Eye for an Eye vs Vampirism

[Borg]

Situation :
A creature deals 4 damage and is subject to 2 effects : Eye for an Eye and Vampirism.

I'm assuming, since both effects happen to the same creature and at the same time I can choose the order in which they take affect, correct ?
So, I can choose to take the 4 damage first and then heal back up 2.

[Zuberi]

hmm, the timing on this probably does need clarified a bit. My guess, based upon how the card text sounds to me and the fact that you still take damage from eye for an eye before the defender dies (if you killed them), indicates that Eye for an Eye is supposed to be kind of simultaneous. So you both take damage at the same time, and then both suffer the same effects. This would mean that you would get to heal some of your Eye for an Eye damage via the Vampiric trait. Again, this is just a guess though, and to counter it the game does prefer to do things procedurally rather than simultaneously and there's no indication what order to do things in if done procedurally.

[Kelanen]

It feels it should be sequential, not simultaneous...

Back to Controller/Init order?

[bigfatchef]

I would say both effects happen exactly the same moment.
How I would rule it is that the controller of the effected creature is the one who decides the order both effects apply. Only if this would still leave timing problems open (which isn't the case) the player with initiative would have to decide.

[Borg]

So, are we saying now that the attacking creature in this case can choose between :

- taking damage first, then heal with Vampirism ( in case he was undamaged before the attack for example )
- healing first, then taking damage from EtE ( example : a creature with 3 life left heals 2 vamp before taking 4 EtE damage )

[Zuberi]

I feel like I should elaborate on my previous statement. Mage Wars really doesn't like simultaneous events. Even when things are meant to be simultaneous, they are handled mechanically in a sequential fashion.

Now, for Eye for an Eye, there's not really anything to say how the timing should be handled on it. I'm grasping at straws a little when I latch onto the fact that if the Defender is destroyed, Eye for an Eye still gets to do its damage. This is very unusual because Eye for an Eye should also be destroyed along with the defender, and things in the discard pile typically can't have an effect on the game. The one thing that this reminds me of is a Damage Barrier, which works in exactly the same way so as to convey the thematic feel of happening simultaneously with the triggering attack.

So, based on that information, I do think that Eye for an Eye is supposed to, in theory, be happening simultaneous with the triggering attack. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that mechanically it would be resolved simultaneously. In fact, after thinking about it, I'm pretty positive that it wouldn't be, because again the game hates to do that. Which basically means that I didn't contribute anything except confusion to the discussion in my previous statement. The only hard fact we have is that we don't know the timing. This will definitely be addressed in a future Supplement update.

I honestly think the final answer will be that the Defender suffers the damage and effects and then the attacker suffers the same damage and effects. I seriously doubt a ruling that allows the attacker to be damaged first, before the defender, will happen (as would be the case with any controller/initiative decides ruling), and it also seems unlikely that they would split up the damage and effects (i.e. defender takes damage, attacker takes damage, defender suffers effects, attacker suffers effects). Until an official answer is given, you can play it out however you wish, and if you have a good argument for another method then by all means share it with us, but right now I think that the order would be the Defender suffers the full damage and effects, and then the attacker suffers the same, which would prevent Vampiric from being beneficial to a fully healed attacker.

[Borg]

Until an official answer is given, you can play it out however you wish, and if you have a good argument for another method then by all means share it with us, but right now I think that the order would be the Defender suffers the full damage and effects, and then the attacker suffers the same, which would prevent Vampiric from being beneficial to a fully healed attacker.

I agree with that order but with one distinction:
1-Defender suffers damage and effects first, followed by any triggered effects on that defender.
2-Attacker suffers damage and effects second but in the order that he wants, meaning you can choose whether to Vamp-heal first and then take damage+effects or the other way round, my reasoning being that imo Vampiric and Eye for an Eye trigger both at the same time and since MW prefers to do effects sequentially, rather than simultaneously, the standard rule of operating is to let the player choose the order of resolving them.