Kerim Aydin wrote: > The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses > are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's > interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended > reading is abundantly clear.
The intent is irrelevant. The actual text is that "If a card has an Exploit, a player CAN play a card in eir possession, by announcing that e plays the card". By R217, the text takes precedence. Therefore, if (any card has an exploit) then (a player CAN play a card in eir possession). I don't think you can interpret this any differently. It may have failed due to no card with Presto! existing, but the text of the rules wins, even when badly worded.
