For the sake of petty argument is my 2nd favorite charitable cause.
It would not be a draw, it would be a win. Because thats how any other Villain character card being eaten by the wasteland would work. In this case nothing would tell you otherwise, so you win.
Then you write a fairy tale about little girls that dreamed big dreams and got eaten by wild creatures, as a warning to future generations to keep their dreams to themselves.
The "would be destroyed" part overrides the "is destroyed" thing with regard to the Unforgiving Wasteland triggering on-destruction effects, hence my comment on the Matriarch (you don't get feedback damage from Fowl being destroyed because they aren't being destroyed - they're being removed from the game instead).
I'm in agreement with those who say that the Dreamer reaching 0hp is a loss regardless of what does it - Unforgiving Wasteland wouldn't get to do anything because the loss condition of the Dreamer running out of hp would kick in first.
Semantic Pedantic attack!
It would be the instead that holds the important role of cancelling destruction, but the way things work now I'm not sure you can't trigger other destruction effects first, then cancel the destruction, it is all confusing.
NOT official, but based on various official rulings*, is the Damage Dealing Timing worksheet. The linguistic distinction of "would be" versus "is" is (as far as I can tell) not as relevant as what is actually happening in the action clause. Final Wasteland replaces destruction, so happens in step 17. Other "triggered by destrcution" effects (such as Dreamr's Lose condition) happen in step 18. Hence, not simultaneous.
There's an error in the Spreadsheet's information, at least if I"m reading the spreadsheet correctly.
The Clarifications and Decisions from from Handelabra & Christopher's Fireside Chats post (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/clarifications-and-decisions-from-handelabra-christophers-fireside-chats-6773) contains the following:
Dual Crowbars works somewhat like Isothermic Transducer. The final damage dealt from the first instance of damage forms the initial amount/type/irreducibility of the second instance of damage. That means you can benefit twice from damage increases.
So Cell C22 (at least for Dual Crowbars) is incorrect … the final damage from the first attack (Step 15) becomes the starting damage of the next attack (Step 6), rather than using the initial damage of the first attack.
That change happened in the last week, before then it was understood that Dual Crowbars used the same base damage for both attacks.
Thanks for the catch, jrboegman. After a bit of thought, I have delected the text from 22C and added more current notes to 21B (and 6C and 9C).