Decoy and Seeking Dispel interaction

[Shad0w]

But nobody had it in full detail. We did have a few people that got very close.

I am going to quote a few people below so we can compare and see who did the best overall ruling?

blackirishguilt

Both cards have 2 parts.
[mwcard=MW1I24]Seeking Dispel[/mwcard]'s clauses are:
Destroy target hidden enchantment.

and

Controller of target enchantment cannot reveal the enchantment once [mwcard=MW1I24]Seeking Dispel[/mwcard] has been cast.
[mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] clauses are:

When [mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] is revealed, destroy it.

and

When this spell is destoyed it's controller gains 2 mana.

So, the relevant interaction are [mwcard=MW1I24]Seeking Dispel[/mwcard] 1st and [mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] 2nd.

By reading them together we get:  Destroy target hidden enchantment.  When [mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] is destroyed, it's controller gains 2 mana.

Neither the reveal portion of [mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] or the you may not reveal clause from [mwcard=MW1I24]Seeking Dispel[/mwcard] are relevant here.  The original caster still controls the [mwcard=MW1E10]Decoy[/mwcard] when it is destroyed, and since the 2nd clause is independent from the 1st, the fact that it wasn't revealed doesn't matter and the controller gets the mana.

jacksmack

The FAQ under 'Decoy' says:

'Because enchantments are always automatically revealed whenever they are destroyed'

I just went through rulebook v. 2.0 and I could not find anything to back this up.
So currently it appears to me that this 'because ....' was added to clarify the decoy vs seeking dispel context.

ACG

Because "Destroyed" effects (effects that occur when the spell is destroyed) are treated differently than all other effects in the game in that they apply to their enchantments even when unrevealed. Since the effect does not require that Decoy be revealed, it doesn't matter that Seeking Dispel prevents it from being revealed.

An excellent example is the cantrip trait on Standard Bearer and Barkskin. Even if these enchantments are destroyed while unrevealed, they are still returned to the spellbook.

Of course, Cantrips came after Seeking Dispel, so a better answer is probably that the rules supplement says that it does. It would be a good idea to make explicit this generalization (that Destroyed effects apply to unrevealed enchantments) in the rules.

Wildhorn

Seeking Dispel prevent Decoy to be revealed once it is cast, but once Seeking Dispel is resolved, Decoy is destroyed, so it get revealed because Seeking Dispel existence is no more, so doesnt prevent the reveal caused by destruction of Decoy.

Imaginator

I have a slightly different theory:

Seeking dispel says controller of TARGET hidden enchantment cannot reveal that enchantment once seeking dispel has been cast. But once the enchant is destroyed it's no longer in play to be targeted by seeking dispel. Since the destroyed enchantment is no longer a legal target for Seeking Dispel, the "target cannot be revealed" clause ends, and the destroyed enchantment can be revealed.

ringkichard

tl;dr: If decoy were hidden when it would activate, it wouldn't trigger because hidden enchantments have no effect, and Decoy doesn't specify or require that it triggers while hidden. But instead of triggering when revealed, Decoy triggers when it's destroyed. A destroyed Decoy isn't hidden anymore because only in-play enchantments are hidden, and a destroyed Decoy isn't in play. And it's ok for Decoy to trigger and do stuff even after it's destroyed because Decoy clearly says it does, and if there is a conflict between a card and the rules, the card wins.

Death-from-above

Decoy states: "When Decoy is revealed, destroy it. When this spell is destroyed, its controller gains 2 mana"

Seeking Dispel States: "Destroy target hidden enchantment. Controller of target enchantment cannot reveal the target enchantment once Seeking Dispel has been cast"

What's bolded in Decoy is the key statement. When this spell is destroyed, its controller gains 2 mana. It doesn't specify that the destruction needs to come from the revelation of this spell. It just says "When this spell is destroyed, its controller gains 2 mana"

Seeking dispel destroys enchantments before they can be reveal. Decoy doesn't have to be reveal to yield the 2 mana to its controller. It just needs to be destroyed. All revealing does for Decoy is give it another avenue for destruction.

[Death-from-above]

In terms of detail, I gotta vote for Kich.

Everyone elses explanation was good though.

[Shad0w]

In terms of detail, I gotta vote for Kich.

Everyone elses explanation was good though.

I used strike to edit the in correct parts and underline to highlight key points. So what do all of you think after comparing?

[blackirishguilt]

I was going to second a vote for krich, but then you had to go and strike all of his post....   Still the most entertaining though!   

Death-from-above seemed to be pretty spot on, so I would say either one of those guys gets it.

