Your Gen Con 2018 would like to welcome the newest member of our team: Puddnhead!!!

Haha, thanks Grizzly! Definitely looking forward to it!

The spell has to resolve in order to trigger those effects. So, no, it doesn't work. Romeo is just explaining why it doesn't work.

I would take the Academy Forcemaster's ability over my Deflect as an Arena FM any day.

I see a nature mage trying to be a dark mage.

Granted, I'm no dark mage expert or anything, but it looks like your Straywood made a pact with the devil and turned his bears into vampires.  Where's the Magebane or the Ghoul Rot?  Drain Life?  Chains of Agony for the blokes trying to run away from your uber-vampires? I'd swap the Hellstar for a Lash of Fire to synergize better with your Fireshaper Ring.

Forbidding enchantment reveal obviously is obviously out of the question. Curse lock already is pretty weak and that would make him downright unplayable.

For what it's worth, you can't gain the effect of enchantments revealed during upkeep right now as it is unless it's part of an attack sequence.  DoT must be revealed before the beginning of the upkeep, same with Regen.

What I'm saying with my change proposal is that all the effects that will affect each object during the upkeep go into a pool at the beginning of the upkeep.  If those effects have a cost, that cost must get paid BEFORE they go into the pool and I would propose to fix dissipate to be removed at the end of all effect resolutions hence:

1) Pay costs
2) resolve effects
3) remove dissipates.

The problem is that introduces steps into the upkeep phase which allows for crazy enchantment reveal timings.  THIS is why I say "no enchantment reveals during upkeep".  Another way of putting it would be "effects which were not in effect before the beginning of the upkeep do not get added to the pool of effects to resolve".

I think that this is a false problem, at least when it comes to upkeep, as the rulebook has simple and straightforward rules.  First, effects always occur in Initiative Order.  Second, players always decide the order of the effects on their objects unless there is a timing conflict between the effects of objects controlled by the player with the Initiative and the effects of objects controlled by the player without the Initiative.  Third, since effects always occur in Initiative Order, the player with Initiative decides the order when a timing conflict exists.

I'm in the camp that thinks the other guy shouldn't be able to decide whether MY creature regens or takes damage first.  The "Initiative Decides" rule causes so many pauses and hiccups between players on what triggers when and who decides stuff and is, ultimately, a capital 'S' Stupid rule.

The Fact that I can lose a dissipate off of something just by playing it on the wrong initiative is a PROBLEM.

Deathlink, Whirlpool, Lullaby are all significantly affected by this timing issue thing.  That's really what needs to be cleaned up.  It may have been fine in the original core set, but there's been too much bloat that hasn't had a robust follow-up with rules changes.

Movement got a significant change in the 4th edition update to solve some movement interaction issues.  I think Upkeep should have the same--a breakdown into steps.  I also think that it's more than a little important to restrict enchantment reveals during upkeep otherwise you create even more problems.

The solution I propose for "the initiative problem" keeps the control of your stuff in your hands:

New Upkeep Phase:
1) Pay all costs.
     This includes life (sardonyx), Seal tokens (need reword), Upkeep +X
2) Trigger all effects
     All of the triggered effects go on a "stack" per creature. At this time your Deathlink triggers 2 damage on an enemy creature and 2 healing on your mage, you whirlpool triggers damage and your pillar triggers an attack. Here we follow the rule that all effects triggered on your own creatures are resolved in whatever order you choose
3) Remove Dissipates
     This is when Pillar, lullaby, madrigal, etc are destroyed.

Enchantments may not be revealed during upkeep. (EXCEPTION: if an attack occurs during the upkeep then only enchantments that affect that particular attack sequence may be revealed)

Replying in honesty as well

The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.

In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.

By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature.  Seems pretty similar.  The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature.  The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.

Immunity is an interesting puzzle to solve in current Mage Wars.  Other simplifications I'd be in favor of are conditions and targeting.