1) It means that those were overlooked in proofing. I've already given Rob notes about several cards so they can be corrected in the next printing.
I understand there are going to be proofing issues. My main question is what was capitalization supposed to signify (Card Types, Card Types and Identifiers, Card Types + Identifiers + ?).
If it would help I would be willing to serve as a final proof reader just to catch mechanical issues. (This would also make it a lot easier for me to keep the Lackey plugin up to date, whcih is my main reason for volunteering.)
2) It doesn't work they way you think it does. The exception applies to the entire sentence, not just the later half. We also intend to make that more clear with the next print run.
I guess it is a good thing that ANB already has an errata then, cause it is worded in the same way, and it would have been *actually* broken under this.
Seriously, though, a change like this should require an errata (as it is not how English grammar works).
If these were rhetorical questions intended to pique interest in the new set, then it worked! 
That was indeed a secondary intent. Just for folks who are similarly piqued...
- Philip the Evangelist: Site Access. Protect Deacons from Artifacts and magicians. May band to a Deacon or Philip's Daughters.
- Partners With Demons: If used by a human, band to a demon. If used by a demon, discard a card in your territory to negate and discard a card in opponent's territory (except a Lost Soul).
