Explode vs. Reverse Attack?

[Kalidor2000]

Hello!

So, I love the wording you guys use for your cards...they truly do help with the majority of the ambiguities.  

Take Explode, for instance.  It specifically says that Explode makes the attack.  So that clears up a butt-load of potential discrepancies right there.

My question, or perhaps clarification, really, is in regards to how Explode (and any card that wont be staying in play that might state that it's the source of the attack)  interacts with the Reverses...

Reverse Attack says the next attack changes the target to the source of said attack (paraphrasing, obviously).  So...is my Reverse, in effect, wasted?  Was I outsmarted again by my opponent??  Lol!

I obviously cannot "attack" the Explode card...so is my Reverse revealed (and I would simply choose not to spend the 5 mana) and discarded, without effect?
Or is this an exception to the reveal rule and I can save it for a logical card to "attack"?

I think I know...just want to be certain!

Simply terrific game...please get us more soon!!!     Hehe.        

[Kalidor2000]

No takers, huh?

I'm patient...  

[SeanDeCoy]

This is an awesome question.

The way it works, I believe, would be that the attack on the Explode would set off the Reverse Attack. However, the Explode's attack is Unavoidable - so the Reverse Attack would be discarded.

[Kalidor2000]

I was afraid of that...

Thanks though!    :lol:

[Drealin]

Yes, the unavoidable trait helps to clear up a lot of possible confusion with unique cards like Explode, and zone attacks.  Any time there's a question about whether or not Block or Reverse Attack will work, the attack usually(always?) has the Unavoidable trait.