(Originally published on 2026-08-20; last reviewed on 2026-08-20; last updated on 2026-08-20)

With each new set release, Wizards of the Coast 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 my unofficial update bulletin, I list the changes made by the Secrets of Strixhaven update and point out issues I perceive as inelegant, unintuitive, or even incomplete. Which gives the bulletin a rather negative outline, even when I factor in the things I point out as laudable.

This shouldn’t be seen as a slight against Wizards of the Coast or their rules team though; we just have different visions for Magic’s rules system. In my mind, the rules system should strive for intuitiveness, consistency, and completeness; and while the system has never truly met these lofty goals, this vision was once shared by Wizards of the Coast.

For a few years now, Wizards of the Coast’s design goal for the rules system is . . . something different. I don’t know what it is; I only know that it isn’t intuitiveness, consistency, or completeness anymore, as evidenced by their rules updates. While this may seem like a dangerous course of action for the game’s long-term success, I trust that Wizards of the Coast don’t undermine their game in this way and I remain content in the knowledge that I simply lack the intelligence and insight to recognize their grand vision.

Until they reveal their plans in an appropriately dramatic fashion, I continue to cling to my old-fashioned goal of an elegant rules system. But complaining is cheap and gets old very fast, so at some point, I started to wonder what the rules might look like had they been written with the three classic goals in mind.

The results of my musings are the Potential Rules Amendments, a counterpoint to the Unofficial Update Bulletins. What I criticize in my bulletins, I reenvision in the amendments. Where the bulletins only ask questions, the amendments give an answer.

Each section briefly recounts issues presented in my bulletin, as well as older and somewhat related issues, and what the outcome for those issues should be; I then discuss what the Comprehensive Rules and Oracle would need to consider to achieve the desired outcomes; finally, I present a sample implementation based on that discussion.

• Copies of noncard objects
• Preparation cards
• Paradigm
• Hybrid mana symbols with colorless components
• Sagas and initial lore counters
• Spry and Mighty

Copies of noncard objects

In my update bulletin, I identified an issue with both preparation cards and the paradigm keyword ability.

With very few exceptions, the current Comprehensive Rules cover only copies of cards, but not copies of objects that are not represented by cards. In the case of preparation cards, a copy of a prepared permanent is created, and that permanent might be represented by a token, not a card. In the case of paradigm, the delayed triggered ability creates a copy of a spell, and that spell might not have been represented by a card if it was itself a copy of another spell (or card).

Without those rules, the copies of prepared permanents and of paradigm spells have an undefined owner and do not cease to exist as a state-based action, among other things.

To resolve this issue, all mentions of copies of “a card” should be generalized to copies of “an object.”

Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Rules

Rule 109.1 lists copies of cards as a kind of object.

109.1. An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem, or a copy of another object.

Rule 112.1b states that a copy of a card becomes a spell if cast. The amendment from the preparation cards section is included here.

112.1b Some rules and effects allow a player to cast a copy of a card an object; if the player does, that copy is a spell as well. See rule 707.12.

Rule 112.2 and its subrule define the ownership of spells, copies of spells, and copies of cards that are cast as spells. This amendment incorporates a slight restructuring and an amendment from the preparation cards section.

Currently, rule 112.2 defines the owner of a spell and the owner of a copy of a spell that is created on the stack; as in other places, this rule’s text could make a clearer distinction between that kind of copy and a copy of an object that is cast as a spell. To clarify this difference, part of rule 112.2 moves to a new subrule 112.2a and the current subrule 112.2a becomes subrule 112.2b; this new structure mirrors that of rule 112.1.

112.2. A spell’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it, unless it’s a copy. In that case, the owner of the spell is the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A spell’s controller is, by default, the player who put it on the stack. Every spell has a controller.

112.2a If a spell is copied, the owner of that copy is the player under whose control it was put on the stack. See rule 707.10.

Rule 112.2a becomes 112.2b and includes the amendment for preparation cards.

112.2b Some rules and effects instruct a player to create a copy of a card an object and say they may cast it give a player permission to cast it. In that case, the owner of that copy is the player who is instructed to create it and given permission to cast it, even if another player casts the copy.

The new version for ease of reading:

112.2b Some rules and effects instruct a player to create a copy of an object and give a player permission to cast it. In that case, the owner of that copy is the player who is instructed to create it, even if another player casts the copy.

Rules 601.2a and 601.3e mention copies of cards.

601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card an object) 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 an object) 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.

601.3e Some rules and effects state that an alternative set of characteristics or a subset of characteristics are considered to determine if a card or copy of a card a copy of an object is legal to cast. These alternative characteristics replace the object’s characteristics for this determination. Continuous effects that would apply to that object once it has those characteristics are also considered.

Rule 613.1 mentions copies of “a spell or card” for a change; while this covers the copies created by paradigm (even if the “spell” part really means copies created on the stack), copies of prepared tokens are still left out, so the rule needs to be amended. There is also another amendment for preparation cards.

613.1. 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 an object, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the rule or effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

Rule 704.5e defines the state-based action that cleans up copies of spells and copies of cards. One quirk of this rule is that copies of cards may continue to exist on the battlefield. Why the rule says this, I have never been able to fathom.

The Mirrodin update introduced both that part of the rule and the first cards to create copies of cards (unless there was an older card that lost that capacity with a later Oracle text update). And while the imprint keyword’s definition, combined with copy effects, allowed a permanent to end up with an “atypical” imprinted card, each card’s text included safeguards against copying permanent cards or putting nonpermanent cards onto the battlefield, so I fail to see how a copy of a card might ever end up on the battlefield.

Since the Mirrodin release, not a single card has been printed that, on its own, copies a card and puts that copy onto the battlefield, so why this clause in rule 704.5e still exists is beyond me. (There are two cards—Spellweaver Volute and Esper Origins—that may be combined with other cards to achieve this feat, but for those interactions, the better outcome would be to convert the copy into a token.) As such, this is an excellent opportunity to streamline this rule.

704.5e If a copy of a spell or other kind of object is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Rule 707.10a mirrors rule 704.5e and gets the same treatment.

707.10a If a copy of a spell or other kind of object is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist. These are This is a state-based actions. See rule 704.

Rule 707.12 already mentions copies of “an object.” The part about the zone the copy is created in can be made more accurate though.

707.12. An effect that instructs a player to cast a copy of an object (and not just copy a spell) follows the rules for casting spells, except that the copy is created in the same zone the object is in (unless the effect states otherwise) and then cast while another spell or ability is resolving. Casting a copy of an object follows steps 601.2a–h of rule 601, “Casting Spells,” and then the copy becomes cast. Once cast, the copy is a spell on the stack, and just like any other spell it can resolve or be countered.

In the rules for Grand Melee, rule 807.5b uses the phrase “create a copy of a spell”; with paradigm creating a copy of a spell in exile, this rule should say exactly what it means to say: “copy a spell.” (Casting copies of objects should probably be covered by this rule too, but the Grand Melee rules are not high enough on my list to justify a closer look at this point.)

807.5b If a player has priority for multiple stacks and casts a spell, activates an ability, or a triggered ability they control triggers, the player must specify which one of those stacks the spell or ability is put on. If an object on one of those stacks caused the triggered ability to trigger, the player must put it on that stack. If a resolving spell or ability on one of those stacks causes a player to cast or copy a spell or create a copy of a spell, the new spell must be put on the same stack. If a spell or ability targets an object on one of those stacks, it must be put on the same stack as its target; it can’t target objects on multiple stacks.

Finally, there is the glossary entry for objects.

Object

An ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, an emblem, a token, a spell, or a permanent, or a copy of another object. See rule 109, “Objects.”

Preparation cards

In my update bulletin, I identified several issues with the new rules for preparation cards.

