Restriction of Mana Drain Possible?

[lilmidget]

Also, for the record, it's not a 'restrict Mana Drain' argument, it's a 'this is getting into the zone where we should strongly consider restricting it' argument. I don't think it should remain a sacred cow of the format, so I'm trying to get everyone comfortable with the idea that it's the card closest to restriction at the moment.

Like Dr. Sylvan, I am not trying to start a restrict Mana Drain topic, but am instead trying to discuss whether there is a good possibility that it will be restricted.

In Dr. Sylvan's most recent article, he compares [card]Mana Drain[/card] to pre-restriction [card]Gush[/card]:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7516

As Dr. Sylvan explained in the article, Gush was restricted when GAT reached 37.5% of Top 8s, a number that Mana Drain is starting to approach.

Unlike the previous cards which have narrowly escaped restriction, the use of Mana Drain is still increasing. The intregration of Bazaar of Bagdad (combined with Squee for a powerful draw engine) into various decks (Dragon, U/G Madness, Oshawa Stompy) quickly died down when rumors of restriction ran rampant. The birth of Slavery.dec and the creation of Trinisphere was followed by a flood of Mishra's Workshops. But hype over that too died off eventually. In contrast, no new innovations, yet Mana Drain still continues to increase in numbers.

Ultimately, it is not up to the players of the game, but the people of DCI who choose the banned/restricted cards. In the explanation of the banning of Skullclamp, Aaron Forsythe uses this reasoning:

Skullclamp was banned in Standard, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck, had four in the sideboard, or was built to try and defend against it. And there were a lot more successful decks in the first two categories than in the third. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format.

When compared to Mana Drain, the arguments are very similar. Using the same words as Aaron Forsythe, you can see that Skullclamp and Mana Drain are almost perfectly interchangable in his quote with a the sentences modifed slightly.

Mana Drain was restricted in Type 1, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck or was built against it (low cc cards). And there were a lot more successful decks in the first category than in the second. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format.

So now the question becomes: Does Mana Drain have a great chance of being restricted, or will it survive like cards before it have done?

Please voice your opinions on this matter.

-William To

[Zherbus]

It's been something people have talked about for years and years. It's not gonna happen.

[Ric_Flair]

Here is my response to Dr. Sylvan's article:

Phil, good job. You have finally staked out a controversial position with the Mana Drain comments. Prepare for a deluge of oppositition. Before that happens let me say that I think that there is a bit of ambiguity in the reasoning you borrowed from K-Run.

It is possible and likely that Mana Drain is a cause of the lower average cc in T1. But there is another factor that is impossible to separate from the Mana Drain effect in the real world--combo. Even in a world without Mana Drain, I have no doubt that the power and speed of T1 combo would cause a similar effect. People that hope to hard cast Juzams should go play casual. Even with Mana Drain out of the way, combo will insure that the average cc is low.

Furthermore, Mana Drain actually raises the average cc allowing for cards like Mindslaver, Skeletal Scrying, E. Angel and formerly Morphling to be played. Now Slaver could be played without Drains, but not nearly at the same frequency. If you did your numbers without these Mana Drain assisted monster cards, what would the average cc be? Lower I imagine.

Finally, the number of decks a card shows up in in T1 needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Really, as Steve has pointed out, because of the power level of certain cards, a vast majority of decks include probably between 30% and 40% of the same cards. One end is a deck like FCG which is almost exclusively composed of FCG only cards, but once you move past that deck you see that combo shares tons of cards with Tog which shares tons of cards with Drain Slaver...and so on. The de facto card pool is so small that overlap is natural. I think the frequency of appearance test needs to be amended to include some consideration of the style of deck. Now if Mana Drain starts showing up in FCG then there is an issue of overuse. As it is now, I think that there is so much overlap between decks, especially control decks, that mere frequency alone is not a good enough consideration. Add to this the lamentably uninnovative metagame (driven really by three or four people), the lack of high profile money events to spur innovation, people's nostalgic streak when it comes to the format, the bias towards control naturally existing in the format (blue has nearly all of the best colored spells) and the prohibitively high cost of switching decks and I think it is clear that Mana Drain's frequency is not quite the harbringer of restriction that it would initially appear to be.

[jpmeyer]

It's been something people have talked about for years and years. It's not gonna happen.

Unless control itself is overly dominant (and in all of these deck breakdowns, Tog in March was the only time when one deck won multiple tournies,) there isn't a need to worry about restricting Mana Drain.

[xrizzo]

Pure control has not been overly dominant since 4 FoF BBS...  and when that was the case, it was the non-reactive FoF which needed restriction, not the reactive mana drain.

It is true that mana drain makes you think about what casting cost your cards are -- but if you are going to play any competitive deck, you should be considering this anyway.

Mana Drain isn't that hard to play around, and there are games where the mana cannot be put to good use the next turn.  Obviously it is a powerful card, but it has just enough nuances to keep it from being restricted anytime soon.

Having said that, there was a keeper highlander deck with took first in the last month.  (meaning 1x mana drain)

[lilmidget]

Once again, I would like to say that this is NOT a "Should Mana Drain be restricted?" thread. It is instead a "Is it possible that Wizards will restrict Mana Drain?" thread.

It's been something people have talked about for years and years. It's not gonna happen.

Unless control itself is overly dominant (and in all of these deck breakdowns, Tog in March was the only time when one deck won multiple tournies,) there isn't a need to worry about restricting Mana Drain.

