(Originally published on 2025-04-09; last reviewed on 2025-04-09; last updated on 2025-04-09)

During her first main phase, Alex activates Reflection of Kiki-Jiki’s ability and creates a token copy of Bear Cub. As her end step begins, the delayed triggered ability created by Reflection of Kiki-Jiki’s ability triggers. Nona responds to that ability and casts Tishana’s Tidebinder. When Tishana’s Tidebinder enters, Nona targets the delayed triggered ability with the enters-the-battlefield ability. Does Reflection of Kiki-Jiki lose its abilities?

This scenario first came to my attention in December 2023 and my initial answer was “Of course the permanent loses all its abilities. What else is supposed to happen?” So when someone cited CR 603.2e and claimed that Reflection of Kiki-Jiki would not lose its abilities, I got a bit confused.

Some effects refer to a triggered ability of an object. Such effects refer only to triggered abilities the object has, not any delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7) that may be created by abilities the object has.

CR 603.2e

My confusion stemmed from the fact that I knew that CR 603.2e does not apply in this scenario. This subrule had been part of the Adventures in the Forgotten Realms update, following a discussion about whether delayed triggered abilities are affected by cards that cause triggered abilities of specific permanents to trigger an additional time. The main example in that discussion used Massacre Girl as the source of the delayed triggered ability and Teysa Karlov as the trigger duplicator.¹ Wizards of the Coast (WotC) ultimately decided that delayed triggered abilities² should not trigger an additional time if such a card were on the battlefield and added this subrule.

With this origin story in mind, I thought it clear that CR 603.2e is meant to apply only to cards like Panharmonicon, Teysa Karlov, and Harmonic Prodigy, but not to cards like Tishana’s Tidebinder, Green Slime, and Trickbind. Then again, my reasoning was based on the intent behind the rule, whereas its wording might actually say something else—rules updates turn out to be less than airtight from time to time. So I investigated this scenario more thoroughly.

A very strict interpretation of CR 603.2e’s wording

One of the first things I noticed is that the Panharmonicon group refers exclusively and specifically to triggered abilities—either with “a triggered ability” or with “If an ability […] triggers.” On the other hand, Tishana’s Tidebinder & Co. first refer to an “activated or triggered ability” (or just an “ability”), and the follow-up effects do not care what category the targeted abilities belong to—they just say “ability.” One could therefore argue that CR 603.2e does not apply to Tishana’s Tidebinder because the first effect does not refer exclusively to triggered abilities and because the second effect does not refer to a specific ability category at all.

I find this argument unsatisfying though, because CR 603.2e does not provide a reference template, and because “refer” is not a defined term, making such a strict interpretation of the rule’s wording questionable. Also, this argument only holds as long as there are no cards which exclusively counter triggered abilities. If a variant of Tishana’s Tidebinder were printed that countered only triggered abilities, that card should be subject to CR 603.2e, and these two versions working differently would be too inconsistent for my taste.

Fortunately, better—even conclusive—arguments exist.

A categorical error

My key insight was that the two groups of cards use the term “ability” in two very different ways: Panharmonicon & Co. use “ability” to mean a characteristic of a permanent, while Tishana’s Tidebinder & Co. use the term to mean an object on the stack. These two different uses of “ability” are defined at the very start of CR section 113:

An ability can be one of three things:

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 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.”)

113.1b An ability can be something that a player has that changes how the game affects the player. A player normally has no abilities unless granted to that player by effects.

113.1c An ability can be an activated or triggered ability on the stack. This kind of ability is an object. (See section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”)

CR 113.1

Abilities as characteristics

As an example, the characteristics of Captain Howler, Sea Scourge include two abilities: the ward ability and the discard ability.

When the latter resolves, it creates a continuous effect and a delayed triggered ability. The delayed triggered ability does not become part of Captain Howler’s characteristics; it exists on its own. This leads to a fundamental difference between the discard ability and the delayed triggered ability.

The discard ability’s existence is tied to Captain Howler’s presence on the battlefield: if Captain Howler leaves the battlefield, the ability won’t trigger for any cards discarded after that point. The delayed triggered ability, on the other hand, will continue to trigger each time the creature deals combat damage to a player this turn, whether or not Captain Howler is still on the battlefield. In a similar vein, if Captain Howler loses all its abilities, the discard ability won’t trigger anymore, because it no longer exists, whereas the delayed triggered ability is entirely unaffected. There is nothing that can be done to Captain Howler that would influence the delayed triggered ability. Once it’s created—and even before that, as soon as the discard ability has triggered—Captain Howler’s fate becomes irrelevant.

