Alright... weird enchantment question.

[DaveW]

I would agree that the second enchantment with the same name that becomes revealed gets destroyed.

I would add that if the opponent mage already had cast a still-unrevealed enchantment of the same name, then that unrevealed card also gets destroyed. I get this from the text that says: "but each object or zone cannot have more than one enchantment with the same name attached to it at one time." As soon as the first player reveals the enchantment, the second player is made aware that there now are two enchantments of the same name attached, which is against the rules. It then should become the second mage's responsibility to reveal the duplicate enchantment (without paying the reveal cost) and eliminating that card. (If it remains, it not only breaks the rules but also might be used much as a decoy could, making the target creature appear more powerful than it truly is.)

To me it was not against the rules for the other enchantment to be attached second and revealed first, as that mage did not know that this would cause a second enchantment of the same name to exist.

[Drealin]

Just to break this down one more time.
 From the  Rulebook 2.0

There is no limit to the number of different enchantments
that can be on an object, but 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.

That should be one paragraph by itself.  Then the next part:

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.

This should be a separate paragraph that I would reword as follows.

It is legal for a player to play the same enchantment on the same object as another player, as long as the first one has not been revealed.  As soon as one of these enchantments is revealed, the other enchantment must be destroyed without effect.

In this way there are two rules for playing enchantments.  The first specifies how enchantments work for an individual player, and the second explains how enchantments work when multiple players are involved.

[paradox22]

BAH!  Dirty rules lawyers!  You broke my favorite game!  LoL

[shapeshifter]

Humm i did not think of this situation but could see the possibility occuring: wings is a good example as i could see it being played to not be hindered by that creature, or to shoot it at range 0, or for attacks with +X to flyers. A second example could be in a multiplayer, whereby two opponents have cast agony on my mage for example.

A possible ruling could be that any reveal of an enchantment that is identical to any face down enchantments must also be revealed. Then all the identical enchantments that were revealed due this rule are returned to books and mana refunded equal to the amount spent (2 mana).

[DarthDadaD20]

Its just that wording of "If an identical enchantment is revealed" made me think....well, If an identical enchantment is revealed I should of known better since I knew you could not place identical enchantments "face down" on yourself. Maybe coming for a MtG tournament setting, player honesty is just not a virtue I expect. Although I think I would notice if this were done and I don't really think it would be an issue.

[Snotwalker]

It really seems clear that one could never use an enchantment as a "vaccine", preventing an opponent from playing the same enchantment on them.  Why?  Because as soon as you reveal your "vaccine" enchantment, if you don't first pay the reveal costs, it's immediately destroyed, before it can resolve and have any effect... The enchantment is never flipped over and revealed unless it's reveal cost is paid first, leaving your opponent's enchantment still in place.

When you reveal your enchantment, first you pay the reveal
cost, before resolving the effect of the enchantment. If the
cost is not paid, the enchantment is destroyed before it
can resolve and have any effect. If the cost is paid, flip the
enchantment over and reveal it to your opponent, then place
it partially under the object it is attached to.

There really seems to be no gray area here.

[Tirian]

Its just that wording of "If an identical enchantment is revealed" made me think....well, If an identical enchantment is revealed I should of known better since I knew you could not place identical enchantments "face down" on yourself. Maybe coming for a MtG tournament setting, player honesty is just not a virtue I expect. Although I think I would notice if this were done and I don't really think it would be an issue.

I think its more of a two players placed the same enchantment on target issue not a question of a player's virtue.

It is a targeting issue cleverly hidden in the enchantment matrix. Does a hidden enchantment named X prevent all other hidden enchantments, named X, from targeting the object in question? Yes it does and when the second hidden enchantment X is revealed (regardless of the state of the original hidden enchantment) it is destroyed immediately as clearly stated in the rules.

If it happens, seeking dispel

[rwould]

Tirian you are wrong.

The rules for this comes down to one part.  It states that If an identical enchantment is revealed on the same target, it is immediately destroyed.  

Only one of the two enchantments can be revealed and so only one of the two enchantments can trigger this condition to be destroyed, and that would be the unrevealed enchantment.

