Not too long ago I asked about how Necrotic Ooze and Yixlid Jailer interact. https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/34692/

More recently, Olivia Voldaren and <any animation effect> came up. There was some discussion on possible dependency, then a thread on this forum came up, with the declaration that there was no dependency. https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/3052/

Although the two feel very similar and the line separating the two is quite narrow, I can tentatively understand the logic. The question I have is where this rules interpretation comes from. On the surface, this feels similar to costs - where it doesn't matter if the end result matches the defined cost, only that the cost was attempted to be paid - but there are explicit rules for that.

I guess you could summarize my main hesitance here, as this seems something impossible to know without an external source explaining it for you. Either interpretation (that it cares about ‘what it attempts to do’ vs ‘what it actually does’) are equally valid within English, and I have not seen any other rule that gives any insight into this scenario. I feel the rules should be self-sufficient, and not require anyone to explain their intent; even if I don't initially grasp a rules interaction on my own, I typically will once it's been pointed out to me. No such luck here - this entire dividing line seems hinged on a single - possibly ambiguous - phrase.

Hi,

There is no dependency between Olivia's effect and something like a Gideon that's being animated on a future turn after Olivia had pinged it. The relevant quote from then-Netrep Daniel Kitachewsky:

The whole question is then to know if there is dependency between “becoming a creature” and “becoming a vampire.” Even though the result of “becoming a vampire” is different whether you apply the “become a creature” effect or not, what matters in order to have dependency is if what the effect _attempts to do_ is different. Here, what the effect attempts to do is setting the object's subtype to vampire, and this doesn't depend on whether the object is a creature or not.

Remember: there are three things that need to be true in order for dependency to apply: They have to apply in the same layer or sublayer; applying the second effect would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to; and neither effect is a CDA. While this situation passes the first and third points, it fails the second point (the effect from Olivia can only apply to that Gideon, and while it may feel like applying the animation effect would change what Olivia's effect does to it, it doesn't, so it doesn't fulfill the second point). Applying Gideon's effect changes what happens when you apply Olivia's effect, but it doesn't change what Olivia's effect is trying to do, which is “add the Vampire creature type” to Gideon.

There's no dependency between Olivia's “make it a Vampire” effect and the Gideon's “make me a creature effect”, so we simply apply them in timestamp order. And since a noncreature nontribal can't have a creature type, when we try to apply Olivia's effect, nothing happens since it can't have the Vampire creature type. Later on, it does become a creature, but we've already passed the point where the effect would apply, so Gideon would not be a Vampire in future turns.

Nathan Long
Magic Rules NetRep