Really digging this one as well. Very cool idea.
I'd personally lean more towards "As long as CARDNAME is attacking or blocking..." over the current phrasing. Do you feel it weakens the card too much? I don't necessarily feel it's overpowered as is, just voicing my gut reaction.
See, I gave it a half second's thought - again being at work when it came to me - but the quick convo I had with me was something like this:
"Should I force this thing to be engaged in combat or no?"
"Well, me, it's sort of supposed to represent the flavor of a general enhancing his troops tactics. Does a general attack, or hang back and give orders unless it's crucial that he advance?"
"I guess he hangs back."
"Well there you go."
Now granted, this is more of a modern concept of a general, as these days a conflict is mediated in an entirely different way than, say, even 150 years ago (Civil War generals engaging in very different ways).
Also, yeah I suppose it seems a little weaker if he actually has to attack, since he's way easier to pick off if he actually has to attack, and honestly when compared to other mana-cheating effects, it's not necessarily as strong as, say, controlling a Llanowar Elves. So I did want it to be a little bit protected, I suppose, although if the feeling is that the effect is too strong or the wording is too heavy-handed I'm not against reworking it.
Also, clearly he needs better name and flavor text.