[lettucemode]

The reason I bring these 2 sections up is that when a hidden enchantment is destroyed it is turned face up by the rules of the game before entering the discard pile. We know this because all cards in the discard pile are public knowledge. "Any player may freely examine the contents of any discard pile at any time." Seeking Dispel prevents the controller of the target enchantment form revealing the enchantment but as part of the destroy effect it is then turned face up allowing the Decoy destruction trigger to happen.

So how does this rule interact with Brace Yourself! or [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE03]Healing Charm[/mwcard]? Because from what you've said in the quoted paragraph, it seems like the effects on those cards would trigger if they were Seeking Dispel'd.

Cards turning face up just so they can be looked through once they are in the discard pile seems like flimsy reasoning to me. Discard piles are public knowledge, as you've said, so someone could easily pick up their opponent's discard pile, flip the cards face-up, thumb through it, then put it back in place face-down if they wanted to without any additional justification.

[Laddinfance]

Honestly, in order to have Decoy work as intended, without unwanted complications from other spells, had to be clarified in the supplement. In all honesty it did not work correctly without that. This is a conversation that I've had back and forth about several times.

[lettucemode]

I should make it clear that I don't intend to invalidate the work of all the playtesters and designers with my comments. This is a truly tricky rules situation in a game with a metric crap ton of interactions. Even with such fringe cases, I still think MW is one of the greatest games I've ever played, and I really appreciate all the hard work that went into making it what it is today!

Has an errata to Seeking Dispel been considered? What if "Controller of enchantment cannot reveal the enchantment once Seeking Dispel has been cast" was replaced with "If the target enchantment is revealed before Seeking Dispel's Resolve Spell step, destroy it anyway"?

EDIT: ahh, that still wouldn't work because you could reveal an enchantment like Healing Charm to get its effect before it was destroyed. Hmm, how about "Treat Seeking Dispel's three casting steps as if they were all one step"?

EDIT #2: But then Decoy dies without giving mana. Okay, I give up.

I liked kich's explanation, actually - "Destroyed" triggers still happen even if an enchantment is facedown when it's destroyed. That allows stuff like Cantrip to work too.

[Wildhorn]

The reason I bring these 2 sections up is that when a hidden enchantment is destroyed it is turned face up by the rules of the game before entering the discard pile. We know this because all cards in the discard pile are public knowledge. "Any player may freely examine the contents of any discard pile at any time." Seeking Dispel prevents the controller of the target enchantment form revealing the enchantment but as part of the destroy effect it is then turned face up allowing the Decoy destruction trigger to happen.

So how does this rule interact with Brace Yourself! or [mwcard=MWSTX1CKE03]Healing Charm[/mwcard]? Because from what you've said in the quoted paragraph, it seems like the effects on those cards would trigger if they were Seeking Dispel'd.

Cards turning face up just so they can be looked through once they are in the discard pile seems like a flimsy justification to me. Discard piles are public knowledge, as you've said, so someone could easily pick up their opponent's discard pile, flip the cards face-up, thumb through it, then put it back in place face-down if they wanted to without any additional justification.

They would not trigger. Their text says when Revealed, not when Destroyed.

[lettucemode]

They would not trigger. Their text says when Revealed, not when Destroyed.

but as part of the destroy effect it is then turned face up allowing the Decoy destruction trigger to happen.

[Wildhorn]

That is why my explanation (with striked text) is the best. It could be even be simplified to:

Once Seeking Dispel is resolved, Decoy is destroyed, so it triggers.

Simple as that.

[Shad0w]

Honestly, in order to have Decoy work as intended, without unwanted complications from other spells, had to be clarified in the supplement. In all honesty it did not work correctly without that. This is a conversation that I've had back and forth about several times.

Yup that is a story for another time


Back on topic I think 1 stick for black, acg, and death?

[Shad0w]

That is why my explanation (with striked text) is the best. It could be even be simplified to:

Once Seeking Dispel is resolved, Decoy is destroyed, so it triggers.

Simple as that.

Face down enchants only affect the game if the card state it does. Decoy does not 

[sIKE]

@Shadow you are just making my head spin. If it is face up in the Discard pile it is out of play how does it trigger?

[lettucemode]

@Shadow you are just making my head spin. If it is face up in the Discard pile it is out of play how does it trigger?

because Decoy.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Maybe they should errata decoy. Card text trumps rules after all, and it would be rather messy if the FAQ became a substitute for erratas, like say if the golden rule were changed to: "card text trumps rules, except for the FAQ which trumps card text."