Camouflage is a strange old card that changes how blocking works. The card text says
This turn, instead of declaring blockers, each defending player chooses any number of creatures he or she controls and divides them into a number of piles equal to the number of attacking creatures for whom that player is the defending player. Creatures he or she controls that can block additional creatures may likewise be put into additional piles. Assign each pile to a different one of those attacking creatures at random. Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so.
Here's an example of the situation I'm wondering about:
My opponent attacks with two creatures, a Charging Rhino and a Boggart Brute. The former can't be blocked by more than one creature, and the latter can't be blocked by fewer than two creatures. After they declare attacks, they cast Camouflage.
Now, I want the possibility of blocking both creatures, so I put two creatures in one pile and one in another (for simplicity, assume all of the blocking creatures are 1/1 Soldier tokens).
Then, when the piles are assigned to attackers, I get unlucky, and the pile with one creature is assigned to block the Boggart Brute, and the pile with two creatures is assigned to block the Charging Rhino.
Now, clearly the single Soldier can't legally block the Boggart Brute alone. So my question is this: does the Charging Rhino end up blocked?
Basically, I think there are two possible interpretations for the bolded sentence that change how this situation plays out. I think it could either mean
For each attacking creauture, if some subset of the set of creatures that could each individually block that creature is a legal block, then they are assigned to block that creature.
For each attacking creature, if the entire set of creatures that could each individually block the assigned creature is a legal block, then they are assigned to block that creature.
Or it could even be something different from both of those that I haven't thought of.