Format Imbalance or Fun?

[Hi-Val]

I'd be fine with Mana Drain dominance. Why? The strategy is easy to counter because it is reactive and not proactive. Trinisphere and Dark Ritual say "I did this, YOU deal with it" and Mana Drain says "Do something so I can deal with it". If you make a deck like Fish where everything is a terrible Drain target and because of mana denial, you'll never be able to Drain something into another huge spell, it's easy to deal with. Manlands dodge Drain too : ) Decks can pack REBs or Xantids or Defense Grids and just play to the disadvantages of Drain. They can avoid Drain trying to trap them, whereas they have to pack answers to Trinisphere and Ritual. There are few ways to avoid those strategies with playskill the way there is with Mana Drain. It's certainly the tamest of the triangle.

[Pern]

Dunno, Steve, you're starting to sound like Bush on cutting taxes.
"OMG, Oshawa Stompy just won a tournament in Buenos Aires!
We must restrict Mana Drain immediately!"

This explicit application of "unfun" as a restriction justification
makes me feel way better about Magic in general.

Drain dominance, even if it happens, doesn't bother me.
I try to play my spell, you try to say no.
We both have something to say about it.
You playing something that says I don't even get to play my spells bothers me.

It's a game.
It's supposed to be fun.

[CopperLeaf]

I agree with Hi-Val.  There is a difference between pro-active and re-active brokenness (or whatever you want to call it).

[Shock Wave]

I'd be fine with Mana Drain dominance. Why? The strategy is easy to counter because it is reactive and not proactive. Trinisphere and Dark Ritual say "I did this, YOU deal with it" and Mana Drain says "Do something so I can deal with it". If you make a deck like Fish where everything is a terrible Drain target and because of mana denial, you'll never be able to Drain something into another huge spell, it's easy to deal with. Manlands dodge Drain too : ) Decks can pack REBs or Xantids or Defense Grids and just play to the disadvantages of Drain. They can avoid Drain trying to trap them, whereas they have to pack answers to Trinisphere and Ritual. There are few ways to avoid those strategies with playskill the way there is with Mana Drain. It's certainly the tamest of the triangle.

Gee, I don't know know what decks you've been playing, but last I heard Control Slaver combos off on Turn 3 after your opponent casts an 8CC spell right into your Mana Drain. Same with Tog. It's that easy.

[CopperLeaf]

Gee, I don't know know what decks you've been playing, but last I heard Control Slaver combos off on Turn 3 after your opponent casts an 8CC spell right into your Mana Drain. Same with Tog. It's that easy.

Of course if you dont want to be drained for eight you dont have to be, just dont play an 8cc spell without protection or duress or whatever if they have UU untapped.

What do you do against a first turn sphere or combo w/o a force in hand?

[Hi-Val]

Gee, I don't know know what decks you've been playing, but last I heard Control Slaver combos off on Turn 3 after your opponent casts an 8CC spell right into your Mana Drain. Same with Tog. It's that easy.

One cannot cite the rushing tide of idiocy as a reason for a broken card to be even more broken, though I suppose an argument can be made for it. However, bad playskills reward opponents with any kind of decks. Mana Drain just seems to particularly punish bad players.

Perhaps I should phrase it like this. What is the least annoying play to see your opponent make on their first turn?

1. Workshop, Trinisphere.
2. Dark Ritual, 8 spells, Tendrils of Agony
3. Island, Mox Sapphire, with Mana Drain in hand.

I argue that it's the third because you actually get a chance to do something, and the strategy is reactive in nature so a bit slower. Even if you lose, you at *least* played some spells.

[Shock Wave]

One cannot cite the rushing tide of idiocy as a reason for a broken card to be even more broken, though I suppose an argument can be made for it. However, bad playskills reward opponents with any kind of decks. Mana Drain just seems to particularly punish bad players.

Perhaps I should phrase it like this. What is the least annoying play to see your opponent make on their first turn?

