I'm trying to pick layers apart and I'm getting a little confused about how to apply them. Consider the following two rulings:
Humility +
Opalescence, trying to determine what Humility is now.
You end up with
layer 4 (type): Opalescence turns humility into a creature
Layer 6 (ability): Humility removes its own ability (Because it is now a creature)
Layer 7b (p/t setting): Humility makes itself 1/1, Opalescence makes humility 4/4, end result depends on timestamp order.
Blood Moon +
Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth.
You end up with:
Layer 4 (type): Blood moon turns it into a mountain (therefore removing its abilities), Urborg wants to turn everything into a Swamp.
Urborg can't turn everything into a Swamp if it doesn't have its ability, therefore there is dependency on blood moon.
Apply blood moon first, nothing is turned into a swamp.
Now, I agree that these are both correct per the CR, as that's how dependency works (same layer, one effect among other things affecting the existence of another). It's just conceptually odd because now in some cases, we do look at what has happened earlier in the layer process and sometimes we don't.
Here is what I mean: Humility removes it's own ability in layer 6, but we still appy it in layer 7b, because ‘that’s how layers work'. We first make a list of all the effects in all the layers, and then simply go through them, regardless of whether the ability that generated the effect is still there when we arrive at a particular layer.
Urborg's ability gets removed as we start layer 4 (as a side effect of the type change), so that later in layer 4 we don't apply it anymore, because that's what the dependency rules tell us to do. In this scenario, an effect actually gets crossed off the list as we go through the layers.
So sometimes abilities are removed and we do still apply them later, and sometimes abilities are removed and we don't apply them later.
Now, I remember the mess layers were before the current system so I'm not about to propose a change, but can someone give me some kind of explanation about why this makes sense, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around it.
Edited Anniek Van der Peijl (Nov. 9, 2014 11:46:36 AM)