Since the delayed triggered ability, once created, exists completely independent of Captain Howler and since it’s not part of Captain Howler’s characteristics, it makes sense to say that this is not an ability that Captain Howler “has”; if that were the case, doing something to Captain Howler should influence it somehow. Therefore, it is not “an ability of Captain Howler,” and cards like Roaming Throne won’t cause that ability to trigger an additional time.

Is there a second way to link an ability with the object it’s on? Not really. An ability as a characteristic is just that—a characteristic. It’s a text block in a list of text blocks that collectively form the abilities of an object. It’s either on that list or it’s not.

So, for abilities as characteristics, there is one link between these abilities and the objects they belong to, and the CR define that link in CR 113.1a; normal triggered abilities have it and delayed triggered abilities don’t. Meanwhile, abilities on the stack have a different link to their origin.

Abilities as objects on the stack

If Captain Howler’s ability triggers, an object with that ability’s text is put on the stack. That object also goes by the name of ability, but it’s not a characteristic of Captain Howler. It exists independently from Captain Howler and will resolve whether or not Captain Howler is still on the battlefield at that point and whether or not Captain Howler still has its abilities.

Of course, there is still a concept linking the ability with Captain Howler, and that is the “source” of the ability. CR 113.7 defines the source itself and subrule CR 113.7a defines the ability as independent of its source.

The source of an ability is the object that generated it. The source of an activated ability on the stack is the object whose ability was activated. The source of a triggered ability (other than a delayed triggered ability) on the stack, or one that has triggered and is waiting to be put on the stack, is the object whose ability triggered. To determine the source of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “This creature deals 1 damage to any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

CR 113.7

Notably, CR 113.7 mentions that a delayed triggered ability also has a source, which is defined in CR 603.7d–g. The source of a delayed triggered ability depends on the specific object that creates it; in the case of an activated or triggered ability, the source of that ability is also the source of the delayed triggered ability. Therefore, Captain Howler is the source of both the discard ability and the delayed triggered ability.

If an activated or triggered ability creates a delayed triggered ability, the source of that delayed triggered ability is the same as the source of that other ability. The controller of that delayed triggered ability is the player who controlled that other ability as it resolved.

CR 603.7e

What does that mean for Tishana’s Tidebinder? The effect of Tishana’s Tidebinder’s ability affects a specific ability on the stack and asks about an object that ability is somehow related to. It does not explicitly ask for its source, but that’s the only relationship the CR define between an ability on the stack and its “origin”; as such, the source of the ability is the only real option. And the sources of the discard ability and of the delayed triggered ability are identical.

In other words, the answer that Tishana’s Tidebinder gets when asking about the countered ability is the same for both abilities. Tishana’s Tidebinder cannot distinguish between normal triggered abilities and delayed triggered abilities, and as a result, countering Captain Howler’s delayed triggered ability will make it lose its abilities.

Resolving the confusion

With this realization, it became clear to me that the confusion in this scenario was caused by a mix-up of two distinctive kinds of abilities. If I keep the two kinds in mind, as well as their respective CR-defined relationships with their origins, then CR 603.2e cannot apply to Tishana’s Tidebinder. Tishana’s Tidebinder refers to an ability on the stack, which is an object, and an object is never a characteristic of another object. Thus, the first sentence of CR 603.2e cannot refer to cards like Tishana’s Tidebinder. It can only ever refer to cards like Panharmonicon. The wording and the intent of CR 603.2e align.

Some effects refer to a triggered ability of an object. Such effects refer only to triggered abilities the object has, not any delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7) that may be created by abilities the object has.

CR 603.2e

An apt comparison is the term “counter.” The CR use “counter” for two different things: once for a marker placed on objects or players and once for a keyword action. These two terms are seldom confused because they are way easier to distinguish than the two named “ability,” but the principle is the same. If I said that CR 603.2e applied to Tishana’s Tidebinder, this would be—in essence—the same as me saying that Niv-Mizzet, Parun can’t have -1/-1 counters put on it because it “can’t be countered.” In both cases, I confuse one term with a second, distinct term which happens to have the same name.

Revisiting Tishana’s Tidebinder

Back in 2023, I concluded my research at about this point. What follows are some additional findings I made while writing this article. None of the relevant rules changed in the intervening months, so everything was just as valid when Tishana’s Tidebinder was released as it is now.