Correcting the punctuation error in rule 722.3a is trivial. Adding rules for choosing card names of Omens and prepare spells is also easy, and there is an opportunity to correct some related issues:

First, many of the rules that cover choosing a card name restrict themselves to effects that have a player choose a card name. This excludes a couple of cards, such as Petrified Hamlet, where a player may get instructed to choose a card name as part of a special action.

Second, the existing rule for Adventures says that the alternative characteristics modify the normal characteristics when checking if the name is a valid choice; this is incorrect insofar that the alternative characteristics should completely replace the normal characteristics, as they do in every other case involving an adventurer card. (At a guess, the text of rule 201.4f was copied from rule 201.4c and did not receive the attention it should have.)

The next issue are a couple of rules that talk about casting a preparation card with its alternative characteristics, which is not possible for that kind of card, or that talk about copying a prepare spell on the stack, which is meaningless. These rules or parts of rules should be corrected or removed.

Next is the issue where the copy of a prepared permanent leaves exile but the permanent retains the prepared designation. This ties into the issue of ownership of the copy, because rule 112.2a defines the owner of a copy of a card only if an effect creates that copy. I discuss these issues in the next section.

Rule 112.2a and others have the issue that they apply only to copies of a card, but the prepared permanent may be a token, so the copy created in exile would not be a copy of “a card.” The same issue exists for the paradigm keyword ability; I discuss the combined issue in Copies of noncard objects.

Finally, there are all the issues surrounding the copy process: the first sentence of rule 722.3c is nigh incomprehensible, the rules do not account for all rules and effects that manipulate copiable values, and some of these rules should also apply to adventurer cards and omen cards. I discuss these issues in the next section.

Resolving the issues

Ownership

Currently, if the permanent is prepared and its copy is in exile, the permanent becomes unprepared only if the copy is cast; it stays prepared if the copy leaves exile for any other reason. I see two likely amendments: the permanent becomes unprepared if the copy leaves exile for any reason other than being cast; or the permanent becomes unprepared as the copy leaves exile for any reason, including being cast. Currently, if the copy gets cast, the permanent remains prepared until the casting process is complete.

In practice, nothing cares that the permanent remains prepared throughout the casting process, so having it become unprepared as soon as the copy is put on the stack would be the simpler rule and not change any existing interactions. Or the existing behavior is kept—the extra text is negligible.

Of course, this presumes that the copy’s owner can be different from the permanent’s owner. I see a couple of likely options:

1. The copy is owned by the permanent’s owner.
2. The copy is owned by the player who creates it.
3. The copy is created by the permanent’s owner rather than its controller, and the copy is owned by the permanent’s owner.
4. The copy is owned by the player who casts it.
5. The copy is not created in advance but only when it’s actually cast.

The advantage of option 1 is that permanent and copy are owned by the same player: if another player creates the copy and then leaves the game, the copy remains unaffected, so the situation where the copy leaves the game yet the permanent remains prepared can never occur.

The disadvantage is that the copy is still somewhat tied to the permanent’s existence after it has been cast.

Suppose Alex and Nona play against each other in a four-player Commander game. Alex controls Joined Researchers. Nona gains control of it and it becomes prepared. If Nona casts the copy and Alex leaves the game in response, both the permanent and the copy on the stack leave the game; the copy does not resolve. If, instead of Alex leaving the game, Joined Researchers left the battlefield, the copy would still resolve.

It seems unintuitive that the “prepared” spell, once cast, should in some cases be independent of the permanent, and in other cases still be dependent. While the copy is in exile, its continued existence is consistently tied to the prepared permanent, which matches the flavor of preparation cards. Once the copy is cast, however, it should become independent, not unlike an ability that, once activated or triggered, exists independently of its source. (The behavior is entirely logical since the dependency is not actually between the permanent and the spell, but rather between them and their owner, but it is still unintuitive.)

With option 2 (the creator is the owner), the permanent and the copy are not necessarily owned by the same player, and the disadvantage of option 1 is avoided. In the example, Nona would own the copy and if Alex leaves the game while the copy is on the stack under Nona’s control, the copy would remain in the game.

The flipside is that the copy now leaves the game if Nona leaves the game. Suppose Alex or another player gains control of the prepared Joined Researchers from Nona and they cast the copy. If Nona leaves the game in response, the copy leaves the game as well. This does not seem intuitive if one thinks of the permanent as preparing the spell.

It becomes quite intuitive though if one thinks of the player as preparing the spell. Joined Researchers was under Nona’s control when it became prepared, so it was Nona who prepared the spell. Furthermore, this is the option most consistent with existing rules: the player who creates a token is its owner [CR 111.2]; the player who copies a spell is the copy’s owner [CR 112.2]; the player who copies any other card is the copy’s owner [CR 112.2a]; the player who creates an emblem is its owner [CR 114.2].

This holds true even if the created object immediately goes to another player, so to speak: if Nona has resolved Crafty Cutpurse’s triggered ability earlier in the turn and Alex creates a token, Alex is that token’s owner, although she never controls it. Nona is the token’s controller and even its default controller, but not its owner [CR 110.2].

Option 2 is also consistent with any card whose text allows a player to play or cast another player’s cards, such as Gonti, Lord of Luxury. If the exiled card’s owner leaves the game, that card also leaves the game, whether it is still face down in exile or a spell on the stack or a permanent on the battlefield. The “stealing” player cannot claim the card based on the fact that the owner themself never “used” the card.

Option 3 (the permanent’s owner creates the copy and owns it) offers the advantages of options 1 and 2. The copy’s creator is its owner, so this option offers the consistency of option 2. By changing the creator, permanent and copy are always owned by the same player and this option avoids scenarios where the copy leaves exile without being cast, just like option 1. But it has also the disadvantage of option 1 regarding the copy’s fate after being cast.

Suppose Nona gains control of a permanent from Alex; while under Nona’s control, that permanent becomes prepared and Nona casts the copy directly after. If Alex leaves the game in response, the spell on the stack ceases to exist.

Intuitively, Alex didn’t take an active part in what happened: the permanent was under Nona’s control when it became prepared and remained under her control until it left the game, and Nona was the one who cast the copy. Alex created the copy, so the outcome is logical, but it feels unintuitive.

The appeal of option 4 (the caster is the owner) is that the copy, once cast, is independent of both the permanent and any other player. Suppose a third player, Clarissa, gains control of the prepared Joined Researchers from Nona and casts the copy. In response, both Alex and Nona leave the game. The copy would remain in the game and resolve under Clarissa’s control; it would leave the game only if Clarissa left the game.

The problem with option 4 is that it does not define an owner for the copy’s stay in exile: the owner becomes clear only once the copy is cast. Until then, the copy would be owned by the permanent’s owner (option 1 or 3), the creator (option 2), or by no one at all. In each case, casting the copy could result in a new owner, and I don’t particularly like spreading ownership changes from ante games (and Planechase games) to regular games. (The dev teams for Magic Arena and Magic Online wouldn’t be happy either, I imagine.)

Option 5 (the copy is created ad hoc) represents an interesting departure from the actual rules without changing any of the gameplay: if a permanent becomes prepared, nothing else happens; no copy is created. As a special action, the controller of a prepared permanent can create the copy in exile and cast it immediately; doing so unprepares the permanent as usual.

With this approach, the copy doesn’t exist until it actually gets cast. There is no rule or card, however, that cares about noncard objects in exile (apart from the state-based actions that erase those objects), so this change has no impact on gameplay.

With this option, the same person creates, owns, and casts the copy, which is an improvement over option 4. The text of rule 722.3c becomes simpler, as the copy doesn’t need an exception from rule 704.5e anymore and it doesn’t need to be recreated if the permanent phases out and in again.