1. Workshop, Trinisphere.
2. Dark Ritual, 8 spells, Tendrils of Agony
3. Island, Mox Sapphire, with Mana Drain in hand.

I argue that it's the third because you actually get a chance to do something, and the strategy is reactive in nature so a bit slower. Even if you lose, you at *least* played some spells.

I'm not sure if you caught the sarcasm that was supposed to be oozing from my last post, as it seems to have eluded CopperLeaf. I agree with everything you've stated about the card, although somehow it seems to have become so broken recently that it needs restriction. In any case, I think you've strongly outlined the reason why the card is powerful but certainly not unfair and definitely not worthy of restriction.

[Smmenen]

Mana Drain is certainly unfair.  It's not at all fun when you play a fair 2-3 casting cost threat only to have your opponent untap, Intuition, Ak 3 and AK 4 which was only a good play becuase of the Mana Drain mana gotten becuase you played a spell.  By not playing a spell you definately increase your chances of losing by giving your opponent more time to do all that without the Drain mana.  

It's also certainly worthy of restriction.  Mana Drain is one of the most dominant cards in this format.  

That doesn't mean it should be, but let's not claim that Mana Drain is "fair" or not worthy of joining the list of the most broken cards in Vintage history.

[Shock Wave]

Mana Drain is certainly unfair.  It's not at all fun when you play a fair 2-3 casting cost threat only to have your opponent untap, Intuition, Ak 3 and AK 4 which was only a good play becuase of the Mana Drain mana gotten becuase you played a spell.  By not playing a spell you definately increase your chances of losing by giving your opponent more time to do all that without the Drain mana.  

It's also certainly worthy of restriction.  Mana Drain is one of the most dominant cards in this format.  

That doesn't mean it should be, but let's not claim that Mana Drain is "fair" or not worthy of joining the list of the most broken cards in Vintage history.

I would contend that it most certainly is "fair", which is another of those words that will spark another ultimately pointless thread. This whole format is unfair, and most have come to accept that. However, the fact that you can't plop a Mana Drain down on Turn 1 and immediately have a stranglehold on the game is what makes it "fair" to me. It also seems very fair that a deck loaded with Mana Drains will roll over to good aggro-control decks, which have all but ceased to exist up to now.

Is it worthy of restriction? Let's not go down that road, I've had quite enough of the "restriction criteria" carousel.

[Grand Inquisitor]

A quick look through the restricted list yields zero reactive cards.  If anything, I think this is the defining restriction criteria.

[Machinus]

Mana Drain is certainly unfair.  It's not at all fun when you play a fair 2-3 casting cost threat only to have your opponent untap, Intuition, Ak 3 and AK 4 which was only a good play becuase of the Mana Drain mana gotten becuase you played a spell.  By not playing a spell you definately increase your chances of losing by giving your opponent more time to do all that without the Drain mana.  

It's also certainly worthy of restriction.  Mana Drain is one of the most dominant cards in this format.  

That doesn't mean it should be, but let's not claim that Mana Drain is "fair" or not worthy of joining the list of the most broken cards in Vintage history.

Steve - if not for restriction purposes, what is the point of such a distinction?

Drain is just as fair as any of the other powerful cards that define the format, and it requires some kind of interaction for it to have the most powerful effect. No other broken card has this restriction on it. All the cards that are permanently on the list are there because they get out of control on their own, no matter what your opponent is doing.

If Type I players haven't learned how to deal with Mana Drain in the last eleven years, shouldn't we reconsider our disdain for the combat phase?

[Hi-Val]

Oh, Mana Drain is certainly broke as a joke. So is Mindslaver, Goblin Welder, Intuition, Dark Ritual, etc. Whether it crosses from broken to restriction-worthy is debatable. However, restriction criteria are hella boring. Let's talk about the fun of the card, like Steve asked.

