When Midnight Reaper's ability resolves, Midnight Reaper deals damage, then you draw a card; the two actions don't happen simultaneously because two action verbs ("deals" and "draw") refer to those actions (C.R. 608.2c). See also this thread.
I'm not sure that's the same situation, though, because Destructive Revelry has its two effects split into two sentences, whereas Midnight Reaper's damage and draw have an "and" in between them. Does that make no difference?
I'm not sure that's the same situation, though, because Destructive Revelry has its two effects split into two sentences, whereas Midnight Reaper's damage and draw have an "and" in between them. Does that make no difference?
In general, as far as the game is concerned, it's not the word "then" or "and" or the use of separate sentences or clauses that indicates sequential actions, but the use of two action verbs. In this respect, Destructive Revelry ("[d]estroy" and "deals") is no different from Midnight Reaper's ability ("deals" and "draw"). See also this thread (hideaway's "[e]xile" and "put" [C.R. 702.74a]). One exception to the first sentence is if the spell or ability uses the word "simultaneously" (e.g., in Goblin Welder's ability despite the use of two action verbs, "sacrifices" and "returns", in the relevant part of that ability).
Compare with—
Dig Through Time (one action verb "put" means the action of putting some cards into the hand and others on the bottom of the library is a simultaneous action), and
Char (the single action verb "deals" means the damage is dealt to "you" and to the target simultaneously).
Is the life gain and life loss caused by damage from a source with lifelink simultaneous too?
If a creature with lifelink deals damage, its controller gains that much life as part of the event of dealing damage (just as the life loss from the damage, in normal cases, is part of that event); the life gain doesn't happen separately from that event (C.R. 119.4c, 119.3f, 119.3a). Thus, if Midnight Reaper has lifelink and deals damage to you, you will both gain and lose that much life at the same time.
I have a follow up, but at this point, I'm gonna post it to a new thread since it no longer deals with Midnight Reaper. Thank you for your good humor and patience.
I'm not sure that's the same situation, though, because Destructive Revelry has its two effects split into two sentences, whereas Midnight Reaper's damage and draw have an "and" in between them. Does that make no difference?
In general, as far as the game is concerned, it's not the word "then" or "and" or the use of separate sentences or clauses that indicates sequential actions, but the use of two action verbs. In this sense, Destructive Revelry ("[d]estroy" and "deals") is no different from Midnight Reaper's ability ("deals" and "draw"). See also this thread (hideaway's "[e]xile" and "put" [C.R. 702.74a]). One exception to the first sentence is if the spell or ability uses the word "simultaneously" (e.g., in Goblin Welder's ability despite the use of two action verbs, "sacrifices" and "returns", in the relevant part of that ability).
Compare with—
Dig Through Time (one action verb "put" means the action of putting some cards into the hand and others on the bottom of the library is a simultaneous action), and
Char (the single action verb "deals" means the damage is dealt to "you" and to the target simultaneously).
I'm not sure that applying 608.2c makes sense to distinguish between whether an action is considered simultaneous or not. The examples you provided, both Dig Through Time and Char are only templated different from cards like Midnight Reaper and Goblin Welder because it requires two English verbs for the latter two and only one English verb for the former two to accomplish the desired actions. Dig Through Time, from an English perspective, has assumed words and should be read as such:
{You} Look at the top seven cards of your library. {You} Put two of them into your hand and {you put} the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
The implied subject (you) is implicit to English without being stated, since it's a command, and the same is true for the implied verb since the verb from the first half of the sentence applies to the second half and doesn't need repeating. They could have just as easily added the second "put," and the card would be no different in application or function. It would just have one more word. The same logic cannot applied to Midnight Reaper, however, because two verbs are necessary to instruct the two actions. They added the word "simultaneous" to Goblin Welder to make it clear that there is no gap in which a player can respond or target to the changing zones of both objects, as might pertain to triggered abilities that trigger when the artifact leaves the battlefield.
From a rules context and application, why would it matter if the card draw and damage of Midnight Reaper were simultaneous vs. not simultaneous?
From a rules context and application, why would it matter if the card draw and damage of Midnight Reaper were simultaneous vs. not simultaneous?
Take the following scenarios:
Assume Kill-Suit Cultist, equipped with Sword of Fire and Ice, deals combat damage to a player, making Sword of Fire and Ice's triggered ability (which has an effect of the form "[action] and [another action]" like Midnight Reaper's ability) trigger. Kill-Suit Cultist's controller targets Maralen of the Mornsong an opponent controls with that ability, then activates Kill-Suit Cultist's ability in response, likewise targeting Maralen, then the latter ability resolves. Eventually, the Sword of Fire and Ice ability resolves. Sword of Fire and Ice would deal 2 damage to Maralen, but instead Maralen is destroyed and sent to the graveyard (C.R. 701.7a). Now, since Maralen has left the battlefield, it no longer keeps players from drawing cards, so that triggered ability's controller does so (C.R. 611.3b. 109.5). If Sword of Fire and Ice had said "simultaneously, Sword of Fire and Ice deals ... and you draw..." instead, Maralen would have kept the player in question from drawing a card simultaneously with Maralen being destroyed.
Assume a player controls Kill-Suit Cultist and a nontoken Midnight Reaper and the latter dies, making its ability trigger. In response to that ability, that player casts Harm's Way targeting Maralen of the Mornsong an opponent controls, then activates Kill-Suit Cultist's ability, likewise targeting Maralen, then the latter ability resolves, then Harm's Way resolves (with Midnight Reaper chosen as the source). Then all players pass and the Midnight Reaper ability resolves. Midnight Reaper would deal damage to its last-known controller (C.R. 608.2g, 109.5), but instead the damage would be dealt to Maralen, but instead Maralen is destroyed and sent to the graveyard (C.R. 701.7a, 616.2). Now, since Maralen has left the battlefield, it no longer keeps players from drawing cards, so the Midnight Reaper ability's controller does so (C.R. 611.3b, 109.5).
See also this thread, which deals with Ravenous Slime's replacement effect which is likewise of the form "[action] and [another action]" like Midnight Reaper's ability.
I may have a follow-up question depending on the answer.
Compare with—
One more question:
Is the life gain and life loss caused by damage from a source with lifelink simultaneous too?
I'm not sure that applying 608.2c makes sense to distinguish between whether an action is considered simultaneous or not. The examples you provided, both Dig Through Time and Char are only templated different from cards like Midnight Reaper and Goblin Welder because it requires two English verbs for the latter two and only one English verb for the former two to accomplish the desired actions. Dig Through Time, from an English perspective, has assumed words and should be read as such:
The implied subject (you) is implicit to English without being stated, since it's a command, and the same is true for the implied verb since the verb from the first half of the sentence applies to the second half and doesn't need repeating. They could have just as easily added the second "put," and the card would be no different in application or function. It would just have one more word. The same logic cannot applied to Midnight Reaper, however, because two verbs are necessary to instruct the two actions. They added the word "simultaneous" to Goblin Welder to make it clear that there is no gap in which a player can respond or target to the changing zones of both objects, as might pertain to triggered abilities that trigger when the artifact leaves the battlefield.
From a rules context and application, why would it matter if the card draw and damage of Midnight Reaper were simultaneous vs. not simultaneous?