule 400.7g is already worded in such a way that the effect of Lier’s ability does not track the card to the stack.
The restriction is necessary, however, to ensure that an effect such as that of Lier’s ability does not continue to apply to uncast cards.
Let Alex control Lier. The effect of Lier’s ability applies to instant and sorcery cards in Alex’s graveyard and grants them an ability that allows them to be cast, and another ability. As such, the effect meets the two criteria. If my revision simply said “applies to an object,” then the effect would continue to apply to all the instant and sorcery cards in Alex’s graveyard after Lier leaves the battlefield.
With the restriction to spells cast this way, all the cards that have yet to be cast lose flashback as soon as Lier leaves the battlefield; only the spells already cast continue to have flashback, as one would expect.
The last part is identical to the other versions, so the complete version for Lier reads as follows:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may grant a card an ability that allows a player to cast that card. Such an effect may also grant that card one or more other abilities. If an effect meets both criteria, the effect applies to a spell cast using the first ability for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
Refining the revision
At this point, I have three versions of the revised rule, each tailored to one of the three groups I identified earlier. I could stop at this point and simply make each of them a separate rule. Rule 611.3d would thus be replaced with rules 611.3d—f.
However, the three versions have a lot of overlap, which is unsurprising given that they are all based on the same rule and are meant to achieve the same results. So, some refinement seems in order.
The first sentence always starts with “A continuous effect generated by a static ability may.” It ends with
- “allow a player to play a land or cast a spell.”
- “grant a spell an ability that allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost.”
- “grant a card an ability that allows a player to cast that card.”
The second sentence always starts with “Such an effect may also grant.” It ends with
- “a land played that way or a spell cast that way one or more abilities.”
- “that spell one or more other abilities.”
- “that card one or more other abilities.”
The third sentence always starts with “If an effect meets both criteria” and always ends with “for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated.” The part in between is
- “the effect applies to that land or spell”
- “and if the spell’s controller chooses to pay that cost, the effect applies to that object”
- “the effect applies to a spell cast using the first ability”
The final part is identical across all three versions.
It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
So, one possibility is to take this template and insert a list of three items at each of the three spots. The result is something like this:
A continuous effect generated by a static ability may allow a player to play a land or cast a spell, or grant a spell an ability that allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost, or grant a card an ability that allows a player to cast that card. Such an effect may also grant a land played that way or a spell cast that way one or more abilities, or that spell one or more other abilities, or that card one or more other abilities. If an effect meets both criteria, the effect applies to that land or spell, or the effect applies to that object if the spell’s controller chooses to pay that cost, or the effect applies to a spell cast using the first ability for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. It continues to apply in this way even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b.
This combined version reduces the total word count by half, but that is the only positive thing I can say about it. The sentences are overly long, it’s so much more difficult to parse, and the potential for side effects skyrockets.
The current rule 611.3d only covers two possible combinations (a play/casting permission plus an ability that works on the battlefield, or an ability granting a casting permission plus an ability that works on the battlefield). Here, there are nine possible combinations, or even twenty-seven if one treats the list in the third sentence as a valid variable.
Can each of the options from the first sentence be combined with each of the options from the second sentence? If so, which of these combinations are valid? Which of them describe existing cards and which are only hypothetical? Which ones are utter nonsense?
After a casual inspection, I think that all the combinations are either identical to one of the “normal” ones, or nonsensical. Still, this unification attempt is clearly unfit for admission into the CR.
If rule 611.3d wasn’t a subrule itself, one option would be to add subrules to it. The main rule could describe how certain effects are exceptions to rules 611.3a–b, and each subrule would describe one of the three groups. Taking inspiration from rule 605.1, the result might look like this:
611.N Some continuous effects generated by static abilities continue to apply even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. Such an effect continues to apply to specific objects for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b and applies only to effects that meet one of the following sets of criteria:
611.Na The effect allows a player to play a land or cast a spell, and grants an object played or cast that way one or more abilities. Such an effect continues to apply to any object played or cast that way.
