i agree i dont think magic classification fit too well. since a well built book can and will be a little bit of everything.

i think books are better classified by their strategy.

i also think opening plays are even more valuable to examine then the books themselves. for example we have aggro openings, attrition openings, and things in between.

They do work that way, yes.  You are understanding the Novice spell concept perfectly correct.

actually novice doesn't work the same way as i am suggesting.

Novice
Basic apprentice spells. All mages may add Novice spells to their spellbooks
for 1 Spell Point, even if they are not trained in that spell’s school of magic.

pulled directly from the rulebook. this means any spell irregardless of level or school that is tagged with the novice keyword will cost you 1 point. that's not what i am ask for. im ask for a keyword that makes a spell be considered in school.

Jim, what has been your experience with opening a turn 2 grizzly? What kind of responses have you seen from your opponent? I feel like there are some really strong spells for relatively cheap that quickly stop single-badasses like the Grizzly? Not being critical, just curious.

As for the 2 mana flower opener, Koz - I think you may be right about versatility, and I've run out of reasons for liking mine better so I'm changing it.

I'm now thinking my opener looks like this:

19-00 Turn 01
14-00 Mana Flower
09-00 Mana Flower

20-00 Turn 02
05-00 Lair
01-00 Harmonize

12-03 Turn 03
03-00 Timber Wolf (Pet)
01-00 Enchantment
01-00 (None - Fast Cast)

I still end up with the same amount of mana, and a timber wolf as a pet (which I love, so strong - compare the power of him versus Red Claw based on mana). Then, on turn three instead of doing the nullify on turn two I have the opportunity to make a decision on what kind of enchantment I'd like depending on what my opponent is doing. Great!

ran this opener last night. worked wonderfully. had a warlock try to get up in my face turn 2. dropped the pet wolf on turn 3 and he spent the rest of the game unsuccessfully trying to get away from the both of us. i spent post turn 3 casting 1 equipment then melee attacking. on turn 3 i cast gauntlet's of strength instead of the enchantment. was a really awesome psuedo-solo opening.

hmm. good question. the binding action is called a quick spell. really hard to call as how mage wars works abilities on cards is a gray area.

my initial thought is jinx would block the bind, but not return the spell.

100% correct see what I get for making a quick post at work

If you would like the full rules write up I can do it but most people ask for the short answer.  Been asked to try to keep thing a bit easier to read than my normal rules wall of text

i would love to know the full deal on this. as to me it seems like jinx should be returning the spell to the book. at best we have two effects overriding normal behavior. the wand prevents the spell from being discarded, and jinx returns it to the book. when two effects try to override the same event usually the newer one takes precedence.

reading jinx and mage wand leads me to believe the spell should go back to the book.

a) neither wand nor spellbind says anything about a copy of the bound spell. it specifically states you my cast the spell bound to it.

b) jinx literally states in the card effect that the spell needs to be returned to the book. this overrides normal behavior. IE normally the spell would go to the discard. in the wands case it normal just stays on the wand. jinx overrides this normal behavior

c) i see no reason to not allow this utility in jinx

d) i see no reason that a quick action + 3 mana could not be done to simply reapply the spell to an empty wand.

Are you sure about that last part pixel. That doesn't seem right. Reverse magic simple appears to be changing the target of the effect. If you are supposed to be considered the caster I would think the wording would be similar to shift enchantments. If this proved true then you would have a rather odd situation where a priestess reversing a holy spell would gain life. That doesn't seem right.

don't take these as official rulings or anything, but from off the top of my head i would guess the following.

- Do you controll that enchantment after it's resolution? Can you reveal it and do you pay it's upkeep cost?

the effect says you take control period. if it meant until the end of the effect or round it would say so. since you control it you can reveal and pay for it as normal.

- Are you allowed to see, what enchantment you are reversing?

at the point of the effect you take control of the spell you can look at what it is. you are allowed to look at unrevealed enchantments you control at anytime you want.

- Who is considered the caster of this spell - owner of Reverse Magic or creature it was attached to?

the caster doesn't change as part of this effect only the controller. so in this regard it would be similar to casting the enchantment on him/herself.