Decoy: Confirmation of Use

[Mgrancey]

Just to double check, since sometimes I am looking at the rules wrong. The Decoy when destroyed by either the controller revealing it or a Seeking Dispel used against it gives back the 2 mana used to create it?

Secondly, you can reveal enchantments at anytime, so long as it isn't interrupting an action or event, such as between "Cast Spell" and "Counter Spell" actions, making them a method to store mana as well?

[piousflea]

Looking at the text of Decoy, it refunds mana "when destroyed", not when revealed, so it seems like you should still get your 2 mana back even if it's not revealed.

That said, on a related topic: What happens when you Reflect a Decoy?

Reverse Magic: When this creature is targeted by an incantation/enchantment controlled by an opponent, you MUST reveal Reverse Magic during the Counter Spell step. You take control of that spell. Redirect it back to the caster, who now becomes the target of the spell. If the spell cannot target the caster, it is countered. Then, destroy Reverse Magic.

It sounds to me like if you Reverse Magic a Decoy, you become the controller of Decoy. Therefore you can immediately Reveal decoy to gain 2 mana. It's still a net 3 mana loss (because Reverse costs 5 to reveal) but a little bit better than if you didn't get the Decoy mana. Is this correct?

[Arcanus]

You are correct on both counts sir.

The decoy was designed to encourage players to bluff, by making it very affordable. Because you get your mana back when destroyed (not just from revealing) the only cost is putting it in your spellbook and the quick spell casting action.  If you can prevent the Warlock from attacking you with Fireballs because he thinks you have "reverse attack" on yourself, it is well worth the cost. You could use it to store mana as well, although the coming mana battery will be much more effective for that!

[piousflea]

It almost feels like the Decoy is more useful for getting rid of Nullify and Reverse Magic than it is for bluffing. (although it is good for that too)

After seeing some devastating reverse magics in play, I am sometimes afraid to cast a strong Enchantment or Incantation at an enemy player (with a face-down enchant) without first throwing a Decoy at him.

One interesting twist - if you are pretty confident that the enemy player just threw a face-down Decoy on you (for example, he Huginns your reverse magic and immediately throws an enchant at it), it is a perfectly legal move to reveal Reverse Magic and then refuse to pay the 5 mana cost (destroying Reverse Magic without effect). That saves you 3 mana!

Of course, you shouldn't do that too often, because then your opponent could Huginn your Reverse Magic, act like he's throwing a Decoy at it, but actually it's a Poisoned Blood. (heh, heh)

[SeanDeCoy]

I play a big creature pet spellbook, so my Beastmaster is constantly putting nullify, reverse attack, block, and reverse magic on his pet (usually a Steelclaw Grizzly or Highland Unicorn).

Occasionally, when all of those resources have been used up, I'll throw down a decoy, making my opponent think that I'm just putting another one of my buffs on it and making him reluctant to attack.

I think Decoy is best used (like any other bluff), when you can set up your opponents expectations. If you put a hellfire trap in two zones and they both go off. Then next time, you can just play a decoy and a hellfire trap, you've conditioned your opponent to believe that both of them must be hellfire traps.

After that, once it's revealed that one of them was a decoy - he'll be more likely to walk into zones with facedown enchantments (afterall, he's thinking, some of them are probably decoys), that's when you can double down with two more hellfire traps. Etc, etc.

[Mgrancey]

My next question would be about the Enchanter's Ring than, which makes enchantments on friendly targets (book is not handy at moment) cost 1 mana less. If I put a Decoy on a friendly, when is the cost reduction paid, initial cast or reveal (like the Arcane Ring)? Which was a question I had about Enchanter's Ring in general is when do you get the lesser cost: Initial cast, reveal, or doubtfully both.

[Rumsey]

It only reduces the cost to cast the spell, not to reveal it.  Basically makes every hidden enchantment that the mage casts cost only 1.  Reveal cost gets no discount.

[knutenez]

It almost feels like the Decoy is more useful for getting rid of Nullify and Reverse Magic than it is for bluffing. (although it is good for that too)

After seeing some devastating reverse magics in play, I am sometimes afraid to cast a strong Enchantment or Incantation at an enemy player (with a face-down enchant) without first throwing a Decoy at him.

I just want to confirm this because I understood it differently.  Do reverse magic and nullify have to be revealed with the casting of an enchantment, or is it at the revealing of the enchantment. I assumed it is at the revealing, because on pg. 22 in the rulebook it says "Important: Hidden Enchantments have no effect as long as they are hidden!" If decoy has no effect when it is revealed, then does it affect a nullify or reverse magic?

[knutenez]

Sorry for bumping this post up. I just found the answer in the "rules clarification..." category under a discussion about nullify. Piousflea has it right. Now I'm thinking it's time to make room for some decoys in my books.