The drawbacks are a couple of extra details the rules need to account for.

With the actual rules, the characteristic values of the copy become locked in at the time the permanent becomes prepared; if something like a copy effect causes that permanent to gain a different prepare spell after that point, or to lose its prepare spell entirely, the copy remains unaffected. To retain that behavior, the rules for option 5 would need to specify that the copy uses the permanent’s values from the time it became prepared, rather than its current values.

The second issue is the timing of the special action. Depending on the card type of the prepare spell, the action could be done as a sorcery or an instant; but it should also account for rules or effects that expand or restrict the timing. Under the actual rules, the copy is a preexisting object and thus fully integrated into the timing rules for casting spells; for option 5, the timing would be determined by the characteristic values of an object that only gets created once the special action has begun.

Third, the copy is now created by a special action rather than a rule or an effect, so special actions need to be added to a number of rules.

Due to time constraints, I haven’t analyzed this option as thoroughly as I’d like, so I have to discard it for the final selection.

All things considered, keeping the permanent’s controller as the creator and making that creator the copy’s owner seems the best option. It provides a single, well-defined owner; it is consistent with the rules for creating other noncard objects, and with the rules and consequences for casting objects owned by other players.

As a consequence, the rules for preparation cards need to account for scenarios where the copy leaves the game along with its creator, as discussed at the start of this section.

Copying the prepared permanent

The general idea behind rule 722.3c is that the copy’s characteristic values should always match the prepared permanent’s unmodified alternative values; nothing that modifies the permanent’s values should affect the alternative values. In layperson’s terms, the copy should always look like the text in the smaller card frame.

The rule addresses only exceptions and modifications made by copy effects though, and not any modifications from a “mutate effect,” from Primal Plasma-style effects, and from the permanent’s face-down status.

A general model how such modifications affect objects with multiple sets of characteristic values is beyond the scope of this article; I have to restrict myself to some basic considerations regarding preparation cards. The resulting rules set is likely to see further amendments if I ever get to that general model, but it should be an improvement over the current version found in the Comprehensive Rules.

Let’s start by categorizing the different kinds of modifications.

A copy effect can cause a permanent to have a prepare spell [CR 722.2b]. For example, if True Polymorph causes Bear Cub to become a copy of Joined Researchers, Bear Cub has the exact same characteristic values as Joined Researchers, and it has the same alternative set of values. Bear Cub has a prepare spell and can become prepared.

A copy effect can also cause a permanent to lose its prepare spell. If True Polymorph causes Joined Researchers to become a copy of Bear Cub, Joined Researchers has only a single set of characteristic values; it does not have an alternative set anymore.

The intent of rule 722.3c is that copy effects with exceptions or modifications apply those only to the normal set of characteristic values; the alternative set remains unchanged from the original. In other words, a copy effect always makes a “clean” copy of the prepare spell; it can set or remove an object’s prepare spell as a whole, but it can’t modify individual values.

Next are “mutate effects.” In my bulletin, I use the example of Sea-Dasher Octopus merging with Emeritus of Woe. If Sea-Dasher Octopus becomes the topmost component, the resulting permanent feels much more like a Sea-Dasher Octopus with a couple of extra abilities, rather than an Emeritus of Woe whose name, mana cost, color, card types, subtypes, rules text, power, and toughness have all been changed. Thus, the permanent should not have an alternative set of values anymore; the “mutate effect” removes the permanent’s prepare spell.

If Sea-Dasher Octopus becomes the bottommost component, it contributes just its abilities to the permanent; the permanent still feels like Emeritus of Woe and should still have a prepare spell. Should Sea-Dasher Octopus’s abilities be added to the prepare spell? Going by the example set by rule 722.3c, the answer is no: the prepare spell’s values remain unchanged.

So, a “mutate effect” either removes the whole prepare spell, or it tries to add abilities but that attempt is ignored.

Next are Primal Plasma-style effects. These effects can change the values of multiple characteristics, but they don’t set or remove whole sets of values. As such, they can neither add nor remove a permanent’s prepare spell, and keeping with the principle thus far, their modifications affect only the normal set of values, not the alternative set.

Finally, there are modifications from a permanent’s face-down status. It seems pretty clear to me that these modifications remove a permanent’s alternative set of values: they affect the whole range of characteristics and make the permanent a radically different one; rule 708.2 states that face-down permanents have no other characteristic values (which implies not having alternative values); and the idea behind face-down permanents is that the permanent is an unknowable blob and not an Emeritus of Woe with a different name, mana cost, color, and so on.

So, a permanent can have a prepare spell due to

• Having a prepare spell as part of its printed/defined values.
• A copy effect that includes a prepare spell.

A permanent can lose its prepare spell due to

• A copy effect that doesn’t include a prepare spell.
• A “mutate effect” from a new topmost component.
• Being face down.

A permanent’s prepare spell should not be modified by

• A “mutate effect” from a new bottommost component.
• A Primal Plasma-style effect.

The items on the first two lists can be unified as things that set/remove the prepare spell as a whole, whereas the items on the third list only modify individual values of the prepare spell. This distinction can form the basis of an amendment: when copying the prepared permanent, use only the alternative values and consider only modifications from the first group. This results in a “clean” copy of the prepare spell while accounting for everything that modifies copiable values.

Now it’s time for everyone’s favorite copy-effect-except-it’s-not: Volrath’s Shapeshifter.

Suppose Volrath’s Shapeshifter enters the battlefield under Alex’s control while the top card of her graveyard is Emeritus of Woe. Does Volrath’s Shapeshifter enter the battlefield prepared? Does Alex create a copy of Demonic Tutor in exile?

Intuitively, the answer to both questions should be yes. The printed text of Volrath’s Shapeshifter uses the word “copy,” the ability’s effect was a copy effect for several years, and the only reason it was changed to a text-changing effect is due to the architecture of the layer system.

Even the Oracle text suggests a positive answer: Volrath’s Shapeshifter has the “full text” of Emeritus of Woe, and the prepare spell certainly looks like text printed on Emeritus of Woe.

So, Volrath’s Shapeshifter acquires Emeritus of Woe’s alternative characteristic values, its prepare spell. (The added rules text should go only to the normal characteristics, similar to exceptions from copy effects.) Which means that it is a permanent with a prepare spell; which means it can gain the prepared designation. Thus, Volrath’s Shapeshifter enters the battlefield prepared.

As it does, Alex creates a copy of it, except that only the alternative values are copied, and that those values become the copy’s normal values. What are the copiable values of that permanent’s prepare spell?

Well, copiable values take into account only the printed/defined values plus any copiable modifications, so the answer is: there are no copiable values. After layer 1, Volrath’s Shapeshifter has no prepare spell. It acquires its prepare spell only in layer 3.

Which means that Alex creates an object with no characteristic values. Without a card type, casting that object will be rather difficult, but maybe Alex finds a way.

Also consider this variation: Alex controls Emeritus of Woe and Volrath’s Shapeshifter, and the top card of her graveyard is not a creature card. Alex resolves the triggered ability of Exchange of Words which targets the two creatures. The text-changing effect created by that ability effectively replaces Emeritus of Woe’s rules text with that of Volrath’s Shapeshifter.

Emeritus of Woe’s new rules text defines an ability that generates another text-changing effect: if the top card of Alex’s graveyard is a creature card, Emeritus of Woe has the full text of that card. Later, Joined Researchers becomes the top card of Alex’s graveyard and Emeritus of Woe’s normal prepare spell, Demonic Tutor, is effectively replaced by Secret Rendezvous. If Emeritus of Woe becomes prepared, what does the copy look like?

In this case, the prepared permanent has a prepare spell after layer 1 and those copiable values are used. Since the new text is added only in layer 3, the copy in exile is Demonic Tutor, not Secret Rendezvous. Which doesn’t look like the intuitive outcome.

