Alright... weird enchantment question.

[rwould]

But if someone is going to cheat it is a rules problem anyway.  There is nothing stopping me casting two nullify enchantments now and only revealing one other than honesty.

[Tacullu64]

But if someone is going to cheat it is a rules problem anyway.  There is nothing stopping me casting two nullify enchantments now and only revealing one other than honesty.

You are correct but I think that is a separate issue.

The original question was one hell of a head scratcher. Now that Arcanus has answered it we are left with the secondary question of the now known to be duplicate face down enchantment controlled by the opposing mage.

Since it was "illegal" by the rules does its controller show it to his opponent and discard it, which relies on the honesty of the individual, or do we just let it remain in play because policing it is more trouble than it is worth. The first is a right is right argument and the second is more of a no blood no foul argument. The second is the more expedient. I don't believe there is a right or wrong choice, just a choice that has to be made. The only real concern is what works best for the game.

[Shad0w]

But if someone is going to cheat it is a rules problem anyway.  There is nothing stopping me casting two nullify enchantments now and only revealing one other than honesty.

You are correct but I think that is a separate issue.

The original question was one hell of a head scratcher. Now that Arcanus has answered it we are left with the secondary question of the now known to be duplicate face down enchantment controlled by the opposing mage.

Since it was "illegal" by the rules does its controller show it to his opponent and discard it, which relies on the honesty of the individual, or do we just let it remain in play because policing it is more trouble than it is worth. The first is a right is right argument and the second is more of a no blood no foul argument. The second is the more expedient. I don't believe there is a right or wrong choice, just a choice that has to be made. The only real concern is what works best for the game.

This is the choice I have to make when judging. Since we use a passive judging system for most matches, if you think the other player is cheating please call a judge over. We will be more than happy to look into it.

[piousflea]

I would argue that in a team fight, players should be allowed to look at friendly facedown enchants, and in fact should be REQUIRED to look at each others enchants during the "Cast Spell" step.

Otherwise, it would be way too easy for players to intentionally duplicate enchantments on each other. For example, you know that it is very likely that enemy players will dispel Bear Strength on a Forcemaster: so if both players agree before the game that they'll cast bear strength on the FM. If their opponents cry foul at the duplication they'd just say, "oops, it was unintentional".

The purpose of outlawing duplicates is so that: When I dispel a bear strength off your Mage, no matter how many facedown enchants are still on you, I should be 100% certain that you do not have a Bear Strength, unless you spend another quick action to cast a brand new enchant.

The same rule should apply to casting hostile enchants, or else I'll get my teammate to cast a duplicate Ghoul Rot on you.

[DaveW]

My vote would be as I stated before: Require the elimination of the duplicate with no mana returned.

[Aarrow]

I would argue that in a team fight, players should be allowed to look at friendly facedown enchants, and in fact should be REQUIRED to look at each others enchants during the "Cast Spell" step.

Otherwise, it would be way too easy for players to intentionally duplicate enchantments on each other. For example, you know that it is very likely that enemy players will dispel Bear Strength on a Forcemaster: so if both players agree before the game that they'll cast bear strength on the FM. If their opponents cry foul at the duplication they'd just say, "oops, it was unintentional".

The purpose of outlawing duplicates is so that: When I dispel a bear strength off your Mage, no matter how many facedown enchants are still on you, I should be 100% certain that you do not have a Bear Strength, unless you spend another quick action to cast a brand new enchant.

The same rule should apply to casting hostile enchants, or else I'll get my teammate to cast a duplicate Ghoul Rot on you.

I second this!  Each team should "play as one" anyway, discussing strategies, table talk, and freedom to see each others hands.  This would be the easiest solution.

[ringkichard]

This ruling (whichever way it goes) has some interesting outcomes.

For example, I run a Beastmaster deck with three Nullifies and one Decoy. I'll sometimes use the Decoy as a "4th Nullify". My most common opponent also runs a Decoy, and likes to use it to check for Nullifies on my creatures. It's entirely possible that my Beastmaster will end up simultaniously enchanted with two Decoys, both his and mine.    

