Reverse Attack/Magic

[Sausageman]

Does Reverse Attack or Magic trigger another one if me and my opponent both have one enchanted to us?  I.e., if I melee attack the opposing mage and he flips and pays for a Reverse Attack, so I then flip my Reverse Attack, negating them both essentially?

[Gewar]

Both Reverse Attack and Reverse Magic work that way, that attacker/caster is targeting himself. So after reversing reversed action, he would still be forced to target himself.

In other words:
1. Warlock is making attack against Wizard. Wizard has Reverse Attack and he reveals it and pays it's cost.
2. Attacker (Warlock) is now attacking himself. He has Reverse Attack and he reveals it and pays it's cost.
3. Attacker (still Warlock) is now forced to attack himself.

As you can see, there is no sense to pay cost of Reverse Magic/Attack when you already has reversed action. You still have to reveal those enchantments and you will lose them.

[pixelgeek]

Does Reverse Attack or Magic trigger another one if me and my opponent both have one enchanted to us?  I.e., if I melee attack the opposing mage and he flips and pays for a Reverse Attack, so I then flip my Reverse Attack, negating them both essentially?

[strike]That is my understanding from reading the cards. In the case you specify the cards would both have to be revealed.[/strike] Wrong again. See below

[pixelgeek]

As you can see, there is no sense to pay cost of Reverse Magic/Attack when you already has reversed action. You still have to reveal those enchantments and you will lose them.

You are required to reveal the enchantments so I don't know why you wouldn't pay the 5 mana to get the spell or attack to target its original target again.

[Gewar]

As you can see, there is no sense to pay cost of Reverse Magic/Attack when you already has reversed action. You still have to reveal those enchantments and you will lose them.

You are required to reveal the enchantments so I don't know why you wouldn't pay the 5 mana to get the spell or attack to target its original target again.

Reverse Attack:

Redirect the attack back to the attacker, who now becomes the target of that attack

Reverse Attack changes target of an attack but no attacker. New target is attacker. Since attacker did not changed, next Reverse Attack will "change" target of an attack to the attacker - so there will be none change at all.

Reverse Magic:

Redirect it back to the caster, who now becomes the target of the spell.

Again - new target is the caster - since caster hasn't changed, next Reverse Magic won't have any effect.

[pixelgeek]

Showing the difference between controller and caster.

Thanks for the clarification

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

[Sausageman]

Wow.... *head explodes*

So, just to see if I have this correct, the second Reverse Attack/Magic which is enchanting the original attacker/caster will do nothing, regardless of whether the reveal cost is paid, because the attacker/caster never changes.  Is that right?

My head hurts....  

[Drealin]

Wow.... *head explodes*

So, just to see if I have this correct, the second Reverse Attack/Magic which is enchanting the original attacker/caster will do nothing, regardless of whether the reveal cost is paid, because the attacker/caster never changes.  Is that right?

My head hurts....  

Yes, that is right.  Reverse Attack never changes who the attacker is, only who will take damage.

A attacks B.
B reverses attack.
A attacks A.

Now that B is out of the picture, A can only attack A.