2 rise again

[sdougla2]

But playing the second one (assuming that the first one is face down and controlled by the opponent) is not illegal.

Duplicate Enchantments

When an enchantment is revealed, if it is attached to an object or zone which already has a revealed enchantment with the same name attached to that same object or zone, the newly revealed enchantment is immediately discarded without effect. 

Players cannot cast an enchantment which targets a zone or object if there is either (a) a friendly hidden enchantment with the same name attached to that zone or object, or (b) a revealed enchantment with the same name (friendly or enemy) attached to that zone or object. Note that it is possible to attach a duplicate enchantment to the same zone or object as an opponent’s hidden enchantment. 

This would be unintentional or accidental, because you will not know that the duplication exists. Later, if the enemy hidden enchantment is revealed, you will realize that you have attached a duplicate enchantment to the same object.  When this occurs, you may leave the duplicate enchantment in play as a hidden enchantment. If you later reveal that enchantment while the duplicate is still attached, you will have to destroy and discard the newer copy which you just revealed without it having any effect.   

When you reveal an enchantment, you only discard it without effect if there is another revealed enchantment of the same name attached to that zone or object. A hidden enchantment of the same name does not cause you to discard the newly revealed enchantment.

The wording in the new FAQ does not indicate to me that order matters. I can see how it could hint at such an interpretation, but it certainly doesn't explicitly change the rules for the order of revealing enchantments, so I see no reason not to use the standard enchantment reveal order rules. As such, I agree with Zuberi and sIKE.

It qualifies the order with if the opponent reveals their hidden enchantment, you cannot reveal yours until the revealed enchantment is gone (or you'll have to discard your enchantment without effect). It says the newer enchantment, but in that context newer could refer to either enchantment 1 or enchantment 2, so long as the other enchantment was revealed (not played) first. Even if newer was meant to indicate the enchantment played first, there is no reason to believe that the situation would not be symmetric if the second enchantment played was revealed first, and again, it does not explicitly change the rules for the order of revealing enchantments.

[Shad0w]

The reason play order matters is due the the duplicate attached object rule. Because the second one played would have been illegal.

With Enchantments play order does not matter, and since the FAQ ruling that it is legal for opposing mages to place the same Hidden Enchantment on creature, we then have to work off of the initiative rule for Enchantments.

good to hear only been asking for it to be that way since beta. Did not know if it had made it into the FAQ yet.Thanks for the heads up

[Laddinfance]

As Shadow said, this rule had been changed a couple times in testing. I'm very sorry that an archaic interpretation confused what should otherwise be a simple issue.

[ringkichard]

I actually want to modify my rules interpretation. Taking a closer look at Rise Again, I see that it is not a Mandatory Enchantment that gets revealed upon the destruction of the creature (the reveal cost is not red). Therefore, you actually have to reveal it before the creature gets destroyed, and it remains attached to that creature. If you were to wait till after the creature was destroyed, you would be too late. Once the creature is destroyed, the enchantment gets destroyed as well and so it can not be revealed. And you can not interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment, so you can't reveal while the creature is being destroyed either.

Thus, what would happen is you must choose to reveal your enchantment before the creature takes lethal damage (such as after Step 3: Roll Dice during an attack). Whomever reveals first has the legal attachment and the other Rise Again can not be revealed per the Duplicate Enchantment rules in the FAQ on page 8. In the case of both players wishing to reveal simultaneously, the person with initiative decides. The creature then gets destroyed by damage and reanimates under the appropriate persons control, while the unrevealed duplicate Rise Again is destroyed without ever revealing or having any effect.

I'm quoting this because it's so good.

[jacksmack]

Then i have 1 more question.

How excately does the revealing take place.

Opponent has initiative.
You decide to reveal after opponent declares attack because you think he MIGHT have a Rise Again AND he MIGHT kill your creature.

Must you then:

A)
Ask him: Do you wish to reveal?
(such a leading question -_-)

B)
Say: I want to reveal, do you want to reveal first?
(another leading question)

C)
Just reveal after X time where he had the chance to do it?

[lettucemode]

I would say B, and his decision would have to be made before you reveal yours. If he decided to reveal his too, you would still have to reveal yours, which would then be destroyed per the above discussion.

[jacksmack]

I would say B, and his decision would have to be made before you reveal yours. If he decided to reveal his too, you would still have to reveal yours, which would then be destroyed per the above discussion.

thats riddicilous. I really hope i am not forced to reveal in this case.

