Sorry it's been a while. Been pretty busy. Then sick. Now recovering from sickness = time + energy enough to view interwebs.

8.3.3 There is an unnecessary carriage return after the description (before 8.3.3.1). The description itself is perfect, though.

8.3.3.1 If it's a throw (and does half damage even when completely blocked), I assume you don't skip straight to the reversal step. Is this clearly enough implied, or should there be a note or subrule here?

8.3.3.2 This should include a "(rounded up)" bit after "half damage". (I know 8.3.3.9 sorta covers it, but 8.3.3.9 appears after Damage Adjusters, and seems to be talking about final values. Adding it here will make it clear that values are rounded up whenever they are halved. It's technically unnecessary, but it keeps folks from having to hold decimals in their heads for more than one step.)

8.3.3.6 There is an extra space before "The active". I.e., the "The" in 8.3.3.6 is a bit to the right of the "Phrases" in 8.3.3.5.

8.3.3.8 "Subtract the appropriate amount" is a pretty vague phrase. Perhaps this should say, "Subtract the final damage amount".

8.3.3.10 "a vitality loss of at least 1 or more" is redundant. This should either say, "a vitality loss of at least 1" or "a vitality loss of 1 or more".

8.3.3.12.1 This isn't bad. I definitely can't think of a better way to put this. Good addition.

8.3.3.12.2 This doesn't really make clear whether the multiple copies are part of the current attack, or the current attack resolves before the attack sequence for the first multiple copy begins. I suggest following the parenthetical with ", this attack resolves." Then start a new sentence with "Begin a new attack sequence". There are just too many old cards that respond to an attack "resolving" to leave this unclear. There should maybe also be something about whether the multiple copies are considered part of the current form or not? I.e., when does the form resolve?

8.3.3.12.3 Should "combat phase" be capitalized?

8.3.4 As noted elsewhere, something in here should describe how attacks played "as reversals" work. Do they get the Reversal keyword? Is it played? Can it be negated? If it doesn't get the keyword, when in the Reversal Step can a card be played "as a reversal"?

8.3.4.3 As with 8.3.3.12.2, this doesn't really make clear whether the Reversal's attack sequence is part of the current attack, or if the current attack resolves before the reversal's attack sequence begins. I suggest replacing "will initiate a new attack sequence." with "will resolve the current attack and initiate a new attack sequence." There are just too many old cards that respond to an attack "resolving" to leave this unclear. Same reasons. Also maybe something about whether the reversals are considered part of the current form or not?

8.3.4.4 I suggest following "multiple copies" with "(or similar additional attacks)" to make it clear for abilities that aren't multiples, but are functionally similar.

8.3.4.5 I suggest adding one additional clause. Consider following "the attack sequence is ended," with "the attack is considered resolved,".

8.3.4.6 Shouldn't this say, "The Reversal keyword ability is a Response," and "If a Reversal keyword ability is negated," ? A Reversal is either an ability or an attack _with_ that ability. You can negate the ability (which lets you play the attack), but not the attack itself, generally. Yes/no?

Re: All points - noted.

Re: 8.3.4.6

Part of the reason for that being worded as it is, is for an attack that is played as a reversal, to faciliate negating it.

But you're right the wording can be worked on.

Thanks again, I really appreciate the feedback.

Hey. Thank YOU, both for accepting the feedback (and graciously at that), and for doing all the real work of putting this together in the first place.

For the last month I've felt like we have a decent rules document that is only going to get better. (And the functional errata doc also has me excited.)

Before this version came out I felt like we had a pretty bad rules document that would never improve. You've made things better AND given me hope for the future. (:

-------------------------------

EDIT: I didn't notice how short 8.4 was, so I'll include that here.

8.4.1 Does the active player also get a chance to respond?

Otherwise, 8.4 looks pretty good.

You covered 8.4.1 in a different thread. For what it's worth I can probably tweak the wording on it.

RE: Solid rules doc - Thanks! I will admit, there was part of me that was concerned that players wouldn't accept the document, or would be upset that there were so many changes.

Overall I'm really pleased with the reception that the document has received, and that people understand that it is a living document, where it will receive revisions as time rolls on. (Granted - I'm not looking at touching the document for revisions until sometime in late June.)

Re: Hope for the future...

Yeah... the only thing that I'm slightly dreading is the amount of work in my future

RE: Functional Errata Doc - Be excited, just don't hold your breath. It IS on the horizon, but all of this stuff is being done as the rules Arbiters have time. James originally wanted the Errata done and issued at the same time as the AGR, but I had to draw the line at what I knew I could get done within X amount of time.

Currently Omar is out of commission due to his computer blowing up.
I've got a convention next weekend that I'm chairing, and then the Can Nats the following week.
Tag's got a bunch of stuff going on too.

My current estimate is that 6 months from now we'll have the Errata done, Floor rules done, another update for the AGR under our belts, and possibly a separate banned list for Legacy. (Shhhh.... that's on my own personal agenda, I make no promises about that actually happen.)

(For those reading along going OMG! 6 Months! Please note that the standard environment errata is covered in a sticky in the forums. For those who find that is unacceptable and plan vent about it - remember one of the reasons why all of this is getting done is because I whole heartedly agree with you! )