Alright... weird enchantment question.

[Zuberi]

The strategy is very difficult to pull off. When an opponent reveals an enchantment, you have to make that call right then and there. You can not wait until the next phase of revealing, which as of now is as follows.

1. Pay mana.
2. Resolve.

I agree that it is an unlikely scenario and difficult to pull off. I just want to make sure I understand how it would work if it was to occur. To that end, I am going to question the phases of revealing. The rulebook never defines the steps of revealing an enchantment as phases, steps, or anything other than a single "free action." Thus, I am not sure that you can interrupt them. If they are indeed both part of a single free action, the rulebook states you "can not interrupt an event to reveal an enchantment."

The rule regarding my question states: "If both players WANT to reveal an enchantment at the same time, the player with the initiative goes first." It states nothing about being able to interrupt the revealing of an enchantment. Thus, it seems that one needs to declare their intention to reveal an enchantment before paying the mana cost. At that point, if their opponent has initiative, their opponent may say "before you do that, I would like to reveal an enchantment." Then once the opponent with initiative has finished revealing enchantments, the first player then could decide he's not going to reveal his enchantment after all, since he never actually begun to do so, he simply expressed a desire to do so.

We are then still left with the question of what to do about the face down duplicate. Whether she is required to destroy it or may leave it face down for future use. Either way though, at least we have saved her from paying the reveal cost on the enchantment for no benefit. I still vote that she be allowed to leave it in play face down.

which should be a Sympath's specialty should such a mage ever exist in Etheria.

I believe you are getting slightly off topic. Let us stick to discussing current rules and not future possible expansions.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I was trying to give a hypothetical example of how such an "enchantment vaccine" tactic could work in a balanced and thematically logical form, as opposed to being caused by a rules-wording glitch. I suppose that might not have been necessary and I might have rambled a bit when making that point. Sorry.

[Mrmt]

This discussion seems to me the kind of thing that ends up hurting otherwise potentially popular games.

What seems a fairly intuitive 'you can't double buff yourself' kind of a rule, turns into a bizarrely convoluted debate over things clearly not really intended - such as the counterintuitive enchantment vaccine.

Seems to me as a newcomer to this game that the important element here is not to double poison someone, or give a creature double bear strength. To that end, I don't really understand the difficult-to-enforce-and-open-to-rules-lawyering rule about no unrevealed enchantment being the same as a revealed enchantment.

What happened that led to this rule? I guess the intention was to avoid a long string of 'aha, you dispelled me, but here I am again with the same enchantment's, but what's the big deal? I mean, someone sacrificed doing something else for that strategy. If that is a major problem, maybe the answer is to say - you can't have two of the same enchantment revealed on a character, and you cannot reveal a new enchantment if an enchantment of the same name on that creature was destroyed that round.