TL;DR

Removal that resolves into a comprehensive-rules pop quiz: the eligibility check turns on the distinction between keywords, ability words, and keyword actions, the exact taxonomy players are trained to skim. A vanilla creature survives. A creature that only flies and has protection survives, because those are keywords. But scry is a keyword action, not a keyword, so a scry trigger flips the switch; landfall is an ability word, so it counts too. The condition ("any abilities other than keywords") is a genuine puzzle wearing a removal spell's clothes, and the answer set is real and knowable: you can look at any creature and correctly determine whether this exiles it, provided you have internalized the difference between "flying" and "landfall" that the game normally lets you paper over. The parenthetical is the whole gag, litigating the boundary that no rules editor would ever stake a card on, then daring you to have read rule 702 closely enough to adjudicate it at the table. What keeps it sharper than a pure gotcha is that it rewards the fine-print reading its own name mocks you for skipping. In the lineage of un-adjacent cards that make the rulebook the punchline while staying technically functional, the text is legal, the interactions resolve cleanly, and the humor sits entirely in the fact that casting it correctly demands trivia the game otherwise buries.