[lettucemode]

I would say B, and his decision would have to be made before you reveal yours. If he decided to reveal his too, you would still have to reveal yours, which would then be destroyed per the above discussion.

thats riddicilous. I really hope i am not forced to reveal in this case.

Why is it ridiculous? You are both revealing at the same time (just after Declare Attack, before Avoid Attack). Since he has initiative, once you've both decided to reveal, he gets to pick which one resolves first.

I think it'd be ridiculous that if you were able to say "actually, I take it back" once you've seen what his enchantment is. You already made the decision to reveal...

[ringkichard]

I don't think the rules cover this scenario specifically. This is the kind of tournament level grit that needs to be in a system reference document, but is way to baroque for the general rulebook. Maybe as an appendix to the FAQ.

The way Magic the Gathering would have handled it is that you'd say, "Wait. I'd like to do something after those dice are rolled." At that point it'd be up to your opponent to say, "I have initiative, I'm doing something first." instead of saying, "Okay, go ahead." After your opponent did something, you'd then be free to pass.

When I have time I'll look to see what the Mage Wars rules actually say about this.

[jacksmack]

I refuse to believe its like you suggested lettuce.

Must i also specify the exact enchantment i want to reveal?

In theory i could have agony on the attacker, but mby i wanted my creature to die for it to be resummoned, but now that i see my opponent with initiative revealing his Rise Again then i rather reveal agony to let me creature live another round... dispell his rise and reveal my own.

[lettucemode]

I refuse to believe its like you suggested lettuce.

Ok.

[ringkichard]

Ok, I had some time. 

If both players want to reveal an enchantment at the same time, the player with the initiative goes first. He may reveal as many enchantments as he wants, one at a time, resolving each one before revealing the next. When he is finished, then the other player may reveal any enchantments, revealing and resolving them one at a time. Then the first player can reveal again, and so on. Each enchantment is resolved as soon as it is revealed.

The FAQ doesn't seem to have anything relevant to say on this, so judging by the above, it's a "I get exclusive priority till I pass" system. If you're to the point where you're revealing the enchantment, your opponent can't interrupt, but you need to signal your intention to act before you start revealing, and if your opponent has initiative, he or she can act before you do, and keep acting before you do, until they run out of enchantments to reveal.

Is this reasonable?

[ringkichard]

In the absence of a direct ruling, I think the procedure I suggested above would be kosher and competitive.

I should note, there is at least 1 loophole to this that will get your Rise Again revealed despite your opponent having priority, even if he or she intends to box you out the moment you say "wait". If you cast and then immediately reveal, the rules don't allow your opponent to reveal an enchantment at that time, but you're free to reveal the Rise Again. He or she could reveal during the casting of the enchantment, but if that was the plan, he or she would have done it by now.

[Zuberi]

How excately does the revealing take place.

As ringkichard stated, this is not really something covered by the rules. It's more an etiquette question than a rules question if you ask me.

I personally play it similar to ringkichard. If I want to reveal an enchantment I'll declare my intention to my opponent, such as "Wait, before you continue I would like to reveal this enchantment." It is then up to my opponent to state an intention to also reveal an enchantment. If they fail to do so before I have revealed mine, then it is too late for them to do so.

Now if you use this method, courtesy dictates that you do give your opponent time to respond. You don't just go "Aha!" as you flip over the enchantment. But again, it is entirely an etiquette thing that you have to work out individually with your group. Some people may be more comfortable asking their opponent if they would like to respond rather than risking hurt feelings from people who don't think you gave them ample opportunity to respond.

Whatever method of common decency you decide to personally abide by, however, I do not believe you would ever be required to reveal if your opponent beat you to it. The rules on pages 18 and 19 of the Rulebook v2.0 clearly make use of the word "may." Basically what happens, is you both declare a desire to reveal an enchantment. The person with initiative gets the first opportunity to actually act upon that desire and reveal their enchantment. They are not required to. Then the other person gets the opportunity to act upon their desire and reveal. If the actions of your opponent has made your desired action no longer beneficial, you can certainly change your mind and decide not to perform it.

[ringkichard]

There's a similar issue with revealing Force Hold when your opponent tries to move a creature. Your last chance is after the creature is activated but before the creature starts move.

 In that circumstance, I find that the word "Wait" does wonders, but you do have to be paying attention to what your opponent is doing. You want to pronounce that sylable reasonably close to when they flip the action marker.