Is Mana Drain a fun card? YES! If you play it, you have the possibility of going insane with the mana you get, and even if you are on the recieving end, there's hope that the mana the opponent got from draining your FOW will burn them in the ass for 5. If you play a deck that drops 1-2cc threats like Fish or Bird S*** (can we PLEASE think of a better name for this?) then Mana Drain has less of an effect. Anyone who played Hulk against Fish knows that you can Drain the hell out of a Standstill or Null Rod and you're still not gonna win.

The nature of the card is what limits its brokenness and enables it to be a fun card and not an unfun card. This includes its cost, the ability to fight against it, the potential for burning off the mana and having to wait a turn for the mana. On top of all that, you've gotta hope your opponent is going to cast spells so that you have something to drain!

Finally, Richard, sarcasm doesn't translate well over the intarweb. Glad to see we're on the same page : )

[Matt]

A quick look through the restricted list yields zero reactive cards.  If anything, I think this is the defining restriction criteria.

Balance, maybe. It's certainly reactive as a one-of but as a our-of I guess it turns proactive. Which is interesting.

Bird S*** (can we PLEASE think of a better name for this?)

Um, how about U/g/w Threshold? Too obvious?

[Smmenen]

A quick look through the restricted list yields zero reactive cards.  If anything, I think this is the defining restriction criteria.

How do you define reactive?  Aside from in mono blue,  I use mana drain as a proactive tempo card.  I counter a spell and get mana.  I don't really care what the spell is, frankly.  That's what I do with Tog, GOth Slaver, and Oath.  

Please, Mana Drain is NOT a fair card.  Mana Drain is probably the most broken unrestricted card in the format next to Brainstorm.  It's totally busted.

[Grand Inquisitor]

How do you define reactive? Aside from in mono blue, I use mana drain as a proactive tempo card. I counter a spell and get mana. I don't really care what the spell is, frankly. That's what I do with Tog, GOth Slaver, and Oath.

There's no rigorous way to estimate the average mana yield for mana drain in T1.  However, whatever it is, I'm sure it's low enough so that paying two blue and getting back that much colorless is not a good deal as far as mana expansion.

We play mana drain because it does both: answer a threat and aid in playing your own threats.  Regardless, saying that mana drain is pro active is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post, Steve.  Maybe you can semanticize this and say you're only playing mana drain pro-actively, but there's a huge difference between that and pro active threats/cards.

We all know mana drain is powerful, however, if you want to talk about it in the context of restriction, all the proof is right there in the list.

[Shock Wave]

How do you define reactive?  Aside from in mono blue,  I use mana drain as a proactive tempo card.  I counter a spell and get mana.  I don't really care what the spell is, frankly.  That's what I do with Tog, GOth Slaver, and Oath.

Whether or not you care about what you're draining is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your opponent needs to play a spell in order for you to cast Mana Drain which makes it a reactive card. No matter how hard you try to pussy-foot around the issue, you're not going to convince anyone with a grain of sense that Drain is a proactive threat.

[Methuselahn]

How do you define reactive?  Aside from in mono blue,  I use mana drain as a proactive tempo card.  I counter a spell and get mana.  I don't really care what the spell is, frankly.  That's what I do with Tog, GOth Slaver, and Oath.

Grand Inquisitor replies:
Maybe you can semanticize this and say you're only playing mana drain pro-actively, but there's a huge difference between that and pro active threats/cards.


Shockwave's reply:
Whether or not you care about what you're draining is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your opponent needs to play a spell in order for you to cast Mana Drain which makes it a reactive card. No matter how hard you try to pussy-foot around the issue, you're not going to convince anyone with a grain of sense that Drain is a proactive threat.

To defend Steve here, Mana Drain IS a proactive card that should be seen first as acceleration.  The practical use for this theory is in the context of a dueling vacuum.  Not so much in real life where you have to face mirrors and time your spells/play in accordance with your opponent's board position, but instead, when you are taking time trials.  Smmenen has said before that the the deck with the best objective results is the right deck to play, this stance certainly coheres to Mana Drain being a proactive threat.