I agree with you on that point. However, does the increase in the number of control decks in top 8s suggest that Control is starting to slowly dominate the format? Using Dr. Sylvan's statistics, Control (4C Control, Hulk, GAT, Control Slavery) made up a total of 37.5% of the top 8s, more than that of decks that used Gush back in the day.

The next b/r announcement is in a couple months and the number of Mana Drains in top 8s are still constantly increasing. So now once again I ask, "Is it possible that Wizards will restrict Mana Drain?"

[Kerz]

Control itself has never been so utterly dominant or broken to warrent the restriction of Mana Drain-  while the things Control does with its Drain mana are amazing, they will probably never be broken in the most literal sense of the word. Think of the effects that have warrented restriction in the past:

Gush actually netted mana in GAT with fastbond and tons of tutors, while making a blazing-fast combo deck with a lot of control components.

Burning Wish and LED, in short, were included in a deck that had a rather consistant turn one goldfish.

Does Mana Drain's effect(s) really rival these? I belive this is a firm no. I would say that Mana Drain is one of Type One's most powerful effects, and is extremely integral to our format, but nowhere near broken/restriction-worthy.

[Ric_Flair]

I agree with you on that point. However, does the increase in the number of control decks in top 8s suggest that Control is starting to slowly dominate the format? Using Dr. Sylvan's statistics, Control (4C Control, Hulk, GAT, Control Slavery) made up a total of 37.5% of the top 8s, more than that of decks that used Gush back in the day.

Big omission here:  Gush was in one and only one deck.  Mana Drain, by your own count, is in 4 different decks.  

It should not be mere presence that makes a card worthy of restriction, especially in Vintage.  In this format SO MANY cards are used in multiple decks.  If presence alone is indicative of a need for restriction (on the idea that only powerful cards are used very often) then we really have to look at cards like Brainstorm, Force of Will, and Null Rod, too.  

The problem with the mere numbers and presence argument is that it is a slippery slope.  There is no clear way, based on numbers alone, to distinguish between Brainstorm and Mana Drain, or more to the point because of a similar power level Force of Will and Mana Drain.  If the response to the Force of Will comment is that it is the glue, or it holds back combo, or whatever, the argument has transitioned into something other than mere presence.  

The fact is Mana Drain allows for a lot of diversity and does not have an overly dominant effect.  Mana Drain allows us to play with cards that would never see the light of day in Vintage--cards like Exalted Angel and Mindslaver (without Workshop).  It makes what would be obviously inferior control decks, like Control Slaver, into viable decks, thus adding to diversity in the format.  Finally, its reactive nature and relatively cumbersome casting cost make sure that even if it is played a lot, it is not dominating the tournament scene, unlike say Burning Wish/LED.

Numbers alone are never sufficient, even under Steve's tests.  Furthermore, Mana Drain certainly does not meet the unrecoverable early game swing test.  Turn 2 in Vintage is like Turns 5-8 in Extended and Turns 7-12 in Standard.

[jpmeyer]

There's also a difference between Mana Drain and Skullclamp in the fact that if you played Skullclamp you had to play a "Skullclamp deck," while there really aren't "Mana Drain decks," even if Tog and Slaver come close to this description.

[SimpleHiker]

When ever I see someone suggest Mana Drain, Workshop, or Bazaar may be restricted I only think of one thing. MONEY.
Most of the support for the restriction of these cards has to do with there price, new players can't stand having to buy four copies of these cards at the current prices.

Hey I can't afford  4 drains, why not bitch about restricting it so I only have to buy one.

JTW

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

@simpleHiker

Im sorry, but that has to be the DUMBEST theory I had ever heard.

[SimpleHiker]

@simpleHiker

Im sorry, but that has to be the DUMBEST theory I had ever heard.

You need to do more slumming, listen to the scrubbs talk. There are mile long threads of restriction rumors and reprint gossip. Most are fueled by some 13 yr old kids not wanting to pay 85x4 for a set of drains.

I think that mana drain may get restricted at all is a dumb theory. Its a support card, as JP all ready said you don't see mana drain decks. Get  rid of drains, might as well throw force of will on list too. Its all nonsense.

Yes, I can read the article and look at the numbers. But look at the current list... Fork, Braingeyser. Its fairly well know that DCI has little knowledge of what is going on in type 1, so what makes anyone think there looking at number breakdowns like this.
SH

[jpmeyer]

The "restrict card X because it's an expensive card that I don't know how to beat"-style argument has been around for a loooooooooooong time.  Nobody actually takes it seriously.

[lilmidget]

Yes, I can read the article and look at the numbers. But look at the current list... Fork, Braingeyser. Its fairly well know that DCI has little knowledge of what is going on in type 1, so what makes anyone think there looking at number breakdowns like this.
SH

You forgot to mention when these restrictions happened. Braingeyser was a bomb card back when Magic started. Fork allowed multiples of Ancestral and Time Walk. That's why they were originally restricted.

Today, these cards probably shouldn't be on the list. But the DCI has been paying more attention to Type 1 than it used to. People like jpmeyer, smmenen, and rakso (yes even him) have forced the DCI to look at Type 1 as more than just an irrelevant format. Recent restrictions/unrestrictions have shown us that.

When ever I see someone suggest Mana Drain, Workshop, or Bazaar may be restricted I only think of one thing. MONEY.
Most of the support for the restriction of these cards has to do with there price, new players can't stand having to buy four copies of these cards at the current prices.

Well new players don't have to play a deck with Mana Drain, Workshop, or Bazaar. There are plenty of other decks outs there that don't play any of these and are still competitive. FCG and Fish are good examples and FCG is well within the budget of random 13 year olds.