When my Decoy fails to react to his, and he doesn't reveal his Decoy, we'll both probably realize what happened, but we won't know for sure. My opponent will probably suspect that my enchantment is a Decoy, though, and will want to confirm this by revealing his own Decoy.

Should I have to reveal my own Decoy because I now know that the creature was enchanted with two of the same enchantment? Does it matter that it's only very briefly and that the enchantment is destroyed as soon as it's revealed?

Also, Death Link is another interesting case (in a Dark Mage v Dark Mage mirror match) and it shows how carefully this rule needs to be worded.

For example, if my opponent summons a Necropian Vampiress and enchants it, and if I think the face down enchantment is Death Link, can try to knock off his Death Link by enchanting his creature with my own Death Link and revealing mine before he gets a chance to?

Or, suppose I cast and reveal Death Link on my own creature, and then he casts and reveals Death Link on his Vampiress. Can I use Shift Enchantment to move my Death Link to his Vampiress, destroying his enchantment? I cast it first, and I revealed it first.

There's also some of this in the Holy Mage mirror match with Divine Intervention. If we both Divine Intervention the same creature, the natural thing to do would be to wait the other guy out. He triggers his, then I trigger mine to undo it. If the brief presence of his destroys mine, though, then it's a rush to reveal.

And I really don't want to dig into the timing rules to figure out who gets priority to reveal a Divine Intervention.

Also, this ruling matters when enchanting zones. Either Sacred Ground or Fortified Position might get cast twice on the same zone. If my opponent casts and reveals one of these on a Zone I have similarly enchanted but not yet revealed, do I have to announce and destroy my own enchantment?    

Or my opponent and I might both cast Hellfire Trap or Teleport Trap in the same square. Should triggering one automatically destroy the other?


Not that anyone asked, but my recommendation is to limit the rule to revealed enchantments only. If I'm not playing enchantments with red reveal costs I shouldn't have to keep track of them for forced revelation. The game already requires me to remember and monitor a lot. In a tournament, there's no reason to penalize my opponent just because he forgot to reveal and destroy an enchantment because of a rare corner case in the rules.

If I reveal a duplicate enchantment, mine should get destroyed (his should stay). But I shouldn't be able to use Shift Enchantment or Steal Enchantment as a wrecking ball to try to fish for my opponent's face down spells. It's already powerful enough that I can block them from being revealed until my own enchantment gets destroyed (Dispelled).

[Zuberi]

I was just directed to this thread, and as the FAQ has not yet been updated, I thought I'd get my questions and comments in.

From the way I understand Arcanus, if two duplicate enchants are unknowingly placed on a target (because they come from different opposing players) then the first one that is revealed is the one that gets to stay legally.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

This is just going by the rules that have already been decided and declared by Arcanus. I understand there was a cliffhanger regarding what happens to an unrevealed enchant after a duplicate is revealed. My vote is to allow it to remain. It's just seems simpler. If we say it is destroyed, we end up with the potential for a wrecking ball like Ringkichard described using shift enchantment and other such spells to move an enchant around fishing for its unrevealed brethren.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I was just directed to this thread, and as the FAQ has not yet been updated, I thought I'd get my questions and comments in.

From the way I understand Arcanus, if two duplicate enchants are unknowingly placed on a target (because they come from different opposing players) then the first one that is revealed is the one that gets to stay legally.

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

This is just going by the rules that have already been decided and declared by Arcanus. I understand there was a cliffhanger regarding what happens to an unrevealed enchant after a duplicate is revealed. My vote is to allow it to remain. It's just seems simpler. If we say it is destroyed, we end up with the potential for a wrecking ball like Ringkichard described using shift enchantment and other such spells to move an enchant around fishing for its unrevealed brethren.

There's a problem with that though. Even if it's done unknowingly, it's illegal for an enchantment to target something that already has a same-named enchantment attached. So regardless of whether the second copy was revealed first or not, it was still unintentionally cast on an illegal target in the first place.