Alternatives to the source

In the preceding sections, I argued that Tishana’s Tidebinder cares about the source of the ability—even though it does not use that term—because that’s the only link the CR define. This begs the question of whether another link might be possible. And there is an apparent alternative which uses the link between the ability on the stack and the ability from which it spawned.

When an ability (the characteristic) triggers, an ability (the object) is put on the stack. The wording of the CR is a bit loose in that regard; they just say that the triggered ability is put on the stack, which could imply that the ability is actually moved away from the object it’s on and onto the stack. This is not what happens, of course; the source keeps its ability and an object with the ability’s text is created on the stack. The CR do not give that object a proper name that describes its relationship to the other ability, but a popular term I also like to use is “instance”: when an ability triggers, an instance of that ability is put on the stack. The triggering ability I will call the “template” of the ability on the stack.

I can combine the template-instance relationship with the characteristic-of relationship the triggering ability has with the object it’s on: together, they form a link between the ability on the stack and that object. This changes the question Tishana’s Tidebinder asks from “Is the source of the countered ability an artifact, creature, or planeswalker on the battlefield?” to “Is the template of the countered ability an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker?” And the answer for delayed triggered abilities changes along with the question: a delayed triggered ability on the stack has a template, but that template is not a characteristic of any object. Thus, no object would lose its abilities if Tishana’s Tidebinder countered a delayed triggered ability.

Using this link comes with its own problems, however. Let’s say that Alex creates two Soldier creature tokens with Raise the Alarm while she controls Good-Fortune Unicorn. Good-Fortune Unicorn’s ability triggers twice, and Nona responds with two Tidebinders to counter both abilities. After everything has resolved, how many Tidebinders would Alex need to remove to have Good-Fortune Unicorn regain its ability?

The answer should be one. When the first Tidebinder ability resolves, it counters the targeted ability and creates an ability-removing effect. When the second Tidebinder ability resolves, it counters the other ability, but that ability’s template is not a characteristic of Good-Fortune Unicorn anymore. Good-Fortune Unicorn currently has no abilities, so the countered ability can’t be an ability of that creature. Therefore, the second Tidebinder ability does not create an ability-removing effect, and Alex only needs to get rid of one Tidebinder.

This does not strike me as an intuitive outcome, but maybe the situation can be salvaged. The countered ability was an ability of Good-Fortune Unicorn at some point, so maybe Tishana’s Tidebinder should not check whether the template is currently an ability of Good-Fortune Unicorn, but whether it was an ability of Good-Fortune Unicorn in the past. Two points stick out: the moment the ability triggered and the moment the instance was put on the stack. The second option does not work if Good-Fortune Unicorn loses its abilities between the ability triggering and the instance being put on the stack.³ This leaves option one: as the ability triggers, the game locks in which object that ability belongs to.

With this amendment, the template-instance approach results in the intuitive outcome for the scenario with two Tidebinders. But is it a viable alternative for the source-based approach?

The criticism for the source-based approach was that the wording of Tishana’s Tidebinder doesn’t use the word “source”; it just says, “an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker.” The template-instance approach suffers a similar flaw: CR 603.2e talks about an ability an object “has,” but I just interpreted that to mean “an ability an object had at the time the ability triggered.” To be more precise, I had to interpret “an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker” as “an ability whose template had been an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker at the time that template triggered.” This stretches the actual wording way more than the source-based approach, in my opinion.

And even that isn’t sufficient. Consider this scenario: Alex controls Purphoros, God of the Forge and her devotion to red is four. Mogg Fanatic enters under her control and Purphoros’s ability triggers. Nona responds with Tishana’s Tidebinder and Alex responds in turn by sacrificing her Mogg Fanatic. Does Purphoros lose its abilities when the triggered ability is countered?

I think the answer should be no. When the ability is countered, Purphoros is just an enchantment, and it strikes me as more intuitive if Tishana’s Tidebinder considers Purphoros’s current card types. Of course, this requires another amendment, because the two checks now look at different points in time: one checks which object the ability belongs to and looks at the past, while the other checks the appearance of that object and looks at its current state.

Now, I interpret “an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker” as “an ability whose template— at the time that template triggered—had been an ability of an object that’s currently an artifact, creature, or planeswalker.”

