Obscure and Reverse

[ininalia]

Hello again,

got a new Question I´m not sure about.

I play a Mage with Cloak of Shadows equipped and Cast an Spell or Attack with Range 2, like Fireball or Dispel, on the enemy Mage, that stays 2 Zones away from me.
He got an Reverse Attack/Magic on himself.

Can he redirect it back to my Mage?
I would say no for Reverse Magic because it states that if it can´t target the Caster its countered.
And in symmetry to that I would guess the same for Reverse Attack.

Thanks for the respones on my last Questions btw.

[ringkichard]

tl;dr: He can redirect it back to your mage.

Reverse Attack is kinda funny in how it works.

When this creature is attacked, you must reveal Reverse Attack during the Avoid Attack Step. The Attack is avoided and then redirected back; this creature becomes the new source (although the attacker stays the same), and the original source becomes the new target (even if the original source would not normally be a legal target), for the next 2 steps (Roll Dice and Damage and Effects).

They key is that the original source becomes the new target even if it would not normally be legal. Reverse Attack makes the attacker attack itself, and ignore targeting restrictions. 

Obscured, granted by Cloak of Shadows, says

Obscured (Object Trait) This object is difficult to see. It cannot be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.). Any enchantments or equipment attached to the object also gain the Obscured trait, but attached conjurations do not.

Cloak would normally prevent the attack from targeting from more than one zone away, but Reverse Attack doesn't care about that. The attacker is attacking itself at range 0, (even, though, technically, the source of the attack is at range 2) and in any case, Reverse Attack ignores targeting restrictions.

There's one famous example where Reverse Attack works even though the attacker is behind a wall and using Archer's Watchtower. Reverse Attack just doesn't care.

[Zuberi]

The attacker is attacking itself at range 0, (even, though, technically, the source of the attack is at range 2) and in any case, Reverse Attack ignores targeting restrictions.

Ringkichard is absolutely correct on Reverse Attack. It does still function because of the wording in the FAQ that says: "the original source becomes the new target (even if the original source would not normally be a legal target)." I just have 2 points that I wish to add.

1) Just to clarify Ringkichards statements, the attack is NOT considered to be at range 0. The attacker is still the attacker and is hitting himself, but the source of the attack has changed for purposes of counting range. This matters with attacks such as Grimson Deadeye's where range affects the nature of the attack. The range is not effected by the cloak though, because of that line in Reverse Attack that specifies it overcomes targeting restrictions.

2) Reverse Magic is a little more vague on whether or not it overcomes targeting restrictions. It states:

When this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell controlled by an opponent, you must reveal Reverse Magic during the Counter Spell Step. Redirect it back to the caster, who now becomes the target of the spell. You become the caster of that spell, and now control that spell, and may reselect any other choices the spell requires you to make. Recalculate the total mana cost of the spell; if the new cost is higher than the original cost, you must pay the difference. Then destroy Reverse Magic.

I believe it would still overcome the cloak, but I could see it argued the other way.

Note) Reverse Magic never works on Dispel because Dispel targets the enchantment and not the creature.

[Shad0w]

Nice work