I also think there is a deep thematic problem along with the mechanical one. Consider the literal meaning of "casting" a spell as opposed to "revealing" it. "Reveal" sounds like you're just "revealing" an object or phenomenon that you already created or brought into existence. "Casting" sounds like it should be the actual creating or bringing into existence. Why does the actual creating of an object or phenomenon--what should be the bulk of the spellwork, always cost the same extremely low amount of mana, while merely revealing that you cast the spell costs so much more!

One would think that it would take a lot more mana to bring a very powerful enchantment into being, and then it would just take that little bit more magical fuel to kickstart its effects into motion. But it doesn't work that way in Mage Wars, and without any explanation it seems very counter-intuitive, thematically.

Here's my solution:

The name of an enchantment should be treated like a trait. A non-mandatory enchantment would gain its name when its reveal cost is paid--that is to say, when it becomes the specific spell the mage who cast it had intended it to be.

Unlike a non-mandatory enchantment which gains its name when its reveal cost is paid, a mandatory enchantment gets its name before that, when its conditions are met.


I think this solves everything for non-mandatory enchantments. For instance, if both players cast a force hold on the same creature, the one who revealed it first would not be targeting illegally, since a non-mandatory hidden enchantment is shapeless and formless. It's just a clump of mana that has yet to be converted into the specific spell it's meant to become.

As for the enchantment that's still hidden, it could not be revealed, since revealing an enchantment would cause it to become a specific named enchantment, and two enchantments cannot both have the same name on the same target. A hidden enchantment wouldn't actually have a name. Rather, it would have a potential name.


As for mandatory enchantments: the thing about mandatory enchantments is that they are by their very nature dependent on either memory or honesty. If player 1 casts a nullify on ANYTHING and its conditions are met, they have to reveal it. However, player 2 doesn't know that it's a nullify, and therefore doesn't know that it has to be revealed right then and there. Theoretically, if it isn't seeking dispelled, player 1 could leave that nullify there the ENTIRE GAME and player 2 would never know.

However, you can only include a max of 6 nullifies in a spellbook, and most players don't even include that many. Furthermore, player 2 is quite likely to seeking dispel at least one of them as a just in case precaution against whatever enchantments they think the nullify might be, including what it actually is, if they think it's strategically advantageous or necessary to do so.

Also, if player 1 cheats by not revealing their nullify when the conditions are met, they will most likely reveal their nullify at another point when the conditions are met, rather than waiting until the end of the game and never revealing the nullify to player 2. Decent memory combined with prompt play should make it easier to catch such infringements, but of course, not everyone is good at that.


Personally I think Mage Wars is so complex a game with so much mandatory multitasking, that it can be very easy to cheat unintentionally. I've often found myself looking back in the gamelog on OCTGN when I've forgotten whether something happened or didn't happen. A recurring problem for me is remembering to raise my channeling stat when I cast a mana crystal, and I'm sure I'm far from unique in that respect. I think it would be best to record all official arena matches, so that it's easier to keep track of this sort of thing. If players get confused and don't know whether for instance, they remembered to pay certain upkeep costs in a prior round, then they would have a referee look at the recording. (I'm thinking they wouldn't be able to look at it themselves, since each video camera would probably be recording multiple games at once.)

[Zuberi]

That seems like a very protracted way of saying that unrevealed enchantments can be left in play, Imaginator. Although you seem to want to make an exception to that statement for Mandatory Reveal Enchantments.

The best example I can think of where two mandatory enchantments might be illegally stacked is not with Nullify, which would naturally cancel each other out upon cast, but rather with traps. What happens if both players put a Hellfire Trap in the same zone? An illegal play has been made without the players aware of it. When the first player reveals his trap, should the second player get to keep his face down or have to destroy it? If he has to destroy it, when other Enchantments are allowed to stay, why the discrepancy?

[Zuberi]

Video cameras are a nice idea, but I believe are impractical.

[Sailor Vulcan]

But hellfire trap only activates when an ENEMY creature enters the zone, and it can only be cast on a zone without enemy creatures. So only one hellfire trap would gain its name first when player 1's creature enters the zone, then it would be destroyed before the other hellfire trap's conditions are met when player 2's creature enters. Traps are not a counter example here.