A simple solution for these issues would be to ignore Volrath’s Shapeshifter. It already has unsolvable issues with Dominating Licid and Hypnotic Siren, so adding another class of issues is not that big of a deal.

The new and the old issues aren’t in the same league though. The intuitive result for combining Volrath’s Shapeshifter with Dominating Licid conflicts with the intuitive outcome for Volrath’s Shapeshifter affected by any control-changing effect. Without a fundamental change to the layer system, only one outcome is achievable and Dominating Licid rightfully draws the short straw.

The intuitive outcome of combining Volrath’s Shapeshifter with a preparation card, on the other hand, conflicts merely with the rule for creating the copy in exile. If that copy were not actually a copy, Volrath’s Shapeshifter would interact just fine with preparation cards.

Not copying the prepared permanent

Upon first reading the rules for preparation cards, one thing that struck me as odd was that the permanent was copied. Odd because the copy does not really feel like a copy.

A normal copy looks identical to the original (or at least to its copiable values). In the case of copying the prepared permanent tough, only the alternative values are copied. And those values do not become the copy’s alternative values; rather, they become the copy’s normal values. And the copy doesn’t have any alternative values. (And arguably, modifications that are usually copiable are ignored.) As a whole, the “copy” is more of a “mirrored half-copy” than a proper copy.

(The word “copy” still makes sense in the colloquial way, as an “instance” of the prepare spell, so its use in the cards’ reminder text is perfectly fine. It just doesn’t agree with the rules term.)

Prior to the Secrets of Strixhaven update, I made a sketch of what I expected the rules to look like, and I simply wrote down “object” for the, well, object in exile. What kind of object? No idea; it would simply be an object not represented by a card. It certainly wasn’t created as a copy; instead, its values were defined as the permanent’s alternative values, which I unconsciously assumed could not be modified by ordinary effects.

I think this kind of object is a suitable answer to the Volrath’s Shapeshifter issue: if a permanent becomes prepared, its controller does not create a copy of it; rather, they create an object in exile whose characteristic values are defined as the prepared permanent’s alternative values.

Two questions arise from this concept. First, if this not-a-copy uses the actual alternative values, rather than the copiable values, how are characteristic-modifying effects handled? Second, what is the exact nature of the not-a-copy?

For the first question, I think the previously developed concept of separating modifications into those that set/remove the whole alternative set of values and those that would modify only individual characteristics can be expanded to cover all seven layers.

Effects that set the “full text” of an object would then be in the first group; like copy effects, they can cause an object to gain a prepare spell or to lose its prepare spell. All other effects would be put into the second group, so that other text-changing effects, any type-changing effects, and so on would not modify the alternative values.

Maybe there should be one exception: effects that change an object’s text by replacing all instances of one subtype or color word with another. Similar to the “full text” effect, these effects apply to an object’s “text,” and a preparation card’s prepare spell certainly looks like text printed on that card. Under the actual rules, such effects can’t be considered for the copy because they don’t affect the copiable values of the prepare spell; under an amended rules set, they could be taken into account, if one desires.

Now for the second question: what kind of object is the not-a-copy in exile?

It is not a copy of an object, but should be treated identical to one by the Comprehensive Rules. And I fear that is the best answer I can give at this point.

For a longer answer, this all ties into the universal model for objects with multiple sets of characteristic values. Such a model needs to clearly differentiate between objects and the . . . things they are represented by. I say “things” because the Comprehensive Rules don’t provide a term; in general, the Comprehensive Rules make a poor job of keeping the two concepts distinct.

To illustrate: the term “card” can mean a rectangular piece of cardboard, and it can also mean an object in the library, hand, graveyard, etc. represented by that cardboard piece. On the stack, the cardboard piece represents a spell; on the battlefield, the cardboard piece represents a permanent.

Similarly, a token is a piece of cardboard or paper, or a glass bead, or a die, or whatever else is at hand. On the battlefield, that piece of whatever represents a permanent; in any other zone, it briefly represents a token before it ceases to exist as a state-based action.

The same holds true for emblems, abilities, and copies of objects, although the latter two are seldom represented physically.

For tabletop Magic, one could call the cardboard pieces “physical objects,” which represent the “logical objects” the Comprehensive Rules talk about. Digital clients don’t use physical objects of course, but should make the same distinction in their object models.

The obvious drawback of this nomenclature is that both entities are called “objects,” which will not help in making the distinction clearer. (The fact that most “logical objects” are called the same as “physical objects” doesn’t help either: a card often represents a card, emblems and abilities always represent emblems and abilities, and so on. The only zones where the names differ are the stack and the battlefield.)

“Logical objects” have been called objects for decades, so renaming them now is not the best idea. Introducing a term for “physical objects” is better. The Comprehensive Rules use the word “component” when talking about the individual cards and tokens of a merged permanent, so this might be a good candidate; I would prepend “game” as I think that “game component” sounds more like a physical thing. My first and currently preferred candidate is “game piece,” which I will use for the rest of this article. (I suspect that simple inertia will make me settle on this term eventually.)

So, cards, tokens, emblems, and abilities are “game pieces.” They represent objects called cards, tokens, emblems, abilities, permanents, or spells.

This leaves: “copies of cards” (or “copies of objects” as per my amendments), which are created in zones other than the stack; “copies of spells,” which are created on the stack; and the new thing for preparation cards.

I believe that all three can be modeled with a single game piece and a single object that share a name: outside the stack, such a game piece would represent that object; on the stack, the game piece would represent a spell; when moving from the stack to the battlefield, it would become a token. The name is yet to be decided.

And this is pretty much what I got so far. It’s far from finished, but to finally get this article out the door, I will resort to a hack: the amended rules for preparation cards will use the term “object” to describe the not-a-copy but simultaneously declare that such objects are treated like copies of cards. This way, I don’t have to amend anything else and can postpone developing and naming the new game piece.

Copying adventurer cards and omen cards

Now that the nature of preparation cards has become clearer, which of these ideas should also become part of the rules for adventurer cards and omen cards? Those kinds of cards don’t create not-a-copies of themselves, so the whole Volrath’s Shapeshifter arc is not relevant. The part about copy effects not applying their modifications looks useful though.

In my bulletin, I described a scenario with Tawnos, the Toymaker, Guile, and an adventurer card that resulted in an artifact sorcery spell. If the copy effect of Tawnos’s ability did not apply its exception to the alternative values of an adventurer card, such combinations of card types would be avoided.

With all issues considered, it’s time to put the amendments into actual rules.

Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Rules

Choosing card names

Rule 201.4 and the rules in specific sections do not restrict themselves to effects anymore.

201.4. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card in the Oracle card reference. (See rule 108.1.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

709.4a Each split card has two names. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a split card’s name, the player must choose one of those names and not both. An object has the chosen name if one of its names is the chosen name.

710.5. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

712.19. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name, the player may choose the name of either face of a double-faced card but not both. The player may choose the name of the combined back face of a meld pair.

715.5. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose an adventurer card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

720.5. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose an omen card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

722.5. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a preparation card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

Rule 201.4f simply uses the alternative characteristics.

201.4f If a player wants to choose an adventurer card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 715.) If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, use the card’s characteristics as modified by its only the alternative characteristics to determine if this name can be chosen.

Finally, two new rules 201.4g and 201.4h for omen cards and preparation cards; the existing rule 201.4g becomes rule 201.4i.

201.4g If a player wants to choose an omen card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 720.) If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, use only the alternative characteristics to determine if this name can be chosen.

201.4h If a player wants to choose a preparation card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 722.) If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, use only the alternative characteristics to determine if this name can be chosen.