I never fully understood goldfishing with Mana Drain.  Sure, Mana Draining on Turn 2 into 4-5 mana is ideal, but land, go seems to be the case with me.  Surely, I would be upset if one of the funnest cards in the game were to be restricted.

[Smmenen]

How do you define reactive? Aside from in mono blue, I use mana drain as a proactive tempo card. I counter a spell and get mana. I don't really care what the spell is, frankly. That's what I do with Tog, GOth Slaver, and Oath.

There's no rigorous way to estimate the average mana yield for mana drain in T1.  However, whatever it is, I'm sure it's low enough so that paying two blue and getting back that much colorless is not a good deal as far as mana expansion.

We play mana drain because it does both: answer a threat and aid in playing your own threats.  Regardless, saying that mana drain is pro active is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post, Steve.  Maybe you can semanticize this and say you're only playing mana drain pro-actively, but there's a huge difference between that and pro active threats/cards.

We all know mana drain is powerful, however, if you want to talk about it in the context of restriction, all the proof is right there in the list.

I take great issue with your notion of "reactive."  It has no meaning.  Furthermore, assuming that it does, you are wrong that there are no reactive cards on the restricted list.  Strip Mine is a quintessential reactive card in that it requires your opponent to have done something first to become of use.  Close, Library of Alexandria makes various assumptions about the game plan of your deck.  

To the extent that you might counter Strip Mine is not reactive in that it nails any land, and it doesn't take much of an assumption to beleive that your opponent will have land (even Meandeck Tendrils has land), by the same token, Mana Drain only assumes that your opponent will play a spell.  If you accept that Wasteland is a reactive card, it is hard to beleive that Strip Mine is not.

What is a reactive card?  Removal and countermagic?  Swords to Plowshares?  Disenchant?  Mana Drain?  Strip Mine?  

If only removal and countermagic are reactive, then it should be obvious why so few have been restricted.  Most reactive cards are narrow.  The less narrow they are, the stronger they are.  This is why Strip Mine is so powerful.  It only is reactive to the extent that assumes and deals with the coming into play of your opponents land.  Similarly, Mana Drain is universally applicable as well.

At some point, your distinction begins to break down because these cards exist on a sliding scale.  Strip Mine is only reactive becuase it deals with something on the board.  But they are of such broad use that the word reaction, as if it is contingent upon something else happening, while strictly true, is a meaningless distinction. Every deck plays spells - even Gorger.

I think you are just wrong that reactive cards have not been restricted.  Strip Mine disproves your whole paradigm.  Morever, many reactive cards have been on the restricted list.  Maze of Ith was there for years.  Fork was there for even longer.  Those cards are certainly less reactive than mana drain.

This is all besides the point because it assumes the question at issue:  IF mana drain dominates (which is the question in this thread), should it be restricted?  If top 8s become 6-7 Drain decks, (becuase, say Ritual and Bazaar is restricted), should Drain also be restricted?  Or does the "Fun" in drain make it worth keeping it as a dominant format ruining card?  

I think if Ritual were restricted, Mana Drain would have to follow simply becuase it will be truly dominant.   The statistics support this assumption.

A more meaningful distinction is "interactive" v. "Noninteractive."  Mana Drain is an interactive card, but it is often not very reactive.

Mana Drain not only steals your opponents turn, it siphons their turn into yours - functioning as a time walk.  Moreover, and this is very important, undisrupted on turn one, a resolved mana drain on turn two more often than not, wins the game.  I see little difference in that regard between what Mana Drain effectively does on turn two and what Trinisphere does on turn one.

Most of your are horribly biased.  I can honestly say that I am not.  I have gotten most of my top 8s on the back of Drain.  I have innnovated more Drain decks than most people.  Most of the people I have seen talk on this issue are just defensive becuase they would be so upset to see Drain go away.  I just want the casual reader to see that.

