Nullifying a Reverse Magic

[Shad0w]

I added a poll.

This way I know what the community is thinking when the rules team goes to discuss the issue.

[Wildhorn]

Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.

[Shad0w]

Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.

Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step

If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.

[Wildhorn]

Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.

Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step

If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.

It would not be the same. Because it would allow enchantment to be revealed between the new cast and counter steps.

[Shad0w]

Personally, it is the not-mandatory reveal of Nullify on a Reversed spell that is non-instinctive.

Then this would be the way you should vote RM: Removes all other triggers and goes back to casting step

If we did this it would be as if you are casting the spell for the first time.

It would not be the same. Because it would allow enchantment to be revealed between the new cast and counter steps.

Correct but it would give a similar function and be very easy for people to understand

[jacksmack]

the famous -->  .  <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)

[Shad0w]

the famous -->  .  <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)

Would that be clear enough that even new players would understand it?

[Wildhorn]

the famous -->  .  <-- could be replaced with and AND it would have same effect (if i understand this correctly.)

Would that be clear enough that even new players would understand it?

Yes it would.

[silverclawgrizzly]

I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?

[Wildhorn]

I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?

I voted "wording change" to reflect that. Because I think everything is fine but Nullify should still be mandatory.

[Shad0w]

I would say that yeah Nullify would trigger as you're the new target. I'm a little confused on the poll. Which should I vote for if I believe it triggers Nullify?

I voted "wording change" to reflect that. Because I think everything is fine but Nullify should still be mandatory.

This would be for the best if you wanted to stay in the CSS and then resolve the trigger of null.
Remember that whatever the rules team does for this we must also do for 2 opposing RMs. Since the trigger are the exact same.

[Zuberi]

I would be fine either way with whether or not it triggers a mandatory reveal from Nullify or another Reverse Magic. My only concern is that things remain in the Counter Spell Step. I don't like time travel. It makes me queasy.

If you were to reword Reverse Magic so that it's owner takes control of the spell in question and THEN redirects it back to the caster, then a ruling stating that mandatory triggers apply would make sense. This would maintain the expected behavior of spells like Nullify, making the game easier to understand and learn.

However, leaving the wording the same or updating it to clarify that the owner redirects the spell and then takes control of it, thereby avoiding further mandatory triggers, allows for more tactical options during game play which I think enriches the experience. If I'm being honest, however, this is unintuitive. The question then seems, to me, are more tactical options with these spells worth a steeper learning curve?

*shrug* I don't know the answer to that. Either way though, things can and should stay in the Counter Spell Step.

[kiwipaul]

Let us wait on an official ruling from AW after GenCon.

[Sailor Vulcan]

just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?

[Shad0w]

just to be clear, when it says "function does not change but the wording doesn't but the wording does" does that refer to the function before the temporary ruling or during it?

For this choice?
RM: Function does not change but the wording does?