Ownership

The text of rule 112.2a gets generalized to cover both rules and effects, and becomes less strict about the timing of casting the copy. The amendments for copies of noncard objects are included here, so the rule is numbered 112.2b.

112.2b Some rules and effects instruct a player to create a copy of a card an object and say they may cast it give a player permission to cast it. In that case, the owner of that copy is the player who is instructed to create it and given permission to cast it, even if another player casts the copy.

The new version for ease of reading:

112.2b Some rules and effects instruct a player to create a copy of an object and give a player permission to cast it. In that case, the owner of that copy is the player who is instructed to create it, even if another player casts the copy.

Three additional rules mention effects that create copies of cards (or objects in general). These rules are generalized to objects created by rules or effects. Rules 112.1b and 613.1 include amendments for copies of noncard objects.

112.1b Some rules and effects allow a player to cast a copy of a card an object; if the player does, that copy is a spell as well. See rule 707.12.

113.1a An ability can be a characteristic an object has that lets it affect the game. An object’s abilities are defined by its rules text or by the rule or effect that created it. Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that grant abilities usually use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”) Abilities generate effects. (See rule 609, “Effects.”)

613.1. 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 an object, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the rule or effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

Rule 722

Rule 722.1 remains unchanged.

Rule 722.2 correctly states how a preparation card’s alternative characteristics are used.

722.2. The text that appears in the inset frame on the right defines alternative characteristics that the object may have while it’s a spell are used when creating a related object in exile as described in rule 722.3. The card’s normal characteristics appear as usual, although with a smaller text box on the left.

Rules 722.2a–b remain unchanged.

A new rule 722.2c describes how to handle copy effects with exceptions in an understandable manner. Volrath’s Shapeshifter and the effect of its ability are handled the same way. The example for rule 722.3c moves here.

722.2c Some copy effects include modifications or exceptions to the copying process (see rule 707.9). If an object with a prepare spell is copied by such an effect, the modifications and/or exceptions apply only to the normal characteristics; the copy’s alternative characteristics will be identical to those of the object being copied. The same is true for effects that grant an object the “full text” of an object with a prepare spell and that also grant the first object additional rules text; the additional rules text modifies only the normal rules text.

Example: A player casts Croaking Counterpart targeting an Encouraging Aviator. Croaking Counterpart is an instant that says, in part, “Create a token that’s a copy of target non-Frog creature, except it’s a 1/1 green Frog.” Encouraging Aviator is a blue preparation creature card which says, in part, “Whenever this creature attacks, it becomes prepared.” Its and its prepare spell is an a blue instant named Jump which says “Target creature gains flying until end of turn.” The player then attacks with the token copy of Encouraging Aviator. As the token copy of Encouraging Aviator becomes prepared, the copy created in exile is a blue instant named Jump that says “Target creature gains flying until end of turn.”. The token copy of Encouraging Aviator is a 1/1 green Frog and its prepare spell is a blue instant named Jump. It The prepare spell is not green, nor does it have power and toughness 1/1 or the Frog creature type.

A new rule 722.2d covers modifications to the characteristic values of the prepare spell. It allows the group that includes copy effects to set or remove the prepare spell but prevents any modifications from the other group. This version makes an exception for text-changing effects that replace words, which can be removed easily if needed.

722.2d Rules and effects that modify characteristics apply only to the normal characteristics of an object with a prepare spell; that object’s alternative characteristics remain unchanged. There are two exceptions. Rules and effects that set or remove the alternative characteristics as a whole, such as copy effects and changes from a permanent’s face-down status, can set or remove the alternative characteristics. Text-changing effects that change the text of an object by replacing all instances of one color word with another or one subtype with another can replace instances in the text of the alternative characteristics.

The current rule 722.2c becomes 722.2e. Its content remains unchanged.

Rule 722.3 refers to objects rather than copies.

722.3. Preparation cards can’t be cast using the alternative characteristics found within their inset frames. Rather, these characteristics are used to define characteristics of copies related objects which may be cast.

The typo in rule 722.3a gets corrected.

722.3a Some spells and abilities cause a permanent with a prepare spell to become prepared or state that a permanent enters prepared. If that permanent has the alternative characteristics of a prepare spell, this gives the permanent the “prepared” designation. Prepared is a designation that acts as a marker which rules and effects can identify. A permanent can’t gain this designation unless it has a prepare spell,. Additionally, a permanent can’t gain this designation if the permanent already has it.

Rule 722.3b remains unchanged.

Rule 722.3c drops the now unnecessary mention of copy effects with exceptions, as well as the example. The created object is no longer a copy, which makes the description of its characteristic values a bit easier. How do determine these values is explained in the new rule 722.2d. The object is treated like a copy of a card to ensure it has an owner and it ceases to exist at the right moment. (This should eventually be replaced with the new kind of game piece.)

Finally, the permanent becomes unprepared if the not-a-copy leaves exile for any reason. (If the prepared permanent phases out, the not-a-copy doesn’t leave its zone but ceases to exist, so the phased-out permanent retains its designation. Also, this rule couldn’t find the permanent while it’s phased out even if it wanted to [CR 702.26b].)

722.3c As a permanent with a prepare spell gains the prepared designation or phases in prepared, its controller creates a copy of that object an object with the characteristics of the prepare spell in exile, except that copy has only the characteristics of that permanent’s prepare spell, ignoring other exceptions to the copying process that apply to that permanent. Those characteristics become the copy’s normal characteristics. For all game purposes, this object is considered a copy of a card. This copy object remains in exile for as long as the prepared permanent remains on the battlefield and has the prepared designation. This is an exception to rule 704.5e. For as long as the copy object remains in exile, the prepared permanent’s controller may cast the copy object. That permanent loses the prepared designation at the time the spell becomes cast (see rule 601.2i) as the object leaves exile for any reason.

Rule 722.3d describes impossible or meaningless things and is removed entirely.

722.3d If a prepare spell is copied, the copy is also a prepare spell. Any rule or effect that refers to a spell cast as a prepare spell refers to the copy as well.

Rule 722.4 remains unchanged.

Rule 722.5 is not restricted to effects anymore (see Choosing card names).

722.5. If an effect instructs a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a preparation card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

The new version of the rules for ease of reading:

722. Preparation Cards

722.1. Preparation cards have a two-part card frame, with a smaller frame inset within their text box.

722.2. The text that appears in the inset frame on the right defines alternative characteristics that are used when creating a related object in exile as described in rule 722.3. The card’s normal characteristics appear as usual, although with a smaller text box on the left.

722.2a The inset frame of a preparation card is called a “prepare spell.” If a rule or effect refers to a card, spell, or permanent that has a prepare spell, it refers to an object for which these alternative characteristics exist, even if the object currently doesn’t use them.

722.2b The existence and values of these alternative characteristics are part of the object’s copiable values.

722.2c Some copy effects include modifications or exceptions to the copying process (see rule 707.9). If an object with a prepare spell is copied by such an effect, the modifications and/or exceptions apply only to the normal characteristics; the copy’s alternative characteristics will be identical to those of the object being copied. The same is true for effects that grant an object the “full text” of an object with a prepare spell and that also grant the first object additional rules text; the additional rules text modifies only the normal rules text.

Example: A player casts Croaking Counterpart targeting an Encouraging Aviator. Croaking Counterpart is an instant that says, in part, “Create a token that’s a copy of target non-Frog creature, except it’s a 1/1 green Frog.” Encouraging Aviator is a blue preparation creature card and its prepare spell is a blue instant named Jump. The token copy of Encouraging Aviator is a 1/1 green Frog and its prepare spell is a blue instant named Jump. The prepare spell is not green, nor does it have power and toughness 1/1 or the Frog creature type.

