A player at SCG Baltimore this weekend brought this scenario to me and it sparked quite a bit of divided opinion, so I wanted to track down an ‘O’ answer on it. They posed: "An opponent once told me that if I have a Humility and he animates his Mishra's Factory, it'll be a 1/1. But if instead he holds priority and animates it twice, then it'll end up a 2/2. Is that true?"

In my digging I came to the conclusion that after the first animation resolves it'll be a 1/1, and that yes, after the second animation resolves, the Factory will be a 2/2. Both of those points were contested, so I wanted to walk through how I got to both and see if my logic doesn't hold up somewhere.

I cited the following:

Originally posted by 613.7a:

An effect is said to “depend on” another if (a) it's applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) … (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or …

Both Humility and the animation of Mishra's Workshop apply (in part) in layer 7b. Applying the animation changes what Humility applies to (it was not applying to Factory, and now it is). So my reading of this, is that Humility is dependent upon the Animation, even though the hinge of the dependency, the “becomes a creature” in layer 4, doesn't oppose any part of Humility's effect in the same layer (since it has none).

Originally posted by 613.5:

If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones.

From this, I took that both components of Humility - losing abilities in layer 6 and setting P/T in layer 7b - are parts of the same effect, and the same for Mishra's Factory's animation, in layers 4 and 7b. In 613.7b above, dependency is related from one “effect” to another, not from “parts of an effect” to another. So if any part of an effect is considered Dependent upon another effect, then every part of the first effect in every layer is Dependent upon that other.

Originally posted by 613.7b:

An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied.

Since Humility's effect is dependent upon the animation, and since all parts of Humility are the same effect, each part waits in its appropriate layer until after any parts of the animation effect in that layer have been applied. So the 2/2 for animation will always apply first, then the 1/1 from Humility, regardless of timestamp; even though that sublayer doesn't have a direct dependency conflict between the two.

Originally posted by 613.7c:

After each effect is applied, the order of remaining effects is reevaluated and may change if an effect that has not yet been applied becomes dependent on or independent of one or more other effects that have not yet been applied.

At this point lets say both animation activations have just resolved. After applying the earliest animation, we reevaluated, discovered that Humility was now relevant, making it dependent, and applied it. After applying Humility, we reevaluate again, and find no changes; so we'll move on to the remaining effect. We'll apply the animation to the Factory, and this time, applying the animation does not change the set of objects that any effect applies to, so no dependency exists. It'll be applied by timestamp, making the Factory a 2/2.


The main contest that was brought against my argument was from 613.7: “Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is sometimes done using a dependency system.” Their focus was on the “within a layer” part; since no direct conflict exists within one layer between Humility and the Workshop, there exists no dependency. I disagree with that both for the reason above when citing 613.7b, and because applying this logic would mean that two effects spanning multiple layers could, in each individual layer, apply in different orders depending on whether or not dependency in that layer overrides timestamp. Weaving those two effects between each other is confusing; it visually appears to not abide by the “if we begin to apply an effect, we apply all parts of it” rule, as some components of each effect will ‘sit on top’ while others from the same effect will be overriden. To me it is just as easy to interpret that rule as saying “sometimes the order of effects within a layer will be subject to dependency rules, rather than timestamp”, as opposed to saying "if a dependency exists in this layer, then this layer will be applied by dependency".

Edited Beau (Feb. 4, 2019 02:03:54 PM)

Originally posted by Matt Wall:

Both Humility and the animation of Mishra's Workshop apply (in part) in layer 7b. Applying the animation changes what Humility applies to (it was not applying to Factory, and now it is). So my reading of this, is that Humility is dependent upon the Animation, even though the hinge of the dependency, the “becomes a creature” in layer 4, doesn't oppose any part of Humility's effect in the same layer (since it has none).

This is where you're going wrong. Dependency only applies within a single layer or sublayer. If different parts of an effect need to be applied in different sublayers, dependency (or lack thereof) is determined separately for each of those layers.

As such, a Mishra's Factory that's animated while a Humility is already on the battlefield will be a 2/2 right from the start, because the animation effect will have a more recent timestamp and will therefore be applied last.

(This also means that a Celestial Colonnade animated while a Humility's out will have flying and vigilance, because the animation effect gives it those abilities after Humility has been applied to it–the same goes for other lands that grant themselves abilities with their animation effect.)

Edited Callum Milne (Feb. 5, 2019 06:58:49 PM)