611.Nb The effect grants a spell two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell for which that player chose to pay that cost.
611.Nc The effect grants a card two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows a player to cast that card. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell that was cast using that ability.
This is so much better than the last one. The redundant text is kept to a minimum, the three groups are clearly separated, and the word count is still down by about 40%. If only rule 611.3d wasn’t a subrule.
Luckily, rules with integrated lists of criteria already exist. The most (in)famous one is rule 613.8a, which lists the criteria for a dependency. Others include rule 903.3, which lists options for commanders, and rule 604.3a, which lists the criteria for a characteristic-defining ability. Using these rules as templates results in this version:
Some continuous effects generated by static abilities continue to apply even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. Such an effect continues to apply to specific objects for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b and applies only to effects that meet one of the following sets of criteria: (a) The effect allows a player to play a land or cast a spell, and grants an object played or cast that way one or more abilities. Such an effect continues to apply to any object played or cast that way. (b) The effect grants a spell two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell for which that player chose to pay that cost. (c) The effect grants a card two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows a player to cast that card. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell that was cast using that ability.
So, how does this version rate? It has a word count of 205, which should earn it fifth place on the list of rules with the highest word count. It beats rules 120.4a and 608.2b by a small margin (215 and 217, resp.) and has nothing on the top two rules 601.2b and 601.2c (273 and 287, resp.). If need be, the description of how a continuous effect normally ceases to apply could be dropped, which should be good for twenty-eight words and six ranks on the list.
But word count is not everything. The individual sentences are largely balanced in their length, with no super-long sentences. As the author, I am not the best person to judge readability and understandability, but I think I did a good job using clear and, most importantly, precise language.
The text starts with an explicit description of the rule’s purpose and clearly delineates the three groups of effects. The effects’ definitions account for all currently existing cards and keywords, and can handle a variety of mechanics WotC may introduce in the future. New exceptions that don’t fit into any of the three groups can be easily appended to the list.
In comparison, the current rule 611.3d starts with a definition of the effects and only the last sentence makes it clear how the rule affects those effects. Entire groups of keywords are not covered by the rule and its wording is imprecise at times.
A comparison with the existing CR also needs to include rule 610.5, since it’s supposed to cover Zinnia, Valley’s Voice and Ashling, the Limitless. Anyone who has read the analysis in my Lorwyn Eclipsed update bulletin will be unsurprised if I say that any revision of rule 611.3d is an improvement over the Lorwyn Eclipsed changes. Even no changes at all would have been better than the addition of rule 610.5.
So, I think this is the version I will go with. Now it’s time to put all the pieces together.
Proposal for a revision of rule 611.3d and related text
This proposal contains a list of changes to the Comprehensive Rules and to Oracle text which are meant to correct and improve the handling of certain ability-granting effects. Those changes are followed by an additional list of recommended Comprehensive Rules changes which are meant to harmonize the wording of several keyword definitions.
Changes to the Comprehensive Rules
1. Replace the text of rule 611.3d with the following text. The new text extends the range of keywords the rule applies to and fixes issues caused by the current text.
Some continuous effects generated by static abilities continue to apply even if the object with the ability generating the effect becomes a new object or if that object stops having that ability. Such an effect continues to apply to specific objects for the duration stated by the effect, or until the end of the game if no duration is stated. This is an exception to rules 611.3a–b and applies only to effects that meet one of the following sets of criteria: (a) The effect allows a player to play a land or cast a spell, and grants an object played or cast that way one or more abilities. Such an effect continues to apply to any object played or cast that way. (b) The effect grants a spell two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows the spell’s controller to pay an alternative or additional cost. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell for which that player chose to pay that cost. (c) The effect grants a card two or more abilities, and one of those abilities allows a player to cast that card. Such an effect continues to apply to any spell that was cast using that ability.
2. Revert the changes made by the Lorwyn Eclipsed update by removing rule 610.5 and the sentence added to rule 601.2a. The revised rule 611.3d covers all cards and keywords these changes were intended to cover.