722.2d Rules and effects that modify characteristics apply only to the normal characteristics of an object with a prepare spell; that object’s alternative characteristics remain unchanged. There are two exceptions. Rules and effects that set or remove the alternative characteristics as a whole, such as copy effects and changes from a permanent’s face-down status, can set or remove the alternative characteristics. Text-changing effects that change the text of an object by replacing all instances of one color word with another or one subtype with another can replace instances in the text of the alternative characteristics.

722.2e Although preparation cards are printed with multiple sets of characteristics, each preparation card is only one card. For example, a player who has drawn or discarded a preparation card has drawn or discarded one card, not two.

722.3. Preparation cards can’t be cast using the alternative characteristics found within their inset frames. Rather, these characteristics are used to define characteristics of related objects which may be cast.

722.3a Some spells and abilities cause a permanent with a prepare spell to become prepared or state that a permanent enters prepared. If that permanent has the alternative characteristics of a prepare spell, this gives the permanent the “prepared” designation. Prepared is a designation that acts as a marker which rules and effects can identify. A permanent can’t gain this designation unless it has a prepare spell. Additionally, a permanent can’t gain this designation if the permanent already has it.

722.3b A rule or effect may cause a permanent to become “unprepared.” This removes the prepared designation from that permanent.

722.3c As a permanent with a prepare spell gains the prepared designation or phases in prepared, its controller creates an object with the characteristics of the prepare spell in exile. For all game purposes, this object is considered a copy of a card. This object remains in exile for as long as the prepared permanent remains on the battlefield and has the prepared designation. This is an exception to rule 704.5e. For as long as the object remains in exile, the prepared permanent’s controller may cast the object. That permanent loses the prepared designation as the object leaves exile for any reason.

722.4. In every zone, a preparation card has only its normal characteristics.

722.5. If a player is instructed to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a preparation card’s alternative name, the player may do so.

Copying adventurer cards and omen cards

A new rule 715.2c prevents copy effects from applying their exceptions to the alternative values. Text-changing effects can be ignored in this context. The existing rule 715.2c is renumbered.

715.2c Some copy effects include modifications or exceptions to the copying process (see rule 707.9). If an object with an Adventure is copied by such an effect, the modifications and/or exceptions apply only to the normal characteristics; the copy’s alternative characteristics will be identical to those of the object being copied.

A new rule 720.2c prevents copy effects from applying their exceptions to the alternative values. Text-changing effects can be ignored in this context. The existing rule 720.2c is renumbered.

720.2c Some copy effects include modifications or exceptions to the copying process (see rule 707.9). If an object with an Omen is copied by such an effect, the modifications and/or exceptions apply only to the normal characteristics; the copy’s alternative characteristics will be identical to those of the object being copied.

Paradigm

In my update bulletin, I identified an issue with the use of the term “precombat main phase,” a reference to the wrong rule, and an issue regarding the applicability of existing rules to the copies created by paradigm’s delayed triggered ability.

For the first two issues, correcting the respective parts of rule 702.192a is enough.

702.192a Paradigm represents two spell abilities, one of which creates a delayed triggered ability. Paradigm means “If this is the first time a spell you control with this spell’s name has resolved this game, at the beginning of each of your precombat first main phases for the rest of the game, create a copy of this object in exile. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost” and “Exile this spell.” See rule 707.10 707.12.

For the second issue, see Copies of noncard objects, above.

Hybrid mana symbols with colorless components

In my update bulletin, I identified an issue with effects that add mana to a player’s mana pool based on a hybrid mana symbol.

Namely, rule 106.8 accounts only for colored components and generic components of hybrid mana symbols, but not for colorless components.

Adding colorless components to that rule is easy enough, but what other rules concerning hybrid mana symbols might benefit from a rewrite?

The Duskmourn: House of Horror update introduced hybrid mana symbols with a colorless component and expanded rule 107.4e to mention colorless components of hybrid mana symbols. Without the context of that update or the other rules, this occurrence of “colorless” could be misconstrued as “components without a color” (i.e. colorless and generic components), particularly since the mana symbols used later in that rule feature only a generic component.

(I also wonder about the necessity of updating that rule in particular: monocolored hybrid mana symbols with generic components had existed for sixteen years, and nobody seemed confused about their colors. Does a colorless component make the symbols appear that much “more colorless”? Especially if the card using these symbols has devoid, which would hardly be necessary were the symbols actually colorless?)

Apart from that, I noticed some general inconsistencies surrounding the usage of “symbol” versus “mana symbol”; almost twenty years after the Lorwyn update removed {Y} and {Z} from today’s rule 107.4, some rules still imply that such mana symbol exist; and the glossary entry for the generic Phyrexian symbol mentions only five Phyrexian mana symbols, not fifteen.

This results in the following amendments:

106.8. If an effect would add mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that player chooses one half of that symbol. If a colored or colorless half is chosen, one mana of that color type is added to that player’s mana pool. If a generic half is chosen, an amount of colorless mana represented by that half’s number is added to that player’s mana pool.

107.4. The mana symbols are {W}, {U}, {B}, {R}, {G}, and {C}; the numerical mana symbols {0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, and so on; the variable mana symbol {X}; the hybrid mana symbols {W/U}, {W/B}, {U/B}, {U/R}, {B/R}, {B/G}, {R/G}, {R/W}, {G/W}, and {G/U}; the monocolored hybrid mana symbols {2/W}, {2/U}, {2/B}, {2/R}, {2/G}, {C/W}, {C/U}, {C/B}, {C/R}, and {C/G}; the Phyrexian mana symbols {W/P}, {U/P}, {B/P}, {R/P}, and {G/P}; the hybrid Phyrexian mana symbols {W/U/P}, {W/B/P}, {U/B/P}, {U/R/P}, {B/R/P}, {B/G/P}, {R/G/P}, {R/W/P}, {G/W/P}, and {G/U/P}; and the snow mana symbol {S}.

107.4b Numerical mana symbols (such as {1}) and the variable mana symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.

107.4e A hybrid mana symbol is also a colored mana symbol, even if one of its components is colorless or generic. Each one represents a cost that can be paid in one of two ways, as represented by the two halves of the symbol. A hybrid mana symbol such as {W/U} can be paid with either white or blue mana, and a monocolored hybrid mana symbol such as {2/B} can be paid with either one black mana or two mana of any type. A hybrid mana symbol is all of its component colors.

202.3f When calculating the mana value of an object with a hybrid mana symbol in its mana cost, use the largest component of each hybrid mana symbol.

709.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card’s colors and mana value are determined from its combined mana cost. An effect that refers specifically to the mana symbols in a split card’s mana cost sees the separate symbols rather than the whole mana cost.

Generic Mana

Mana in a cost represented by numerical mana symbols (such as {1}) or the variable mana symbols (such as {X}) that can be paid with mana of any type. See rule 107.4.

Phyrexian Symbol

A symbol used in rules text to represent any of the five fifteen Phyrexian mana symbols. See rule 107.4g.

Sagas and initial lore counters

In my update bulletin, I identified two issues with the new intrinsic abilities for Sagas.

The major one is that type-changing effects like that of Blood Moon’s ability do not affect intrinsic abilities other than the five intrinsic mana abilities [CR 305.7]. As a result, with Blood Moon on the battlefield, Urza’s Saga still enters the battlefield with a lore counter on it.

In their official update bulletin, Wizards of the Coast claim a different outcome where Urza’s Saga enters the battlefield with no lore counters on it. This claim is evidently incorrect and the article acknowledges that the actual rules take precedence. I do like this alternative outcome though; it seems much more intuitive than the actual, unambiguous outcome, so I will look into ways to achieve it.

The second issue concerns Sagas with read ahead. The Secrets of Strixhaven update splits the replacement effect into two distinct effects generated by two distinct intrinsic abilities. As a result, a Saga’s controller can choose to have the Saga enter the battlefield with no lore counters on it, simply by applying the two replacement effects in the “wrong” order.

