Forget

[Alexander West]

I see that there are a lot of cards designed to hose certain actions, such as Enchanter's Wardstone, Armor Ward, Nullify, Jinx, and Reverse Magic.  To some extent Dispel and Dissolve are also hosers, keeping a check on enchantments and equipment.  Having tools to fight a certain kind of play keeps the game in balance.  Magic does this very well with a variety of different cards.  One of my favorite Magic hosers ever is Meddling Mage, a creature where when you put it into play, you name a card and that card can no longer be played.  I draw that as inspiration for:

(2)(2) Forget (0-2) Mage (Mind 2)
When you reveal Forget name a spell.  The enchanted Mage may not cast that spell.

I'd expect Teleport to be the most named target, but I bed there'd be other interesting choices.  This is also sort of intended to be an anti-Mage Wand.

[Sylex]

I'd expect Teleport to be the most named target

You shut your dirty mouth right NOW!!

[Zuberi]

Could be interesting. Of course it just means they have to dispel the enchantment before they can cast the banned spell. They aren't truly banned for the game. Even if you ban "Dispel" there are other spells that remove enchants, they just aren't as common. This enchant might change the meta slightly, but wouldn't be a huge splash. I like it.

[IndyPendant]

I would add a "You may only reveal this enchantment before or after any friendly creature's action phase" or some such similar limitation.  Otherwise, it would automatically stop *ANY* spell you did not like from being cast.  Any spell.

[Sylex]

I agree with Indy here. It's not a bad idea as far as a spell goes, but I think the reveal cost should be higher for sure, and maybe a non-creature spell limitation.

Also, I would like it to be dark instead of mind magic, but it makes more sense in the mind school of course. I just want it to be darker like Brain Decay or something equally evil.

Makes me think maybe the dark version could take a single spell out of an opponents book (letting him see the book as well)....Oh ya now we are treading into MtG dark magic territory. Sorry, my brain always goes down that road.

[Alexander West]

You shut your dirty mouth right NOW!!

LOL   

@Indy: You raise an excellent point about the timing of the reveal.  It does raise the question of what the right price would be for a Nullify where they couldn't play future copies of the same thing, but that wasn't my initial intent.

@Sylex:  I'm not so sure the cost should be lower.  Keep in mind you're paying all this mana while your opponent is only paying 0 since they haven't even tried to cast something!  It's quite possible 1 would be a more fair reveal cost, as that would be exactly the price to re-bind a wand if that was the named spell, keeping both players at mana parity.  Unless it was working as a super-Nullify (as currently written instead of as intended), in which case I agree that 2 would be a steal.

Amusingly, the spell started out as a curse in my mind.  It was only after I'd written it all down that it was much more obviously a Mind spell.  Setting it to Dispel does seem very good for a curse-oriented Mage though!  (Unless they have those mass Dispels!)  It's also possible it should be a level 1 enchantment so that Dispel Wand could also destroy it.  This would also make it cheap enough in book points that Warlords finally had access to a cheaper way to mess with others' spellcasting than Arcane spells.

[Wildhorn]

Problems I see...

How do you remember the spell chosen? Mage Wars is great because (among many reasons) you do not have to remember informations inbetween turns. Now I would have to carry a pen and paper around.

Dispel is already costly for Warlord, now they would have to get an even more more costly spell just in case Forget is chosen for Dispel...

It could screw up really bad some mages. It is so powerful imo that it would become auto include in every spellbook. I dont think an autoinclude spell is a sign of good design.

[ACG]

I remember making a spell with similar mechanics called The Book of Secrets:



It addressed some of the issues raised by requiring that the caster possessed the spells to be banned, by using copies of the bound spells to mark which spells were prohibited, by making the ban global rather than restricted to one mage, and by requiring upkeep for banned spells.

You might consider implementing some of these solutions; perhaps this Forget enchantment could bind a spell from your spellbook, for instance. Alternatively, it would be cool to have a spell that lets you obliterate opponents' uncast spells, though in practice you want to be careful how you implement this.

[Wildhorn]

I like the idea that it requires that tye caster has a copy of the spell himself and that it is global.