Yes, Reverse Attack redirects it back to you (the attacker)....  There's no 2nd attack on another creature.

Tacullu64 is correct, so yes, you could do that if you had the mana handy.

You're right, it doesn't say they are both destroyed, only the one that is revealed.

If an identical enchantment is revealed, it is immediately destroyed.
You put a Poison Blood on yourself, and keep it facedown.
Then your opponent puts one on you and reveals it.
If you were to then reveal your Poison Blood, yours would be the one that gets destroyed, because its the identical enchantment being revealed.

However, "each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments."
Which would seem to indicate that the second one should technically be destroyed as soon as it is attached, but can't happen as you don't know what the other person played.

Which means that short of a third party always checking what enchantments are being played, what DarthDadaD20 said is the only way to make the rule work in reality.
This of course would also mean that your tactic won't work.  Even though technically it should, as that is how it would work if you were to play both of them yourself.

The wand is made up of the various elements, that is why it is an Elemental wand, not because of what it can do.... :dry:  right?

Drealin! Will your  ascendancy over me ever cease?!?! Your right,What I meant to say was on the same zone. i.e Caltrops.

Lol, I wasn't trying to be rude, just avoid an almost duplicate question later

Consider these sentences:
My mage heals one point of damage. Result, the mage removes one damages.
My building get repaired by one point of damage. Result, one damage will be removed from te building.

If there would ever be a monk who can meditate: e.g. "When meditating, remove three damage counters." How will Finite Life apply in this case? The monk is restoring, but since he is removing damaging he is not healing himselve.

Consider this:
A pipe is clogged so a plumber uses a plumber's snake to clear it.  Result, clog is cleared.
A piece of food is lodged in your throat.  Do you really want a plumber to remove it with a plumber's snake?  No, you want someone to use the Heimlich on you to remove it.

The method you use to do something is at least as, if not more so, important than the net outcome.
While the same thing could be used in similar situations, it won't always provide the same outcome.

If you cast an equipment spell for a location that is already full, the original equipment is returned to the owner’s spellbook. So yes, although, it would be less mana to just pay the spellbind cost.(I cant think of any other reason to do this but to change the spell....Unless we get a new enchantment card that makes an equipment start to do damage to its controller....like "curse equipment" or "molten equipment".

You could have a Battleforge cast the wand, and therefore not use an extra action to switch out the bound spell.

You are not the only one to come up with the idea of a Ninja/Assassin, but that sounds awesome to me! I know in most games I play (especially fantasy games) I always choose the stealthy character build. They could do something like you get a detection marker, with one side that has "hidden" and another that has "detected" to keep track of whether you are hidden or not. Perhaps you could even have something like a Defense but for detection. For example, say you have a Sneak "Defense" of 7+. This would mean the target you are sneaking up on would have to roll a 7 or higher to detect you. Otherwise, you get to do extra damage or something. If something like that happened, I would be stoked!

In the new Forcemaster vs Warlord expansion there is the Invisible Stalker, a creature with the new Invisible trait.  It gets an Invisible marker with two sides, one side it is Invisible and the other side it isn't.