Nullifying a Reverse Magic

[Shad0w]

Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?

I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.

Please no personal attacks.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?

I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.

Please no personal attacks.

Um, how was that a personal attack? I didn't say anything about him, I was merely pointing out a very probable flaw in his argument, and inviting him to explain his reasoning to me. I am VERY skeptical, but if he can give a sound explanation for his singular/plural claim, I might change my mind. While I really don't think its likely, for all I know he might be right. I apologize if I came across as irritated or impatient though. That was not my intention.

[Shad0w]

When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.

Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.

I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first. Did Bryan say why?

Also, what rulings? Where can I read them? I didn't see them in this thread I don't think...

I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first.

You can still choose to reveal it just does not create a new mandatory trigger.
Did Bryan say why?
No, But I have to talk about several intent questions but we do the next rulings doc. This is one of them.

Also, what rulings?
Player A targets Player B
Player B Reveal and pays for Rm
Payer A has RM and /or Nullify - Neither get a mandatory trigger.

Where can I read them?
This was an intent question just like the Decoy Ruling. I have known about this for a while but it had not been asked untill now. So we had no other posts on it. Last time it was asked was back in Sept 2012. That thread got lost in the server move along with over 200+ other threads.

[sIKE]

I just think that a well defined beginning and end is important here. Yes we have very small number of spells to question here. Going forward as we work on more cards how this step is currently working is/could be limiting to adding more cards in this vein as I have pointed out.

Yes it is a reach to use English to fortify my position. However why would you logically have a counter spell step that is by design to counter a spell then turn around and allow the counter spell to be countered? Therefore my use of "Counter Spell Step" in my argument.

I also took my argument to be weak not me or my mage, if so we would meet in the Arena to settle that one. I would stack a bunch of counter spells on my mage too.

[Shad0w]

Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?

I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.

Please no personal attacks.

Um, how was that a personal attack? I didn't say anything about him, I was merely pointing out a very probable flaw in his argument, and inviting him to explain his reasoning to me. I am VERY skeptical, but if he can give a sound explanation for his singular/plural claim, I might change my mind. While I really don't think its likely, for all I know he might be right. I apologize if I came across as irritated or impatient though. That was not my intention.

When I read it it came accross as curt and sarcastic. I hope this was not your intent.


As far as this thread goes.
This topics is closed till after the rules team reviews the issue.

[jacksmack]

My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:

Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!

Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.

[Zuberi]

It should be pointed out, sIKE, that even if we limit it to one counterspell during the Counter Spell Step, you would legally be able to counter a counterspell.

For example, I cast Dissolve on you and you reveal Nullify. As soon as you reveal nullify, we begin the Reveal Enchantment process as detailed in the FAQ. You can think of this as steps within steps. We are technically still in the Counter Spell Step for my casting of Dissolve, but now we also have to go through the steps for your Nullify of:

1) Flip over the hidden enchantment card showing it to all players.   
2) Counter the Enchantment: A player may reveal an enchantment or use an ability which specifically allows it be used during this step.
3) Pay Reveal Costs
4) Resolve the Enchantment’s Effects

During the Counter Enchantment Step, I would still be able to counter your Nullify if there existed a spell that could do so. Currently Mind Shield is the only spell that can be used during this step, and it doesn't affect any existing counterspells (since the only psychic counterspell currently is Mind Shield, and revealing a second one on the target would result in the second one's immediate destruction, thus it can't counter the first one). Since we HAVE to follow the steps for revealing an Enchantment, even though we're in the midst of the steps for casting whatever spell prompted the reveal, we could still have counterspell battles.

Personally, I am satisfied with the rules as laid down by Shad0w and the documents on hand. I like having the option of a back and forth with my opponent as we try to mess up each other's plans. I am not saying that sIKE's concern is completely unfounded, however. It is possible in the future for these battles to get out of hand, though I don't think it is possible with the current card pool. Luckily, the design of having a very restrictive Counter Spell Step and an even more restrictive Counter Enchantment step should give us ample tools to keep this from happening.

[Shad0w]

My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:

Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!

Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.

The reason nullify can be used is because it has the ability to counter a spell in the card text. As per 3.3 then it can be used during the counter spell step if this clause was met. That would not be a trigger just a volentery reveal.

[Wildhorn]

My biggest problem with the current ruling is this:

Nullify CAN trigger but it is not Mandatory!!! that really confuses me!

Either it works and MUST be revealled or it doesnt work at all - I believe thats how nullify is interpretated by most players. In this 'complicated' interaction with reverse magic the 'personality' of nullify changes.

The reason nullify can be used is because it has the ability to counter a spell in the card text. As per 3.3 then it can be used during the counter spell step if this clause was met. That would not be a trigger just a volentery reveal.

I still don't get why you would not be required to reveal it when a spell get reversed at you.

[jacksmack]

Apparantly because there is a  --->   .   <--- between target sentence and control sentence.

[sIKE]

It should be pointed out, sIKE, that even if we limit it to one counterspell during the Counter Spell Step, you would legally be able to counter a counterspell.

