4

Slivdrazi Monstrosity grants devoid to all slivers. And then the Gatherer ruling says this:

Due to the carefully calibrated system of layers that Magic uses to determine the interaction of continuous effects, gaining an ability that changes the color of an object has no effect on the color of that object. Despite this, Slivdrazi Monstrosity causes Slivers to become colorless as they gain devoid. Rather than try to figure out how this could work, this card should just be played as though it read “Slivers you control have devoid and annihilator 1 and are colorless.”

Unfortunately for me, I would very much like to figure out how this could work. CE 613.1 says color changing effects are applied in layer 5, and then ability-adding effects in layer 6. So just as the Gatherer ruling says, it very much seems like slivers will stay colorful, but have devoid, as their color is set before devoid is granted.

How does the Monstrosity make slivers colorless? Is it just a case of the above Gatherer ruling standing in as an errata? Or does the Monstrosity's ability, taken at face value, with correct rules interpretations, actually make slivers colorless somehow? And how would that work?

11

The Gatherer ruling is saying that the card doesn't change Slivers' colors as written, but the intention of the card is to change the colors, so you should play the card as though it does. That is a playtest card, so it is unsurprising that it doesn't exactly work within the rules.

3
  • Right. That explains it. Gatherer ruling being an errata it is, then. And it not being a legal card means the oracle text doesn't have to reflect said errata.
    – Arthur
    Jul 25 at 9:13
  • Maybe not worth a new question since it's not a playable card anyway, but could you elaborate on why the card wouldnt work as printed? Is it because devoid would take effect in layer 1, but the monstrosity adds the ability only in layer 6?
    – Hackworth
    Jul 25 at 16:59
  • 2
    Arthur explains it in the question, in the first paragraph after the quoted Gatherer ruling.
    – murgatroid99
    Jul 25 at 17:00
1

If Slivdrazi Monstrosity was a "real" card, released in a proper set, it would have full rules support. Part of that support involves modifying rules that prevent cards from working how they are intended.

For instance, among the rules changes with the release of Strixhaven was a change to rule 603.3B:

Players paying close attention during preview season noticed that Strict Proctor has an odd trigger condition and effect that wouldn't quite work right under current rules. Sometimes, Strict Proctor's ability would end up placed on the stack underneath the ability it was trying to counter. This rule has been changed to make putting triggers on the stack a two-part process, ensuring that Strict Proctor can always enforce its requirement.

In this case a timing issue existed that could interfere with how a card was obviously supposed to work, so the rule was changed to prevent it. Because Slivdrazi Monstrosity is a playtest card and lacks rules support, Gatherer notes that players should modify the rules in a similar way so that the card can work as intended.

1
  • 3
    The Gatherer ruling does not say that players should modify the rules so that the card can work. It says that the player should play as though the card has different text. It's more of an errata than a rules change. The fact is that changing the rules to support that ability as written would be a nightmare, and would probably cause other problems elsewhere.
    – murgatroid99
    Jul 24 at 22:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.