Mage Ward

[Charmyna]

Title is wrong! I meant Armor Ward!

Lets say you are Mage A and got a revealed Armor Ward on you and the opponent (Mage B) uses Purge Magic on your mage. To prevent loosing the Armor Ward, you reveal Enchantment Transfusion and move it to the opponents Mage (its the only legal Target besides your Mage). Now for whatever reason before you are able to move the Armor Ward back to your Mage you need to dissolve one of his equip (for example his Mage Wand with Purge Magic). Do you have to pay the extra four mana or not?
The text on the card reads:

"When an equipment object attached to this Mage would be destroyed by a spell or ability an opponent controls, prevent that destruction unless that opponent pays 4 mana."

The question is: Who is the opponent described by the text?
- Is it Mage B, since you are the owner of the card and he is your opponent regardless whether or not the enchant is on his Mage?
- Or is it Mage A (your mage) because he is the opponent of the creature the ward is attached to?

[tarkin84]

I guess your opponent is always your opponent and you'll not need to pay the extra mana to destroy the equipment because your Dissolve is not a spell or ability controlled by an opponent.

[Charmyna]

I guess your opponent is always your opponent and you'll not need to pay the extra mana to destroy the equipment because your Dissolve is not a spell or ability controlled by an opponent.

Thats my initial guess too.

[wtcannonjr]

Title is wrong! I meant Armor Ward!

Lets say you are Mage A and got a revealed Armor Ward on you and the opponent (Mage B) uses Purge Magic on your mage. To prevent loosing the Armor Ward, you reveal Enchantment Transfusion and move it to the opponents Mage (its the only legal Target besides your Mage). Now for whatever reason before you are able to move the Armor Ward back to your Mage you need to dissolve one of his equip (for example his Mage Wand with Purge Magic). Do you have to pay the extra four mana or not?
The text on the card reads:

"When an equipment object attached to this Mage would be destroyed by a spell or ability an opponent controls, prevent that destruction unless that opponent pays 4 mana."

The question is: Who is the opponent described by the text?
- Is it Mage B, since you are the owner of the card and he is your opponent regardless whether or not the enchant is on his Mage?
- Or is it Mage A (your mage) because he is the opponent of the creature the ward is attached to?

I believe the intent is for the second option.

Since the enchantment only targets mages, the reference to 'opponent' is based on the current mage the enchantment is attached to. Otherwise, the enchantment could switch back and forth between having a game effect and not having a game effect which feels counter intuitive to how magic operates in the game.

[Zuberi]

The question is does the spell text refer to the opponent of the enchantment or to the opponent of the creature being enchanted. I am having trouble thinking of or finding a specific precedent to point you towards, but I am pretty sure the text of any card is read in reference to the card itself unless it specifies otherwise. Thus I would say it is talking about the opponent of the enchantment. Since you still control the enchantment you would not have to pay the extra mana.

[Zuberi]

I believe the intent is for the second option.

Since the enchantment only targets mages, the reference to 'opponent' is based on the current mage the enchantment is attached to. Otherwise, the enchantment could switch back and forth between having a game effect and not having a game effect which feels counter intuitive to how magic operates in the game.

The enchantment would still have an effect. It would increase the cost if your opponent tried to destroy any equipment attached to his own mage. Currently this is not a move anyone would really wish to do anyways, but they have discussed releasing cursed equipment in the future.