Endymion wrote: >Point of curiosity-- would that actually work? Almost certainly not. Given that actually applying it as written would be totally destructive, R1698 would prevent it being applied, if it's taken as a single change to the game state. However, R105 prevents it being treated that way: each rule amended is a separate rule change, and rule changes take effect sequentially. The order in which the amendments take effect would be critical to determining their effects, and because the order is not specified I would rule that this makes the rule changes ambiguous and hence void (R105 again).
It's also unclear about the scope of "all numbers in the ruleset": does it include rule ID numbers, rule power numbers? So void for ambiguity again. Also, if there's doubt about the legal effect of the proposal, the "best interests of the game" criterion would steer a judge towards an interpretation that lets the game continue (though not necessarily one where no replacements at all occurred). -zefram