3. Change the text of rule 400.7g by replacing “that ability will continue to apply” with “that effect will continue to apply.” As detailed in an earlier section, effects apply, but not abilities.
4. Change the text of rule 702.74a by replacing (a) “a static ability that functions in any zone from which the card with evoke can be cast” with “a static ability that functions on the stack” and (b) “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” with “You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost.” As detailed in my Lorwyn Eclipsed update bulletin, evoke’s current definition functionally deviates from all other keyword definitions and it prevents Ashling, the Limitless from working as intended.
Changes to Oracle text
1. Revert the changes to the rules text of Zinnia, Valley’s Voice made by the Magic: The Gathering—FINAL FANTASY holidays update. The ability’s previous text is covered by the revised rule 611.3d and matches the template that should be used for such abilities.
2. Revert the changes to the rules text of Ashling, the Limitless made by the Lorwyn Eclipsed update, with the exception of the added word “permanent.” The ability’s printed text is covered by the revised rule 611.3d and matches the template that should be used for such abilities.
3. Change the rules text of Tannuk, Steadfast Second by replacing “Artifact cards and red creature cards in your hand have warp {2}{R}” with “Artifact spells and red creature spells you cast from your hand have warp {2}{R}.” Both abilities represented by the warp keyword function on the stack rather than in a player’s hand, and the new text matches the template that should be used for such abilities.
Harmonizing keyword definitions
The variety among keyword definitions involving alternative or additional costs is impressive.
At some point, a basic template gets established, and subsequent definitions largely follow it, with the occasional deviation or addition. Then, a keyword introduces a new template and subsequent definitions switch to that template. Or they randomly use an older one instead.
For the most part, there is no rhyme or reason to all this, and some templates rise above mere inconsistency and start to be misleading, as I showed in the section on how blitz doesn’t really grant a casting permission.
A revision of rule 611.3d is a good opportunity to streamline some of those issues “that bother the more pedantic humans among us (which I’m not ashamed to say includes me).”
This table lists the keyword abilities whose text should be changed, in the order they appear in the Comprehensive Rules. (A copy with additional keywords is available as a Google Sheet.) Details on the templates and the reasons for the changes are found below.
| Current definition | New definition |
|---|---|
| Buyback [CR 702.27a] | |
| You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell. | As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may pay [cost]. |
| Kicker [CR 702.33a] | |
| You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell. | As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may pay [cost]. |
| Multikicker [CR 702.33c] | |
| You may pay an additional [cost] any number of times as you cast this spell. | As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may pay [cost] any number of times. |
| Overload [CR 702.96a] | |
| You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Bestow [CR 702.103a] | |
| As you cast this spell, you may choose to cast it bestowed. If you do, you pay [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may cast this card bestowed by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. |
| Dash [CR 702.109a] | |
| You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Awaken [CR 702.113a] | |
| You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost as you cast this spell. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Surge [CR 702.117a] | |
| You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost as you cast this spell if you or one of your teammates has cast another spell this turn. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost if you or one of your teammates has cast another spell this turn. |
| Emerge [CR 702.119a] | |
| You may cast this spell by paying [cost] and sacrificing a creature rather than paying its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] and sacrifice a creature rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Emerge from [quality] [CR 702.119b] | |
| You may cast this spell by paying [cost] and sacrificing a [quality] permanent rather than paying its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] and sacrifice a [quality] permanent rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Disturb [CR 702.146a] | |
| You may cast this card transformed from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may cast this card transformed from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. |
| Cleave [CR 702.148a] | |
| You may cast this spell by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Blitz [CR 702.152a] | |
| You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| More Than Meets the Eye [CR 702.162a] | |
| You may cast this card converted by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may cast this card converted by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. |
| Offspring [CR 702.175a] | |
| You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell. | As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may pay [cost]. |
| Impending [CR 702.176a] | |
| You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
| Warp [CR 702.185a] | |
| You may cast this card from your hand by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost if you cast it from your hand. |
| Mayhem [CR 702.187b] | |
| As long as you discarded this card this turn, you may cast it from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. | You may cast this card from your graveyard if you discarded it this turn by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. |
| Web-slinging [CR 702.188a] | |
| You may cast this spell by paying [cost] and returning a tapped creature you control to its owner’s hand rather than paying its mana cost. | You may pay [cost] and return a tapped creature you control to its owner’s hand rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. |
Additional costs
Keywords with additional costs are slightly more organized than those with alternative costs. A keyword that simply offers an additional cost uses one of two templates.