And what about activated abilities? Tishana’s Tidebinder can also counter activated abilities, so I need to define a point at which an instance of an activated ability locks in the object it belongs to. The two obvious points are the start and the end of the activation process: when the ability is announced and put on the stack, or when the activation is complete. Just as with triggered abilities, the later point doesn’t always work and I need to look at the earliest possible moment.⁴

Now, I interpret “an ability of an artifact, creature, or planeswalker” as “an ability whose template— at the time that template triggered if it’s a triggered ability, or at the time the ability was announced if it’s an activated ability—had been an ability of an object that’s currently an artifact, creature, or planeswalker.” That’s an awful lot of words.

At this point, it’s clear to me that the attempt to avoid the word “source” is more trouble than it’s worth. I could reduce the word count, but that just incurs one or more of the unintuitive outcomes I detailed above. With the full definition, I do get intuitive outcomes all around, but “an ability which an object had when that ability triggered or was announced” is a far cry from the “ability an object has” mentioned in CR 603.2e. Using the source of the ability avoids all this, because the source is immutable. It’s shorter, more elegant, and, just to reiterate, actually defined by the CR.

Citation needed

In a way, the next point is the opposite of the previous one. Instead of asking “Why should Tishana’s Tidebinder use the source if it doesn’t say so?” it asks “If Tishana’s Tidebinder wants to use the source, why doesn’t it just say so?” This may be less of an argument against using the source and more of a complaint about the card text’s lack of clarity, but it should still be addressed.

In June 2024, the topic had a very brief revival on the German-speaking judge Discord server. At the time, I suggested “If an ability from an artifact, creature, or planeswalker permanent source is countered this way” as a possible way to make the use of the source explicit. When I revisited that wording for this article, I discovered that it’s actually insufficient, along with some interesting facts about the use of the word “source.”

For starters, using “an ability from an artifact, creature, or planeswalker source” would be a functional change, because that description applies to objects in every game zone, as long as they have one of the three card types. A card with this wording could counter the counter-removing ability of a suspended card and have that card lose all its abilities, effectively stranding it in exile; the wording could also make Genesis in a graveyard lose its abilities, and even a card in hand with forecast.

If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes the word “source,” it means a source matching that description—a source of an ability, of damage, or of mana—in any zone. See rules 113.7 and 609.7.

CR 109.2c

Adding “permanent” seemed like it should do the trick, until I realized that CR 109.2c does not account for sources in specific zones, and the rest of the CR is much the same. Only a few individual rules refer to sources that can only be in a certain zone (such as CR 702.76); the overwhelming majority does not restrict sources to any specific zone. As such, the term “permanent source” is nowhere to be found, and I had to conclude that it is undefined. The interpretation that’s most consistent with existing rules though, specifically CR 110.4 and its subrules, would not be “a source on the battlefield” but rather “any source with a permanent type.”

There are six permanent types: artifact, battle, creature, enchantment, land, and planeswalker. Instant and sorcery cards can’t enter the battlefield and thus can’t be permanents. Some kindred cards can enter the battlefield and some can’t, depending on their other card types. See section 3, “Card Types.”

110.4a The term “permanent card” is used to refer to a card that could be put onto the battlefield. Specifically, it means an artifact, battle, creature, enchantment, land, or planeswalker card.

110.4b The term “permanent spell” is used to refer to a spell that will enter the battlefield as a permanent as part of its resolution. Specifically, it means an artifact, battle, creature, enchantment, or planeswalker spell.

110.4c If a permanent somehow loses all its permanent types, it remains on the battlefield. It’s still a permanent.

CR 110.4

Looking back at my first draft, this means that “an artifact permanent source” would not accomplish what I wanted it to. It would just mean “any source with a permanent type and with the artifact type.” In other words, adding “permanent” was entirely redundant.

Of course, I can easily fix this by adding a definition of “permanent source” to the CR, or by using a wording such as “If an ability from a source that’s an artifact, creature, or planeswalker on the battlefield is countered this way.” Just adding “permanent source” to the ability’s text is not enough, however.

The other interesting point I found is that the way Tishana’s Tidebinder avoids the word “source” is consistent across all cards.