While this issue is unlikely to come up in practice, it does not strike me as intuitive, so I shall consider a more elegant implementation.

An older, similar issue concerns Sagas with read ahead but with no chapter abilities. For example, if Alex controls Blood Moon and Barbara Wright and she plays Urza’s Saga, the combined effects of Blood Moon and Barbara Wright’s abilities replace the chapter abilities and the normal intrinsic ability with read ahead and the other two intrinsic abilities. Alex is then instructed to choose a number between 1 and the final chapter number of Urza’s Saga; without any chapter abilities, this means that Alex is instructed to choose a number between 1 and 0.

As a mathematical layperson, I would expect that “choose a number between 1 and 0” means the same as “choose a number between 0 and 1,” and the Comprehensive Rules support this notion by being not particularly rigorous about their mathematics. Add the far more informed opinion of Aaron Münch on the DE/AT Judgeserver Discord server, and everything points toward Alex being able to have Urza’s Saga enter the battlefield with a lore counter on it. (And should that be an incorrect interpretation, the question remains what it means to “choose a number between 1 and 0.”)

Regardless of the mathematical aspects, the outcome of this scenario does not match Wizards of the Coast’s apparent design paradigm for Saga rules, which I would describe as “A Saga without chapter abilities should not do anything Saga-related.” It seems also inconsistent with their intended outcome for just Blood Moon and Urza’s Saga, where Urza’s Saga should enter the battlefield with no lore counters on it. Adding read ahead to a Saga that lost its chapter abilities should not cause it to enter the battlefield with a lore counter on it.

Last but not least, I wrote that rule 305.7 omits not just intrinsic abilities, but other kinds of abilities as well. Some of them have existed for decades, while others were introduced in recent years, but in each case, I see no good reason to spare them. As such, rule 305.7 should be updated to account for abilities of any kind.

Resolving the issues

The issue with the split intrinsic abilities for Sagas with read ahead is the simplest: combine both intrinsic abilities into one. This way, the order of instructions is prescribed, and a Saga with read ahead (and chapter abilities) always enters the battlefield with at least one lore counter on it.

For the preexisting issue with read ahead, the paradigm “A Saga without chapter abilities should not do anything Saga-related” provides a lead: why not add chapter abilities to the criteria of the intrinsic abilities?

If a Saga needs to have a chapter ability to qualify for either intrinsic ability, the issue with Sagas only having read ahead is solved. Those Sagas don’t gain the intrinsic ability associated with read ahead, so there is no instruction to choose a number between 1 and 0, and the Sagas enter the battlefield with no lore counters on them.

This solution also helps with the major issue of Blood Moon and Urza’s Saga. The effect of Blood Moon’s ability causes Urza’s Saga to lose its chapter abilities, and if the intrinsic ability is tied to those chapter abilities, it is also lost. Two birds with one stone.

Now, let’s take a look at rule 305.7 and its history.

If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copiable effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

CR 305.7

The Eighth Edition update introduced several aspects of today’s type system: supertypes as a characteristic, the basic supertype, and unified rules for how type-changing effects affect creatures, lands, and all other permanent types. As part of that update, the precursor to rule 305.7 was restructured into today’s form; every update since then has changed only a couple of words.

At the time, only the five intrinsic mana abilities existed and they were defined as text in a land’s text box, effectively giving the land some rules text. Since the abilities were derived from rules text, the Eighth Edition version of the rule simply removed all of the land’s rules text. This automatically took care of the land’s “printed” abilities and its intrinsic abilities. The land then gained the rules text matching its new basic land type.

The Ravnica: City of Guilds update changed the rule to instead remove abilities, specifically those derived from rules text, as well as any intrinsic abilities. The land then gained a new intrinsic ability. (The update didn’t change the mention of “rules text” in the final sentence, and twenty years later, this oversight is still present in the Comprehensive Rules.)

Even at that time, the list of abilities was missing two kinds, both given to an object by a copiable effect.

The first kind were abilities granted as an exception to a copy effect. For example, if Alex resolves the activated ability of Dimir Doppelganger, the copy effect adds the activated ability to the copied values before applying them to Dimir Doppelganger. The ability is added as an ability only, not as rules text, so it remained unaffected by the effect of Blood Moon’s ability.

The other kind were abilities granted as part of specific “as this creature enters” replacement effects, as seen on Molten Sentry. While the Comprehensive Rules are not explicit about such effects, consistency with other copiable effects and the concept behind rules text both suggest that these effects only grant abilities, not rules text; thus, they too avoided getting removed by the effect of Blood Moon’s ability.

While the second kind went undetected until 2021, the issue with copy effects became more prominent with the printing of Thespian’s Stage. Eventually, the Theros update amended rule 305.7 to also remove abilities that come from copy effects. Well, half of them.

The update did not account for copy effects that create tokens as copies of other objects. Such a copy effect is a one-shot effect, not a continuous effect: it creates the tokens with the copied values as their defined values, and then the effect is done. There is no continuous effect in layer 1 or anywhere else that would set the tokens’ characteristic values to the copied values. Thus, while there is an ability that was ultimately generated by a copy effect, it is not an ability generated by a copy effect “affecting that land.” This constitutes the first/oldest kind of ability to still escape the effect of Blood Moon’s ability.

(Adventures in the Forgotten Realms introduced a variant in the form of The Book of Vile Darkness: the Vecna token is created with abilities taken from another object, but not as part of a copy effect. It is similar enough for the topic at hand, so I won’t define it as its own category.)

The next kind of ability is the one that sparked this whole discussion: intrinsic abilities other than the mana abilities tied to basic land types.

When planeswalkers debuted in Lorwyn, the corresponding rules update based the rule for the intrinsic planeswalker ability on the rule defining intrinsic mana abilities but omitted the phrase “intrinsic ability” completely. As a result, the initial version of the intrinsic planeswalker ability was just defined as text in the card’s text box. Which made it rules text and thus an ability that could be removed by the effect of Blood Moon’s ability.

The Magic 2011 update cleared up the rule defining the intrinsic mana abilities: rather than being somewhat nebulous text in the land’s text box, they were just abilities, with no more rules text underneath. The intrinsic planeswalker ability was not updated and continued to be text in a text box.

Many years later, the Core Set 2020 update cleared up the rule defining the intrinsic planeswalker ability in the same way, changing it from text to a “normal” intrinsic ability. This meant that the ability was no longer affected by rules 305.7, but that rule was never updated to account for this intrinsic ability. Or any of the intrinsic abilities introduced since. This constitutes the second kind of ability to still escape the effect of Blood Moon’s ability.

Next, Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths introduced the mutate keyword ability and the concept of merged permanents. The “mutate effect” defines a mutated permanent’s abilities as those of all components combined; its rules text, however, is only that of the topmost component. This was yet another kind of copiable effect that can grant an ability to a permanent without affecting its rules text, and initially, it too was not accounted for by rule 305.7.

The Modern Horizons 2 update changed “copy effect” to “copiable effect” in the text of rule 305.7. As a result, abilities from the “mutate effect” and from cards like Molten Sentry were now on the list of abilities that get removed.

Unfinity introduced the third and (so far) last kind of ability: abilities an object gains due to being face down. Magar of the Magic Strings was the first time that the characteristic values defined for a face-down object included an ability. (As with Molten Sentry, the Comprehensive Rules don’t explicitly say that this is an ability rather than rules text, but the same arguments—consistency and the concept behind rules text—apply.)

And while this ability is part of the face-down permanent’s copiable values, it is set by a game rule rather than by a copiable effect, as rule 613.2 clearly states. Therefore, the ability is exempted from rule 305.7.  The same applies to the keywords disguise and cloak, both introduced in Murders at Karlov Manor.

