Help against Purge Magic

[BoomFrog]

Jinx and nullify are both mandatory triggers during the counter step. Wouldn't they both be revealed on the first cast and leave nothing for the second just like a nullify reverse magic combo?

Not if you play Jinx on your opponent's mage

Incorrect. 

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14626.msg42060#msg42060

Choose targets is the first step of casting a spell and both jinx and nullify are simultaneously triggered.  Both are revealed and the controller of them chooses which one to pay to resolve.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

I think his point was Jinx on the opponent, Nullify on yourself.

[DaveW]

I think his point was Jinx on the opponent, Nullify on yourself.

You know, it seems counter-intuitive, but both the Jinx on the caster and the Nullify on the target should be revealed when an Enchantment or Incantation is used by the caster on the target. My reasoning:

1) Both are revealed in the same (Counter Spell) step.

2) The trigger for mandatory reveal of Jinx is casting the spell, which happens as soon as the first step begins (so Nullify has not yet taken effect).

3) The trigger for mandatory reveal of Nullify is the creature being targeted by the spell, which happens prior to the Counter Spell step (so Jinx has not yet had a chance to go into effect).

You can choose to pay the mana cost for one or both, but neither will be around any longer once the one spell is cast since both are destroyed once resolved.

This, in essence, is just a restatement of what is in the other thread (mentioned by BoomFrog, above), but in a more general sense (as the target with Nullify can be any creature for this to happen).

[JasonBourneZombie]

That was what I thought, but didn't really want to go overboard on ruling technicalities. Good to know I'm not the only one who sees it as a simultaneous reveal.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

That seems counter intuitive to me because Jinx should stop the spell in its place so it should never get to actually target anything.

[DaveW]

Agreed... but that's how it seems to work. Life goes on, I guess.

It doesn't happen all that much... you or an ally would be casting both spells... so just don't do it.

[Ravepig]

I think his point was Jinx on the opponent, Nullify on yourself.

You know, it seems counter-intuitive, but both the Jinx on the caster and the Nullify on the target should be revealed when an Enchantment or Incantation is used by the caster on the target. My reasoning:

1) Both are revealed in the same (Counter Spell) step.

2) The trigger for mandatory reveal of Jinx is casting the spell, which happens as soon as the first step begins (so Nullify has not yet taken effect).

3) The trigger for mandatory reveal of Nullify is the creature being targeted by the spell, which happens prior to the Counter Spell step (so Jinx has not yet had a chance to go into effect).

You can choose to pay the mana cost for one or both, but neither will be around any longer once the one spell is cast since both are destroyed once resolved.

This, in essence, is just a restatement of what is in the other thread (mentioned by BoomFrog, above), but in a more general sense (as the target with Nullify can be any creature for this to happen).

I guess from my perspective, if I enchant the opposing mage with a hidden jinx and he casts, the jinx prevents the spell from actually being cast, thus the spell never hits the intended target, which is required to trigger nullify. Isn't this the purpose of Jinx?

[sIKE]

Well what is interesting is the wording of Nullify, which is if this creature is Targeted, which is what happens in Step 1 of casting a spell, and of course Jinx doesn't trigger until Step 2 of that process.

[Ravepig]

Well what is interesting is the wording of Nullify, which is if this creature is Targeted, which is what happens in Step 1 of casting a spell, and of course Jinx doesn't trigger until Step 2 of that process.

Ok, that's a solid point. So, Jinx on the casting mage and nullify on my mage would indeed both trigger when the opposing mage casts. I can live with that if that's the way the card reads, but I still can't wrap my mind around the logic- doesn't make sense if the jinx would stop the spell from being released and hitting the intended target (which, logically, is what should be required to trigger nullify).

So, really the only purpose of casting jinx over nullify is the cheaper reveal cost. I'm not sure I understand why use Jinx at all then (still very new to this game, so if I'm missing something obvious, I'm eager to learn).

Looking at the reveal cost vs. the benefit, Jinx seems pointless when compared to Nullify- which also takes us back to the original problem- there is no real way to stop purge magic other than casting a perfectly timed enchantment transfusion?

[Kelanen]

No - the answer is don't over commit resources.

3 Enchantments is generally asking for a purge - most of my books of all mages carry it.

[Iudicium86]

No - the answer is don't over commit resources.

3 Enchantments is generally asking for a purge - most of my books of all mages carry it.

Right! that's what I'm saying too. If someone is relying on enchantments stacked like 5-6+ high, then I think they rightfully should be punished for it 

[Biblofilter]

If someone has 5+ enchantment on a friendly creature it becomes a very tempting target..

[Sailor Vulcan]

If someone has 5+ enchantment on a friendly creature it becomes a very tempting target..

And it also becomes a very strong target. A creature with 5+ enchants is often a threat that you must either deal with or die. And they can make it very hard for you to deal with it.