One template is “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell,” which is used by two very early keywords, buyback and kicker (and multikicker), and by offspring. The other template is “As an additional cost to cast this spell, [if some condition is met,] you [may] pay [cost],” which is used by eight keywords.
The remaining keywords have more elaborate definitions, but almost all of them use some form of “As an additional cost to cast this spell.” Additionally, that template is consistently used for card text, so the four keywords that use the first template should switch to the one used by the vast majority.
Alternative costs
Keywords with alternative costs are more numerous and have a larger number of basic templates, depending on their functionality.
The first group are keywords that allow a card to be cast from the graveyard, such as flashback. Four out of five use “You may cast this card from your graveyard [if some condition is met] by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost.” This template is also used for card text. Among those four, disturb slightly deviates by omitting the second “paying.” The only outlier is mayhem.
The second group are keywords that allow a card to be cast in a way that causes the object to have alternative characteristics, such as morph. Five of out six use “You may cast this card [in a specific way] by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost.” Among these five, disturb and More Than Meets the Eye slightly deviate by omitting the second “paying.” The only outlier is bestow.
And then there are keywords that simply allow an alternative cost to be paid, such as blitz. These keywords use two basic templates.
Eight of them use “You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost [if some condition is met].” Of these eight, awaken and surge add “as you cast this spell,” which seems to have been en vogue during the Battle for Zendikar era; another two, overload and impending, opt for “you may choose to pay.” The basic template is also used for card text (although with the condition moved to the front).
The other template, used by seven keywords, is “You may cast this [object] by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost.” Three keywords (dash, blitz, and warp) incorrectly refer to the spell as “this card” and omit the second “paying.” As previously shown, this template implies that the keyword ability grants a casting permission, which is not the case; as such, all seven keywords should switch to the first template.
“You may cast this spell” also appears in card text, either when an object may be cast as though it had flash, or when a spell may be cast without paying its mana cost. The latter should stay this way, since “You may pay nothing rather than pay this spell’s mana cost” isn’t a great alternative. As for the former, the inaccuracy is actually the use of “this spell,” which I detailed in my analysis of the current self-reference guidelines.
Conclusion
In this article, I recounted the circumstances that led to the creation of rule 611.3d, namely a need to extend the lifetime of certain ability-granting effects from static abilities. This was followed by an analysis of the rule itself, in which I identified issues with the rule’s wording. Those issues lead to ambiguities in the rule’s interpretation and cause it to not apply to several cards that should fall under its purview.
After a survey of relevant keywords and cards, I defined three groups of continuous effects that should be governed by rule 611.3d. I then crafted a revised version of rule 611.3d that addresses the issues I identified.
Finally, I presented a proposal based around this revision that seeks to replace the related but flawed Lorwyn Eclipsed update. Under this proposal, all relevant cards fall under the scope of rule 611.3d rather than the current split between rules 611.3d and 610.5. This eliminates rule 610.5’s contradictory and likely unsalvageable concept of ability-granting one-shot effects and replaces it with an improved version of the already established concept of slightly extending the lifetime of continuous effects.
As part of the proposal, I listed the specific changes it entails to both the Comprehensive Rules and to Oracle text. The final part of the proposal is to harmonize keyword definitions throughout the Comprehensive Rules as they relate to the topic of rule 611.3d.