Recounting the rule’s history took some time, but the solution to all these issues is simple: have rule 305.7 remove all abilities, no matter where they come from. The purpose of rule 305.7 is to make an affected land as close to a basic land as possible and I don’t see a reason why this should include keeping some abilities intact. Also, removing all abilities is more future-proof than repeatedly adding new kinds of abilities to the list (or manipulating an ability’s definition like that of the intrinsic Saga abilities so they become tied to abilities that do get removed). Note that abilities from ability-granting effects are still excluded, since those effects are naturally applied after any Blood Moon-style effects.

With all issues considered, it is time to put the amendments into rules text (not the characteristic).

Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Rules

Rule 702.155a, which defines the read ahead ability, has some nonstandard wording choices that are tidied up.

702.155a Read ahead is a keyword static ability found on some Saga cards. “Read ahead” means “Chapter abilities of this Saga can’t trigger the turn it entered the battlefield unless it has exactly the number of lore counters on it specified in the chapter symbol of that ability.” See rule 714, “Saga Cards.”

The two intrinsic abilities for Sagas with read ahead become one. For reasons detailed in my article on intrinsic abilities, I will further combine that ability with the intrinsic ability for Sagas without read ahead. Finally, chapter abilities become a criterion for this single intrinsic ability.

702.155b Each A Saga with read ahead one or more chapter abilities has the intrinsic abilities ability “As this Saga enters, if it has read ahead, choose a number between one and this Saga’s final chapter number” and “. This Saga enters with the chosen number of lore counters on it. If it doesn’t have read ahead, it enters with a lore counter on it.” See rule 714.3ba.

The new version for ease of reading:

702.155b A Saga with one or more chapter abilities has the intrinsic ability “As this Saga enters, if it has read ahead, choose a number between one and this Saga’s final chapter number. This Saga enters with the chosen number of lore counters on it. If it doesn’t have read ahead, it enters with a lore counter on it.” See rule 714.3a.

Rule 714.3a changes accordingly.

714.3a Each A Saga without read ahead with one or more chapter abilities has the intrinsic ability “As this Saga enters, if it has read ahead, choose a number between one and this Saga’s final chapter number. This Saga enters with the chosen number of lore counters on it. If it doesn’t have read ahead, it This Saga enters with a lore counter on it.” This ability creates a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c). See also rule 702.155, “Read Ahead.”

The new version for ease of reading:

714.3a A Saga with one or more chapter abilities has the intrinsic ability “As this Saga enters, if it has read ahead, choose a number between one and this Saga’s final chapter number. This Saga enters with the chosen number of lore counters on it. If it doesn’t have read ahead, it enters with a lore counter on it.” This ability creates a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c). See also rule 702.155, “Read Ahead.”

Rule 714.3b is obsolete and gets removed.

714.3b Each Saga with read ahead has the intrinsic abilities “As this Saga enters, choose a number between one and this Saga’s final chapter number” and “This Saga enters with the chosen number of lore counters on it.” (See rule 702.155, “Read Ahead.”) These abilities create replacement effects (see rule 614.1c).

Rule 702.155c uses a nonspecific “object” even though read ahead is only ever relevant on Saga permanents. “Object” is replaced with “Saga.”

702.155c Multiple instances of read ahead on the same object Saga are redundant.

Finally, rule 305.7 doesn’t restrict itself to specific kinds of abilities. The sentence about abilities from other effects becomes explicit about the effects it covers. In the final sentence, “rules text” becomes “abilities.”

305.7 If an a type-changing effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copiable effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other ability-adding effects. See rule 613, “Interaction of Continuous Effects.” Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text abilities, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

The new version for ease of reading:

305.7 If a type-changing effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by ability-adding effects. See rule 613, “Interaction of Continuous Effects.” Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and abilities, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.

Spry and Mighty

In my update bulletin, I discussed how the Oracle text update for Spry and Mighty is a nonfunctional but mightily confusing change.

In their own bulletin, Wizards of the Coast claim that the update instead changes Spry and Mighty’s functionality to that described in the card’s Gatherer ruling.

Upon reading this, I had to think of the stereotypical tourist visiting another country. He doesn’t speak the local language, so when he needs to ask a local for information, he addresses her in his own language; likewise, the local doesn’t speak the tourist’s language, and replies in her language that she doesn’t understand what he said. What does the tourist do? Repeat exactly what he said, only Slower and Louder. Surely, this time he will be understood.

What he actually needs is an interpreter, someone who understands both languages and can facilitate communication.

In the case of Spry and Mighty, Wizards of the Coast’s design team could be thought of as the tourist, and the rules system would be the local. The latter speaks only formal rules-ish, while the former speak only everyday English (with the occasional piece of broken rules-ish thrown in). And the design team can repeat their intentions for Spry and Mighty as often as they like—if no one converts their intentions into matching rules text, the rules system and anyone who acts according to it will fail to recognize those intentions and stick to what has actually been written.

Continuing the analogy, the task of interpreting would fall to the rules team, although in their case, “translator” would be the better term. They take the design team’s intended functionality and translate it into well-formed rules text that mirrors that functionality, so that anyone who reads the card knows how to play it.

Which begs the question “If the claimed functionality is the intended one and has seemingly always been the intended one, why didn’t the rules team choose a rules text that accurately reflects that functionality right from the start?”

It can’t have been an accident, since the discrepancy between the actual rules text and the intended functionality is blatantly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of Magic‘s rules system, much less the world-class experts comprising the rules team.

Maybe the rules text was not actually written by the rules team. Maybe the whole team was at a conference that week, so a highly motivated but unskilled intern was tasked with writing the rules text for Lorwyn Eclipsed. And the same thing happened with the errata for the Secrets of Strixhaven update.

Or maybe it’s all deliberate: the contradictory rulings, the misleading Oracle update, the claims in the official update bulletin—they are all part of a lesson in media literacy.

Not blindly believing everything one reads on the internet, double-checking suspicious statements, and recognizing minotaur droppings for what they are—these skills are more important than ever. Thus, it should not be surprising if Wizards of the Coast, who care deeply about their customers, occasionally issue misleading, contradictory, and obviously incorrect information, solely with the goal of honing their customers’ critical thinking skills.

Be that as it may. Spry and Mighty’s actual functionality remains clear enough, regardless of anything said in the official update bulletin. But purely as a thought experiment, how would a rules text look like that actually reflected the “intended” functionality?

The crux of the issue is that an effect like “choose (exactly) two creatures” tries to do as much as possible; in the case of Spry and Mighty, however, we would want it to be all-or-nothing. Given the extent of Magic’s rules system, precedents are easily found: costs, for example, can’t be paid partially; they must be paid in full [CR 118.3]. And the description given in rule 118.1 matches Spry and Mighty’s “intended” functionality perfectly: to draw cards and have the creatures gain bonuses, the spell’s controller must first choose two actual creatures.

How to turn Spry and Mighty’s first instruction into a cost? The same way any effect becomes a cost: by adding an “If you do.” Thanks to rule 118.12, the part before that phrase is treated as a cost, and the part after it occurs only if that cost is paid. This is a well-established template used by hundreds of cards and understood by rules-knowledgeable people and laypersons alike.

So, if one were interested in changing Spry and Mighty’s functionality so that its effect only did something if two creatures can be chosen, the obvious rules text would be this:

Choose two creatures you control. If you do, you draw X cards and the chosen creatures get +X/+X and gain trample until end of turn, where X is the difference between the chosen creatures’ powers.

Compared with its current text, this version is minimally longer (more spaces in “if you do” than in “exactly”), but there is plenty of space left in the text box. Enough to use both “exactly” and “if you do,” if one absolutely must.