As the player controlling the hidden enchantment at this point you would have to declare what it is and that it is destroyed.

[Arcanus]

Hello all,

Wow! Great discussion!  One of the longest threads I've seen!

Were at a trade show, so sorry for slow response.

The original intention of the no duplication rule is as follows:

Players should not knowingly put a copy of an enchantment (same name) on the same target.  For example, if you have a face-down Block on your creature, you cannot put more face-down hidden Blocks on him.  If your creature has a revealed Bear Strength, you cannot put a second Bear Strength on him face-down asa "backup plan".

If you reveal an enchantment (pay its reveal costs and flip it over), and discover that there are any other revealed enchantments in play with the same name on that target, then you have to destroy the new one you just revealed.

Players cannot reveal enchantments on a target to destroy the new enchantment which was just revealed.  So, you cannot use a face-down enchantment to counter a new one (as a "vaccine").

The first revealed enchantment take precedence.  Any others revealed later are destroyed when they are revealed.

That should be fairly clear, and I believe the original intent is in line with what most fo you seem to feel makes good sense.

What is not clear is: If someone reveals an enchantment and you know you ave a face-down one wit the same name - do you have to reveal it right away and destroy it?

Or, are you allowed to keep it there face-down, hoping to use it later if the revealed enchantment goes away? Of course, it is assumed it was placed on the target legally (before the other one was revealed and without knowledge of the duplication).

We can rule either way on this, and would appreciate feedback to add to the FAQ. I feel like the face-down duplications should be revealed and destroyed because they are "illegal".  And without mana refund (simpler). However, lets get some feedback on this.  

The good news is that this should very rarely occur, so the ruling we make should have little impact on the game.

Thanks everyone for the great feedback and well presented ideas!

[Snotwalker]

Arcanus, thanks for the official clarification!

And I, for one, would vote to have any duplicate facedown enchantment immediately discarded upon a same-named enchantment being revealed...  (This could obviously happen in multi-player / team play games)... And this would be the cleanest solution with the smallest margin of potential abuse.  In other words, the same basic enchantment rules apply in both 1:1 and multiplayer games.

[Shad0w]

The simplest solution would be that that rules only check for face up enchants.

[rwould]

Whilst I agree with Shadow that it would be the simplest I think they should be removed.  If not it then makes valid the tactic of if (for some reason) you want the same enchantment as your opponent has cast on your creature then you could cast it and keep it hidden until removing the other one.

[piousflea]

Duplicate post.

[piousflea]

I think the "no duplication" rule should only apply to spells that you know about, namely:
1) Revealed enchantments
2) Face-down duplicates of your own enchantments

Basically, if I cast a face-down Nullify on my knight, I cannot cast another. If my opponent also casts a face-down Nullify on the same Knight, that's okay. If my opponent casts a Sleep and I reveal the friendly Nullify, this should not affect the existence of a enemy Nullify. He should be able to use it to counter the Heal that I cast a few rounds later.

From a refereeing standpoint, this is much cleaner than "forcing" my opponent to destroy his Nullify as soon as I use my Nullify. There is no way to realistically police that. If I cast a heal four rounds later it would be very difficult to tell whether or not the enemy nullify "should" have been destroyed four rounds ago.

Therefore, the most logical answer is that the Nullify should NOT have been destroyed.

On the other hand, if we both cast Eagle Wings on the same creature and I reveal Eagle Wings first, my opponent can no longer reveal his Eagle Wings without immediately discarding (destroying) it. However, he can legally leave it as a facedown enchantment and leave me guessing for the rest of the game.

[DarthDadaD20]

I have no problems with the rule as it is. I have never had it come up in a game as I said before, and dont see it happening any time soon. I dont think I would of got confused if we didnt have multiple things to talk about, leading to hypotheticals and so forth.(That and the wording is misleading)  I would just leave it as it is, that way there is no confusion to legal targeting on your own creatures. If there is a duplicate enchantment revealed or hidden and it is known, it should be destroyed or it is illegal. Otherwise I would in every way agree with shad0w, but with the other rules being considered I would rather have it the way it is. (so no one would think it was ok to have duplicate enchantments just because one was hidden)