2 questions about reverse attack

[barriecritzer]

1) What happens if player 1 attacks player 2 and player 2 reveals reverse attack, but player 1 also has reverse attack?

2) would attacks that target areas such at ring of fire set of reverse attack?

[ACG]

1) What happens if player 1 attacks player 2 and player 2 reveals reverse attack, but player 1 also has reverse attack?

I don't know if there has been a different ruling on this (the Rules supplement does not cover it), but based on the card's wording I would say that the attack is reversed again, back to the original target.

2) would attacks that target areas such at ring of fire set of reverse attack?

Yes, but Reverse Attack would be discarded without effect since all zone attacks are unavoidable..

[Lord0fWinter]

See this thread: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=6837.msg6957#msg6957

[Lord0fWinter]

1) What happens if player 1 attacks player 2 and player 2 reveals reverse attack, but player 1 also has reverse attack?

I don't know if there has been a different ruling on this (the Rules supplement does not cover it), but based on the card's wording I would say that the attack is reversed again, back to the original target.

2) would attacks that target areas such at ring of fire set of reverse attack?

Yes, but Reverse Attack would be discarded without effect since all zone attacks are unavoidable..

1 is actually incorrect. I had thought this too but there was a ruling about a year ago.

So the steps are

Original attack/spell from player A
Reverse Magic/Attack revealed by player B
Attack/Magic targets player A
Reverse Magic/Attack is forced to be revealed but can't actually work in this instance.

This is because the caster of the attack has not changed, only the target of the attack.

[Wildhorn]

1) What happens if player 1 attacks player 2 and player 2 reveals reverse attack, but player 1 also has reverse attack?

I don't know if there has been a different ruling on this (the Rules supplement does not cover it), but based on the card's wording I would say that the attack is reversed again, back to the original target.

2) would attacks that target areas such at ring of fire set of reverse attack?

Yes, but Reverse Attack would be discarded without effect since all zone attacks are unavoidable..

1 is actually incorrect. I had thought this too but there was a ruling about a year ago.

So the steps are

Original attack/spell from player A
Reverse Magic/Attack revealed by player B
Attack/Magic targets player A
Reverse Magic/Attack is forced to be revealed but can't actually work in this instance.

This is because the caster of the attack has not changed, only the target of the attack.

Are you sure player A is forced to reveal Reverse Attack? Since according to card text, he is the target of the attack only for steps 3 and 4, not step 2, which is where Reverse Attack must be revealed...

[Zuberi]

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)

I'm not sure why I do this. Maybe I get bored with cut and dry rules. Whatever the reason I would like to point out that the FAQ has updated the wording on Reverse Attack which now makes the issue more ambiguous. It now differentiates the source of the attack from the attacker, so while the attacker does not change, the source does. And the change of who is the target and who is the source depends on who is the "original" source.

Now, the word original could mean two different, equally valid, things. It could refer to who initiated the attack, in which case a second reverse attack would definitely not have any effect and the prior ruling remains valid. Or it could refer to who was the source before (this) reverse attack changes it, in which case you could send it back to the previous target.

Since the old ruling could still be valid I would recommend abiding by it. I just wanted to point out that changes made could cause a different interpretation, but unless they make it clear that their position was intended to change we should assume it hasn't.

[Zuberi]

I had not considered that, Wildhorn. Reading over things though, that does make the most sense to me too. By the letter of the rules and the card text, the target does only change for steps 3 and 4 of combat, which would prevent any other reverse attacks from occurring. This would also prevent any other defenses from occurring as well though. Since the original attacker doesn't become the defender until after step 2 he would not get any chances to avoid the attack.

This makes perfect sense to me from a literal reading, but I'm not certain it was intended this way. Again, since we have an official ruling on it from an Arcane Wonders employee, we should abide that ruling unless it is officially changed. However I will be researching this a little more myself because it does seem a bit odd.

[Shad0w]

I have not heard of any change.

[jacksmack]

Since the original attacker doesn't become the defender until after step 2 he would not get any chances to avoid the attack.

Why is that?

I've been struggling to understand this for a while.

[webcatcher]

I've always understood reverse attack to work as wildhorn explained it. Isn't that the same mechanic that allows reverse attack to bypass a forcemaster's forcefield?

[jacksmack]

I've always understood reverse attack to work as wildhorn explained it. Isn't that the same mechanic that allows reverse attack to bypass a forcemaster's forcefield?

the forcefield thing makes sense because reverse attack takes place after Force field had to be used.

[webcatcher]

Right.  Wouldn't it have the same effect on reverse attack? Step 1, I declare an attack against you. Step 2, you reveal reverse attack. Now step 2 is over, so we move on to step 3, which means I won't be able to reveal a counter reverse attack.

[barriecritzer]

so would the original attacker not have to reveal his reverse attack then?

[Zuberi]

Okay, after combing through things, I do think Wildhorn is correct. It does say specifically that the target only changes for steps 3 and 4, which would prevent the creature which is hitting himself from using any defenses to avoid it because those occur in step 2.

I don't want to go against an official response...but I think I'm going to. Looking at the thread from a year ago, Pixelgeek started with a different position and then switched to agree with Gewar. I think this may be more saying "that makes sense" than it is "that is correct." Pixelgeek has demonstrated they are brilliant with website design and awesome about implementing fan suggestions, but he is not someone who often handles the rules of Mage Wars nor did he mention consulting with anyone before he changed his opinion. Therefore I'm going to ignore that post.

With that post out of the picture, the effect of the card seems quite clear even though I had never stopped to consider it. Yet another reason it should be feared.