[Zuberi]

I apologize, I misread your post thinking you had said that Mandatory Reveal Spells would count their name against duplicate spells while still hidden. Going back and rereading what you said, I see now that they would also only be counted against each other upon reveal.

Thus, you seem to have explained your reasoning for why you agree with the ruling that if a duplicate enchantment is revealed, the hidden one should be allowed to remain.

[Kharhaz]

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

Yes, as of now, that would be a RAW reading of how the matrix works.

My own opinion on this has always been that this is just good old fashioned counter magic at work. Dispelling an enchantment is the exact same mana cost, and it costs you spell book points, to cast actions, and not to mention the foresight to see it coming. I would argue that such higher level of playing should be rewarded and not prevented.

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.


So my opponent has to pay the mana, and then based on that information I have to decide to pay my mana to gamble that it is the same enchantment. Notice how I never see what the enchantment is as flipping happens after the mana is paid as per paragraph 2 of Reveling enchantments, Rule book v 2.0.

[Sailor Vulcan]

By the rules though, I am within my rights to declare an intention to reveal an enchantment simultaneously to my opponent. Thus if I believe they have a duplicate on the creature, I could immediately declare the intention to also reveal when they decide to. Since I have initiative, I get priority and my enchantment gets resolved first. My enchantment is now the legal one. Correct? (page 18 in the v2.0 Rulebook outlines the rules on simultaneous reveals).

Yes, as of now, that would be a RAW reading of how the matrix works.

My own opinion on this has always been that this is just good old fashioned counter magic at work. Dispelling an enchantment is the exact same mana cost, and it costs you spell book points, to cast actions, and not to mention the foresight to see it coming. I would argue that such higher level of playing should be rewarded and not prevented.

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.


So my opponent has to pay the mana, and then based on that information I have to decide to pay my mana to gamble that it is the same enchantment. Notice how I never see what the enchantment is as flipping happens after the mana is paid as per paragraph 2 of Reveling enchantments, Rule book v 2.0.

It's not quite "good old fashioned countering" since old-fashioned countering is from spells with the "counter" effect responding directly to another spell that is already "on the stack", rather than merely removing it from "the stack" by making its target illegal.

While it does take skill to predict enchantments that way in order to counter them, I think how difficult they are to predict depends on the circumstance. Sometimes it can be very obvious what enchantment the opponent is going to use, and other times not so much.

Also, people aren't usually going to include every possible enchantment that might be remotely useful to counter unless they're targeting particular enchantment-dependent spellbooks. There's a limited number of spellbook points for each mage. Most people would probably just include the enchantments that are most important for them to counter. In that scenario, it's not so much about predicting WHICH enchantment needs to be countered, so much as determining which possible enchantment would be the most urgent to counter--the one that's most threatening and likely to be played.

While countering does have its place in Mage Wars, I fear that this could lead to full-out Counter-Enchantment Wars between all the mages and schools, even though countering should be more of an Arcane school specialty (and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, Mind). Such an overblown counter-enchantment war would probably make it so that lots of people would have to include a quite a few more extra copies of their more important enchantments, and builds that are more dependent on enchantments for the effects that are actually written on them would be less viable.

Furthermore, as I previously said in a thread that referenced this one, countering an enchantment by revealing the same enchantment looks awfully like sympathetic magic, which should be a Sympath's specialty should such a mage ever exist in Etheria. And if that were to happen, I don't think such a countering effect should occur merely by revealing the enchantment.

Rather, I think it would be far more balanced to use a conjuration that attaches to a creature or zone and can remove incantations and enchantments from the game facedown and attached to itself during the planning phase (the conjuration not the creature/zone). Then when an identical incantation or enchantment is cast or revealed on the creature/zone, the one attached to the conjuration can be revealed too and discarded, which counters the other copy.

If such a conjuration existed, I think it should be (2 Mind OR 2 Arcane). That way it won't be spammed by everybody under the sun, but will still be available to defensive builds that find it useful for defending against key enchantment weaknesses.