The CR mainly define sources for three different thing: damage, abilities, and mana.⁵ When I catalogued every instance of “source” appearing in rules text, the following pattern emerged: rules text restricts sources to those under a certain player’s control; or to those having a specific card type, subtype, or combination thereof; or to those having a specific color or name; or a handful of other qualities. But I did not find a single card in the existence of Magic which describes sources in a specific zone.⁶

Instead, if a card cares about sources of damage, but wants to restrict itself to sources on the battlefield, it will just refer to creatures or (rarely) permanents. The same goes for instant or sorcery spells rather than “instant or sorcery sources.”

Looking at sources of mana, there is only a single card that mentions them.⁷ There are other cards though that care about “mana from a [type or subtype],” such as “mana from a Treasure.” The wording suggests that these cards care only about mana from permanents. The CR don’t explain which object is meant by “from a [type or subtype],” but the source of the mana is again the obvious option. So here’s another case where cards refer to sources on the battlefield without using the word “source.”

Finally, when looking at cards that refer to abilities, plenty of them refer to the sources of those abilities. But they never use the word “source” when they check whether these abilities belong to permanents.

Looking at all three groups together, it becomes evident that Tishana’s Tidebinder & Co. are not outliers, but that they are entirely consistent with the templating of cards that care about sources specifically on the battlefield. The lack of the word “source” can be a… well… source of confusion for any of the three types, but I think it makes sense considering its intended use: a “source” can be any object in any zone and even an object that doesn’t exist anymore. When choosing a source of damage, CR 120.7 allows a player to practically choose anything imaginable. Viewed that way, it’s consistent to drop the word when it would imply something that’s not actually true. And this is probably also why Magic doesn’t define or use the term “permanent source.”

Conclusion

I found the research for this topic incredibly satisfying. Cataloguing the different uses of “source” across cards and discovering the patterns presented above, realizing that there’s a consistent thread through all this—these are the highlights of a rules enthusiast’s Magic life.

In a perfect world, CR 603.2e would directly state what it applies to and what it doesn’t apply to. Or maybe cards like Tishana’s Tidebinder would use a wording that explicitly mentions the source.⁸ But the versions we have are the next best thing:

For a layperson, such as the average Magic player, the wording of Tishana’s Tidebinder appears to be quite clear. As such, the wording accomplishes its primary purpose of telling players what the card does. Only a person with above-average rules knowledge, who has read or heard about CR 603.2e, will ever get confused about the whole thing. Such a person might misapply that rule to Tishana’s Tidebinder or consider the correct answer to be inconsistent with or contradictory to the CR.

But with just a bit more knowledge and insight, all these apparent contradictions and inconsistencies vanish and the wording of Tishana’s Tidebinder is once again crystal clear. With another bit of knowledge, it even becomes the logical and consistent choice for such an effect. And to get to that point, all that’s required is to not stop after matching the text of Tishana’s Tidebinder to CR 603.2e, and to actually look at what the two texts say. A conclusive—if not immediately apparent—answer is found right there in the CR and in Oracle text; no other sources are needed.⁹

Doing a bit of research and careful thinking before making a ruling seems like a reasonable thing to ask from a judge, and it’s an absolute necessity for any rules enthusiast.

Actually, I’ll retract what I said previously: the current wordings of CR 603.2e and of Tishana’s Tidebinder are the best versions, because they allow us to grow in our understanding of the rules.

1. Parts of that discussion might still be found via the Twitter (now X) account of the current Rules Manager, Jess Dunks. ↩︎
2. And reflexive triggered abilities by extension. ↩︎
3. For example, if a creature and Dress Down enter due to Hypergenesis. ↩︎
4. Consider this scenario: Alex controls Crackdown Construct which is equipped with Blazing Torch. She activates the ability Crackdown Construct gains from Blazing Torch. Partway through the activation process, she sacrifices Blazing Torch and Crackdown Construct stops having that activated ability. By the time the activation is complete and Crackdown Construct’s ability is supposed to trigger, the activated ability is not an ability of Crackdown Construct anymore. In order to trigger, Crackdown Construct’s ability needs to look back in time to the start of the activation process. ↩︎
5. Sources of life are briefly mentioned in CR 119.9 and CR 119.10, but are not relevant for this discussion. ↩︎
6. Which mirrors the way the CR use the term. ↩︎
7. Plus a few others which hide the term behind the snow mana symbol {S}. ↩︎
8. Although for Tishana’s Tidebinder, fitting more words into the text box could become a challenge. ↩︎
9. Admittedly, knowing the origin and intent of CR 603.2e helped, but I still had to determine whether the rule’s wording applied to Tishana’s Tidebinder. ↩︎