Alright... weird enchantment question.

[sIKE]

One of the things about playing enchantments is that the ones you place should be on your side of the card for both players and the ones your opponent places should be one his side of the card. I didn't pick this rule up the first time I played either.

My opponent has different colored sleeves than me on his cards which makes clean up much easier along with keeping track of whose enchantment is whose.

[DarthDadaD20]

Enchantments Pg. 22 core rules book
 
Each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two
Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that
both players may attach an identical enchantment to the
same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the
same target, it is immediately destroyed.
The part in the bold makes me believe that I am right that you do not have to tell your opponent that there is a enchantment with the same name as long as it is face down....Granted that I really messed up in my examples and I am sorry for the confusion.

[Shad0w]

Until one of the enchants is turned face up it can not be be confirmed that they have two of the same enchant on them.

[Tacullu64]

Until one of the enchants is turned face up it can not be be confirmed that they have two of the same enchant on them.

So which one stays attached, the first one played or the first one revealed?

[Shad0w]

From a tourney stand point. I would say it is up to the judge because in some cases it would be impossible to tell what enchant was cast first.

[DarthDadaD20]

Ok, so your are saying shad0w that if a duplicate enchantment was face down,you would have to expect the opponent to tell you that a newly revealed enchantment is the same as one that is face down and then destroy it? With that wording "if an identical enchantment is revealed, it really makes it sound like if one is already face up and then a identical enchantment is revealed, then the newest one is destroyed...... How you said it makes me go "ADURR" but reading it from the rule book, that was the only thing that would of made sense to me. That and it just has not ever came up in a game for me.That makes some previous comments make a lot more sense now...I should of quite while I was ahead! :whistle:

[Shad0w]

The wording implies that if one was face up and a second was revealed. What I am talking about was trying to see if the play was even legal in the first place. This is a grey area that we are still working on.  We a have this discussion every once in a while when adding new content to the rule book or cleaning up wording in the rules or FAQ.(personally the way I voted was that the enchant rule should only apply to face up enchants)

[DarthDadaD20]

The wording implies that if one was face up and a second was revealed.

Thanks. That makes me feel a little better....Wait! No crying emot?!!? Well now Im just mad! Wait! No angry emot?!?! Well now Im just confused.... :blink:

[Tacullu64]

The wording implies that if one was face up and a second was revealed. What I am talking about was trying to see if the play was even legal in the first place. This is a grey area that we are still working on.  We a have this discussion every once in a while when adding new content to the rule book or cleaning up wording in the rules or FAQ.(personally the way I voted was that the enchant rule should only apply to face up enchants)

With the vague nature of the answers this is what I suspected. However, I for one, will be perfectly happy playing it the way you are suggesting. This makes the most sense to me as both a rules interpretation and the smoothest, cleanest gameplay mechanic.

[rwould]

I think you are all over complicating this.

It specifies that if an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed.  Therefore whoever reveals first does not have their enchantment destroyed as at that stage there is no revealed identical enchantment in place at the time, and at that stage the other player must declare their enchantment and it is destroyed.

If a player double casts one of their own enchantments on his creatures then that is something that the umpire needs to decide how to resolve.

[Snotwalker]

I view the concept of an "Enchantment Vaccine" to be a bit off-flavor here...  Even if it were ever deemed legal, I see most players house-ruling that it's illegal, bad-form, and taking advantage of a potenitial loop-hole that diminishes the thematic beauty of the game.

The cleanest way to view and interpret the multiple enchantment reveal rule would be that the first revealed (reveal costs paid) enchantment remains.  Any same-named unrevealed enchantments on the same creature are immediately discarded.   And no player can KNOWINGLY cast a same-named enchantment on a creature that already has one on it, revealed or unrevealed... So you can't cast 2 Bear Strengths on your own creature.

So to clarify the previous example:

1)  Wizard casts Poison Blood on himself (unrevealed)
2)  Warlock casts Poison Blood on Wizard and chooses to reveal it, paying all costs.
3)  Wizard must now reveal his own Poison Blood enchantment, discarding it immediately, given that his mage already has a Poison Blood enchantment revealed on himself.

If the Warlock chose to not reveal his curse right away, and the Wizard reveals his Poison Blood first, it is immediately discarded without effect if he doesn't pay the reveal costs, allowing the Warlock's unrevealed Poison Blood to remain and be revealed and paid for at a later time.

This ruling would seem to be the cleanest and thematically-realistic, without worry of players taking advantage of a strange wording loop-hole.  "I'm playing against a Warlock?  Oh, I better cast my Ghoul Rot Vaccine on myself right away...."  (sigh...)  

[DarthDadaD20]

Nice cleanup there Snotwalker. There were a lot of different things being discussed and a bit of confusion. That right there just kind of sums it all up in a way that makes this all make sense.

[Shad0w]

Basically one of the biggest things here is how should this work in tourney, and / or fun play.

We have a few things to look at first what the problem of illegal casting of an enchant.

Next goes to the Flip rule.
So in some cases I would be the first caster but if the other player casts then flips an enchant and happen to have cast the same things earlier in the game how would this be ruled.

Due to the current wording me the original caster would be the one that suffers. But this would have been based off the fact the the casting of the enchant was  illegal in the first place.

The problems with house rules is that when you are teaching new player and they later try to play in other groups they tend to make choices based off incorrect rules. While house rules are nice when your are looking at rules for league and tourney play you want rulings that are easy to understand, balanced, and good for the community.  

 

[rwould]

But there is a core concept that is wrong in the first question.  You cannot defend against an enchantment by keeping one unrevealed on yourself as the opponent can cast and reveal before you could ever reveal your enchantment and therefore the one you cast but did not reveal gets destroyed.  Revealed is a state for an enchantment so for the multiple rule to trigger that state must apply to one of the enchantments which then dictates what happens.

In the event that two player have both cast an enchantment on an object or zone and not revealed it then the rules cover it.  When one player elects to reveal the other players enchantment gets destroyed.

If someone casts two enchantments on the same object then you have to deal with it as you would any position where something gets played wrong.

[thedredman]

We actually had this come up also. I personally think the easiest way to fix it is to say you cannot knowingly attach an Identical enchantment to the same target. It does say in the rules, it is possible for both players may attach an identical enchantment to the same target. Then it says "if an identical enchantment is revealed is immediately destroyed, it never says unrevealed enchantments get destroyed.  The way I read it, there is no way you could use it defensively. If I revealed poison blood on myself, why would the opponent put it on me?  If they reveal it on me first, when I revealed mine, mine would be destroyed.  That is what I believe the intention was supposed to be.