2 rise again

[Tim]

Another question:

What would happen if there's a face down rise again on a creature that I control and my opponent also enchant it with a rise again of there own. They both are revealed if the creature is destroyed.
Who get to reanimate the creature? How is this determent?

Grtz

[sIKE]

The person with Initiative would get to reveal theirs first and the other would be discarded.

[Tesmara]

I'm not sure that you would take control over the creature if you use Rise Again on a opponent creature.
Animate Dead says any discard pile and summon in to your zone. Like it's yours.

Rise Again Just says that you can pay have the cost to Reanimate it.
So I do not think it changes ownership no matter who uses Rise Again on it

[jacksmack]

codex for reanimate:

Reanimate (Effect)
This creature reanimates upon death. If this creature is destroyed, it is moved from the discard pile to the zone it was just destroyed in, and placed face down in that zone, with a face-down action marker on it.
This creature is considered temporarily out of play. At the end of the round, the creature card is flipped face up and is Summoned into play. Reanimate does not occur if the creature is removed from the game when it is destroyed. See “Obliterate.”

[Laddinfance]

When you rise again something you become the controller of that "risen" creature.

As for two rise agains in conflict, I would actually think the older enchantment would be the one that goes through. Now keep in mind I'm not making a ruling here, just speaking out loud. The order enchantments play is important, and technically the second rise again should not be able to be played on the creature. I would think you'd check the oldest enchantment first to see if they wish to reveal it then keep moving up till you hit the other Rise again.

Now, this does mean I have something to discuss with Bryan and the Rules team. Once I have a firm ruling we'll let you guys know!

[jacksmack]

The order enchantments play is important, and technically the second rise again should not be able to be played on the creature.

Where do you get this from?
I only recall it being important to keep the order of face down enchantments so the enemy can choose what to seeking dispell properly or keep track of illegal plays.

Im pretty sure that Sike is correct.

[Wildhorn]

When you rise again something you become the controller of that "risen" creature.

As for two rise agains in conflict, I would actually think the older enchantment would be the one that goes through. Now keep in mind I'm not making a ruling here, just speaking out loud. The order enchantments play is important, and technically the second rise again should not be able to be played on the creature. I would think you'd check the oldest enchantment first to see if they wish to reveal it then keep moving up till you hit the other Rise again.

Now, this does mean I have something to discuss with Bryan and the Rules team. Once I have a firm ruling we'll let you guys know!

In the rules, it states that whenever the two players want to reveal enchantment at the sametime, it is initiative that determine who goes first. So if both want to reveal Rise Again, whoever has Initiative has priority.

[Laddinfance]

Like I said, I wasn't making a ruling or anything. Didn't have a chance to scour my rulebook this morning. I will be taking a look at it when I get home tonight though.

[Zuberi]

1) The codex for reanimate says that the creature is summoned.
2) The FAQ on page 21 states that the mage who controls the effect responsible for the reanimation is the object that performs the summon.
3) The codex for controller says that each spell or object in the game is controlled by the person who casts it.

Therefore, the mage who controls the Rise Again spell gains control of the creature they used it on.


In the Rulebook v2.0 on page 18 it states that when two players wish to reveal their enchantment at the same time, the player with initiative gets to go first.

In the FAQ on page 8 it discusses Duplicate Enchantments. It is not legal to knowingly duplicate an enchantment, so the only time it can happen is when two opponents do it accidentally. When this occurs, whichever enchantment is revealed first becomes the legal enchantment. As long as the revealed enchantment is in play, the duplicate can not legally be revealed. It is allowed to remain in place unrevealed indefinitely, but if its controller attempts to reveal it without removing the first enchantment beforehand, then the second one simply gets destroyed without effect.

Thus, with Rise Again, they would both trigger at the same time. The player with initiative would get to reveal their's first. The creature would be reanimated (placed face down and considered removed from play until the end of the round) and the Rise Again would be discarded. Then the 2nd Rise Again could be revealed. At this point, it's effect is invalid since it can not reanimate a creature that is currently removed from play, so it gets destroyed without effect.

That is my interpretation of the rules.

[Shad0w]

When you rise again something you become the controller of that "risen" creature.

As for two rise agains in conflict, I would actually think the older enchantment would be the one that goes through. Now keep in mind I'm not making a ruling here, just speaking out loud. The order enchantments play is important, and technically the second rise again should not be able to be played on the creature. I would think you'd check the oldest enchantment first to see if they wish to reveal it then keep moving up till you hit the other Rise again.

Now, this does mean I have something to discuss with Bryan and the Rules team. Once I have a firm ruling we'll let you guys know!

If it it can be tracked this would be the case but if it could for some reason not be tracked then it would fall to the player with  Initiative.

It would work like this creature A is about to die (at this point if play order could not be tracked) the player with  Initiative would have to make the choice. If they did not want to it would then pass to the next player in turn order and so on.

[Zuberi]

If it it can be tracked this would be the case but if it could for some reason not be tracked then it would fall to the player with  Initiative.

It would work like this creature A is about to die (at this point if play order could not be tracked) the player with  Initiative would have to make the choice.

I am having a hard time finding a passage in the rules that states play order matters when resolving enchantments. Where can I find this?

[Zuberi]

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.

[sIKE]

Just like I said, but with a lot more words

[Shad0w]

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

[sIKE]

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.