Community

Excellent; I was wondering when this was going to pop up.

Hm; for some reason I was thinking it would have gone up on Monday...

600.4g
This rule is being added to cover the case when a player leaves a multiplayer game being played for ante. Rule 600.4a says that all cards that player owns leave the game. That's clearly not right in an ante game; the player doesn't get to walk off with his or her ante card. I don't want to junk up rule 600.4a (which is already plenty long enough) with exceptions for ante games, since they're so far out of the mainstream. So this exception is being slipped in here.

Conga Rats on spotting the fix, Ahlyis.

I also just spotted that sidebar on the CompRules; I chuckled.

Yay for updates! Yay for getting almost all of the ones I'd submitted fixed!

Some individual comments:

It seems that Balduvian Warlord/False Orders don't work well in duplicates. That is, if a creature has one blocker, you can use False Orders to make it unblocked, but if it has two blockers, you can't use two False Orders to make it unblocked. This doesn't necessarily need to be changed, however.

I can understand why Hull Breach was reverted, since it wasn't supposed to be functionally changed. At the same time, though, I feel sad that it was printed before the "one or both" technology had been thought up. Destroying the two targets simultaneously wasn't a significant part of its design, and I'm sure that if they'd thought of "one or both" at that time, they'd have used it. Since they didn't, though, it has to keep its current, less elegant, wording.

Liquid Fire's wording of choosing a number as a cost is interesting.

The Ogre Enforcer wording is better, but it seems somewhat unclear. The ability should just be looking at the damage that has currently accumulated on the creature (such that regeneration resets the count). As worded, though, it could also be read as looking at what damage-dealing has happened to it.

The 0 damage thing seems odd. If something is dealt 0 damage, it's not dealt damage at all (Blaze for 0 won't Death Pits of Rath or let you target the creature with Needle Drop). With the new change, however, assigning 0 damage is assigning damage.

The multiplayer ante thing intrigues me. Clearly the current rule is wrong (or simply can't be applied, if ante and multiplayer are considered mutually exclusive). However, I don't see a way to word it such that a player who leaves the game no longer has a stake in it and only a winning player can gain ownership of cards, unless they make it so that, in a draw game, some players still win "more" than others.

Looking through my reported issues, I see only two things from the newest batch that weren't addressed:

• Orcish Squatters uses "for as long as" instead of just "as long as" in its duration.
  
• Beasts of Bogardan says "as long as any opponent controls [something]". Other cards say "an opponent" (see Ivory Guardians, for example).

The first one might have been addressed. Orcish Squatters did get a mention in the "assigns no combat damage" section, so maybe it just wasn't given its own entry for the other issue.

The second one doesn't seem to be addressed at all.

There were also some issues I'd submitted earlier that still haven't been addressed, but with those, it seems that it may be intentional.

I should know better than to join another rules discussion, but the ruling on Reclamation puzzles me, because I must have missed when they updated Ghostly Prison. What's wrong with GP's (or for that matter Propaganda's printed wording? The "that's attacking" clause looks ugly and dumb, so I demand to know why it's necessary. As far as I can tell, Reclamation could perfectly well read "Each green creature can't attack unless its controller sacrifices a land."

(PS, the article links to the wrong feature article's discussion thread, plzfixthx.)