Anti magic field and wildshape

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. Now the answer to the question didn’t mention anything about the Druids wildshape being magical so I am wondering if the question was copy pasted by the team when making the compendium. What do you think?

The weird thing about this is that the 5e version of Wild Shape explicitly used the word "magical" to describe what it did, meaning that it would count as a magical effect under the 5.5e definition. All mentions of that word were removed in the 5.5e version of Wild Shape, which argues that it was an intentional change and not just an accident of wording. But I would agree that the Sage Advice thing does seem to just be copied and pasted from the 5e Sage Advice.

Conceptually, it seems (to me) incredibly obvious that it should count as a magical effect., and I'd probably rule it that way in practice even if that's not strictly correct according to the rules as written.

Ya it seems like it was definitely intentional, and I can see where you are coming from with the ruling but I also think that it almost be like a dragons breathe attack or something like that! Thank you for your input!

Quote from Colbyjack9 >>

After reviewing the rules and the sage advice compendium for 2024 I was pretty sure the ruling was set in stone. Wildshape can work in anti magic based off the rules presented. Sadly I became more confused when I scrolled down further and Druids wildshape was used as an example in one of the questions as a magical effect. Now the answer to the question didn’t mention anything about the Druids wildshape being magical so I am wondering if the question was copy pasted by the team when making the compendium. What do you think?

 I noticed the same thing while discussing what counts as a magical effect in the following thread (or here along with SmiteMakesRight_3_5's answers). Honestly, though, I admit it's debatable and every DM will probably have their own interpretation.

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Quote from Thezzaruz>>

Quote from TarodNet>>

EDIT: I don't know if the change between editions is intentional?

I'd have to guess that it is. They've streamlined the language to use defined concepts (except for "transformed" but I guess that's easy enough to understand) and followed how other effects that detect things work. It did change how a Changeling is affected but that seems OK to me (I too see it more as a biological change than a magical one). 

 Yeah, probably it is. I agree.

Quote from Thezzaruz >> 

The one change that is more interesting here IMO is that Wildshape lost its magical component so it too should no longer be found by Truesight or Detect Magic.

 I have to admit my interpretation is different here. The Druid class includes some references to magic when they transform into animals:

Druids belong to ancient orders that call on the forces of nature. Harnessing the magic of animals, plants, and the four elements, Druids heal, transform into animals, and wield elemental destruction.

Also, the next answer in the SAC, to me, says indirectly that Wild Shape is still a magical effect.

Can you use Dispel Magic to dispel a magical effect like a Druid’s Wild Shape?

Dispel Magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a magical effect that isn’t created by a spell unless the text says otherwise (though the DM can always make exceptions).

That said, I also admit it's open to debate.