(I'm told Rules Committee might already have ahold of this)

Here's the Scenario: Player A attacks Player B with a 4/4 and a 7/7. Player B blocks the 7/7 (quite safely, and barely relevant) with Gisela, Blade of Goldnight and doesn't block the 4/4. Player B, thinking of the unblocked 4/4 casts Eye for an Eye. Now Player B has two replacement effects to order and chooses to apply the Eye for an Eye before the Gisela cuts the damage in half. He says “I'll take 2, you take 8.”

Player A responds, “No, when they changed the text of Eye for an Eye and took away ‘If another spell or effect reduces the amount of damage you receive, it does not reduce the damage dealt by Eye for an Eye.’ …we now keep looking at what ‘that much damage’ is equal to. I only take your same 2, which Gisela doubles to 4.”

Player B is of the opinion that the text was eliminated simply because it was redundant. That Eye for an Eye works the same way it always did. Since the replacement effect has been applied, setting up a second damage effect with a separate source, we're done looking at the value of the damage at that time.

When I *am* player B, it feels like I'm playing-it-safe to agree with player A, considering the spirit of the card. (it behaves as though ordering my replacements didn't matter). If I get called to a table to rule in favor of player A, that goes beyond playing-it-safe to the tune of an incorrect ruling, hence this cry-for-help. Is Eye for an Eye truely neutered under current Oracle?

The Gisela player has two replacement effects to apply when they would be dealt damage: they can choose to apply Gisela's “cut that damage in half” effect, or the effect from Eye for an Eye. If they apply Gisela's effect first, the damage that would be dealt to Player B is reduced to 2, then Eye for an Eye applies and 2 would be deal to Player B and 2 would be dealt to Player A. Since an opponent would be dealt damage now, Gisela's other effect kicks in and that damage is doubled to 4. The net result is that Player B is dealt 2 damage and Player A is dealt 4 damage.

If we apply Eye for an Eye first, then Player A would take 4 damage and Player B would take 4 damage. Now that an opponent is being dealt damage, Gisela's first replacement effect gets to apply. It doesn't really matter in which order you apply the remaining two replacement effects (each replacement effect only applies to the damage that would be dealt to that player). Applying the effect to the damage that would be dealt to the opponent increases the damage dealt to them to 8, and applying the replacement effect to the damage that would be dealt to Gisela's controller reduces the damage to 2. The net result in this case is that Player B is dealt 2 damage and Player A is dealt 8 damage.

Nathan Long
Wizards.Com Boards NetRep