1) it seems that you contradicted yourself and made my point. EVERY creature should attack, but this is not the way it works NOW. Creatures who deals 0 damage DON'T attack!!!
2)because the card says :"deal 1 damage to attacking creature" , and that should be the effect, there's no such thing as "is the effect going to harm me or do good to me?" it should be applied in ALL cases
2b)i know ELCIPSE works this way, i put the example as paradox, showing you that an effect should always be applied even if it harms you or HELP your opponent.
3) yeah on this one i think there should be an agreement, imho a creature with negative attack HEALS the opponent, and a creature with POSITIVE attack DAMAGES the opponent.
Well, I suppose you are right there. You set me up for that, and I fell right into it lol. So I will agree with you that the wording SHOULD be changed. I think the wording should say that creatures that damage you take 1 damage. I do not agree though that all creatures should be damaged.
Pretend I have a minor vampire on the field named steve. When steve deals damage, this is what happens.
Turn 1
Steve attacks bob by sucking his blood.
Bob uses a spine/thorn (forget which one is the upped version) to to stop steve for 1 damage. Since the minor vampire did damage, its ability activates. Lucky for me, steve didnt get poisoned.
Since steve sucked some blood, he is at 104/100 blood level.
When he comes back to me, he heals me for the 4 extra, so he is back to 100/100 and he has a regulated blood level.
Bobs turn.
Bob uses Antimatter on steve
Turn 2
Steve attacks (-) damage, so instead of sucking blood, he gives blood.
Bob uses a spine carpace to block. Since I didnt do more damage than the shield, the effect doesnt activate.
Since steve gave some blood, he has 96/100 blood level.
When he comes back to me, I regulate his blood level and loose 4 health doing so.
______________________
Yeah, I know its a bad example, but still. You get my point. right?