For example, I cast Dissolve on you and you reveal Nullify. As soon as you reveal nullify, we begin the Reveal Enchantment process as detailed in the FAQ. You can think of this as steps within steps. We are technically still in the Counter Spell Step for my casting of Dissolve, but now we also have to go through the steps for your Nullify of:

1) Flip over the hidden enchantment card showing it to all players.   
2) Counter the Enchantment: A player may reveal an enchantment or use an ability which specifically allows it be used during this step.
3) Pay Reveal Costs
4) Resolve the Enchantment’s Effects

During the Counter Enchantment Step, I would still be able to counter your Nullify if there existed a spell that could do so. Currently Mind Shield is the only spell that can be used during this step, and it doesn't affect any existing counterspells (since the only psychic counterspell currently is Mind Shield, and revealing a second one on the target would result in the second one's immediate destruction, thus it can't counter the first one). Since we HAVE to follow the steps for revealing an Enchantment, even though we're in the midst of the steps for casting whatever spell prompted the reveal, we could still have counterspell battles.

Personally, I am satisfied with the rules as laid down by Shad0w and the documents on hand. I like having the option of a back and forth with my opponent as we try to mess up each other's plans. I am not saying that sIKE's concern is completely unfounded, however. It is possible in the future for these battles to get out of hand, though I don't think it is possible with the current card pool. Luckily, the design of having a very restrictive Counter Spell Step and an even more restrictive Counter Enchantment step should give us ample tools to keep this from happening.

Yes that is how things work today. However if Reverse Magic did its thing (control/retarget) then we moved to the resolve spell step then no you would not be able to do anything else as it would be to late to reveal the enchantment.

My problem is in the original theory (remember this was all around a war gaming theory session after a game) we are in the Counter Spell Step for the Drain Life, a Reverse Magic is revealed (it has to be) and now are no longer talking about the Drain Life and its steps, we now are (for some reason) in the Counter Spell Step for the Reverse Magic which should only happen when it is bound to the object not when it is revealed (much like Enchantment Transfusion).

[Sailor Vulcan]

How many people are planning to treat the trigger as mandatory anyway until this rules issue gets resolved? There are so many arguments I can see myself having with newer and not so new players. So many people I could win against because they assume the enchantment on me isn't a nullify when it is, all because of this really weird temporary ruling.

I'm strongly considering treating the trigger as mandatory regardless so I don't have an unfair advantage over real life opponents who don't regularly frequent the forums.

But I like to be competitive, so I'm not entirely sure. What if this puts me at an unfair disadvantage? Thoughts?

[jacksmack]

How many people are planning to treat the trigger as mandatory anyway until this rules issue gets resolved? There are so many arguments I can see myself having with newer and not so new players. So many people I could win against because they assume the enchantment on me isn't a nullify when it is, all because of this really weird temporary ruling.

I'm strongly considering treating the trigger as mandatory regardless so I don't have an unfair advantage over real life opponents who don't regularly frequent the forums.

But I like to be competitive, so I'm not entirely sure. What if this puts me at an unfair disadvantage? Thoughts?

+1000

this is excately my problem with the interaction currently.

Its completely standard to check for nullify before you wish to land an expensive incantation. My guess is that most player will assume this check has been performed when they reverse magic something back to the opponent and from then on assume he is clear from nullify.

[Zuberi]

Yes that is how things work today. However if Reverse Magic did its thing (control/retarget) then we moved to the resolve spell step then no you would not be able to do anything else as it would be to late to reveal the enchantment.

My problem is in the original theory (remember this was all around a war gaming theory session after a game) we are in the Counter Spell Step for the Drain Life, a Reverse Magic is revealed (it has to be) and now are no longer talking about the Drain Life and its steps, we now are (for some reason) in the Counter Spell Step for the Reverse Magic which should only happen when it is bound to the object not when it is revealed (much like Enchantment Transfusion).

After you reveal the Reverse Magic, it has to go the the Counter Enchantment Step before the Reverse Magic takes effect per the procedual rules of revealing an enchantment. Currently though, there is nothing that could possibly counter the Reverse Magic. After Reverse Magic Resolves, it is completely done and over with and can not be affected by anything. There is no "stack" in Mage Wars and no way to affect things that have already finished occurring. However, we are still within the Counter Spell step for the Drain Life, as it hasn't actually been countered yet (wink, wink, Reverse Magic isn't even a counterspell).

If an enchantment was revealed to actually counter the Drain Life, your opponent would get the same chance, during the Counter Enchantment Step, to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, as soon as the enchantment resolves, Drain Life goes away and there is nothing else that can be done.

[Shad0w]

After you reveal the Reverse Magic, it has to go the the Counter Enchantment Step before the Reverse Magic takes effect per the procedual rules of revealing an enchantment. Currently though, there is nothing that could possibly counter the Reverse Magic. After Reverse Magic Resolves, it is completely done and over with and can not be affected by anything. There is no "stack" in Mage Wars and no way to affect things that have already finished occurring. However, we are still within the Counter Spell step for the Drain Life, as it hasn't actually been countered yet (wink, wink, Reverse Magic isn't even a counterspell).

If an enchantment was revealed to actually counter the Drain Life, your opponent would get the same chance, during the Counter Enchantment Step, to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, as soon as the enchantment resolves, Drain Life goes away and there is nothing else that can be done.

I see you understand