[jpmeyer]

Bird S*** (can we PLEASE think of a better name for this?)

Um, how about U/g/w Threshold? Too obvious?

That's what I use.

[Shock Wave]

To defend Steve here, Mana Drain IS a proactive card that should be seen first as acceleration. The practical use for this theory is in the context of a dueling vacuum. Not so much in real life where you have to face mirrors and time your spells/play in accordance with your opponent's board position, but instead, when you are taking time trials. Smmenen has said before that the the deck with the best objective results is the right deck to play, this stance certainly coheres to Mana Drain being a proactive threat.

Oh my. Are we for real here? Pardon me for sounding like an ass, but according to the dictionary definition of "proactive", Mana Drain certainly does not qualify. Mana Drain is about as proactive as Counterspell is. The fact that it nets you mana is absolutely orthogonal to the argument.

You can make a play such as: Tundra, Sapphire, Seal of Cleasing, go.
- Proactive play.

You can't make a play such as: Tundra, Sapphire, Drain, go.
- Wistfully proactive play.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, I'm just trying to illustrate what seems to be a very obvious difference in what qualifies a card as "proactive" or "reactive", according to the way those terms are defined in our language. The benefits of having resolved a Mana Drain do not make the card any more "proactive" or "reactive" and thus do not pertain to the argument. Mana Drain is a reactive spell with an obvious benefit when resolved.

With respect to Mana Drain being "fair" and thus not worthy of restriction, I would argue the following points:

- access to Mana Drain on Turn 1, in conjunction with having a business spell to follow provided that something is drained early, is improbable enough to be considered acceptable

- decks that run Mana Drain allow for the most player interaction within the first few turns, as opposed to Dark Ritual or Trinisphere, which both carry a substantial probability of preventing your opponent from playing any spells at all

- Mana Drain does not prevent any decks from existing, aside from those that never had a chance of being competitive even if Mana Drain had never been printed in the first place.

- draining 1cc spells in the early game doesn't provide a very broken effect, and there are plenty of 1cc spells that are thorns to control decks

Steve, I was never arguing that Mana Drain isn't broken. Clearly, it is. However, I still maintain that regardless of that fact, there are enough logical reasons to allow it to remain unrestricted. If the format degenerates into nothing but control decks, then perhaps something should be done at that point. However, given that aggro-control and several other archetypes are now playable again, I think we should ease up and let the metagame dictate if further changes are necessary. Remember, Fish was designed to destroy decks that rely on Mana Drain oriented control-strategies, so let's not jump the gun.

[Smmenen]

To defend Steve here, Mana Drain IS a proactive card that should be seen first as acceleration. The practical use for this theory is in the context of a dueling vacuum. Not so much in real life where you have to face mirrors and time your spells/play in accordance with your opponent's board position, but instead, when you are taking time trials. Smmenen has said before that the the deck with the best objective results is the right deck to play, this stance certainly coheres to Mana Drain being a proactive threat.

Oh my. Are we for real here? Pardon me for sounding like an ass, but according to the dictionary definition of "proactive", Mana Drain certainly does not qualify. Mana Drain is about as proactive as Counterspell is. The fact that it nets you mana is absolutely orthogonal to the argument.

You can make a play such as: Tundra, Sapphire, Seal of Cleasing, go.
- Proactive play.

You can't make a play such as: Tundra, Sapphire, Drain, go.
- Wistfully proactive play.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, I'm just trying to illustrate what seems to be a very obvious difference in what qualifies a card as "proactive" or "reactive", according to the way those terms are defined in our language. The benefits of having resolved a Mana Drain do not make the card any more "proactive" or "reactive" and thus do not pertain to the argument. Mana Drain is a reactive spell with an obvious benefit when resolved.
.

A strict dictionary definition rather than a functional definition may ring hollow in practice and the minds of reasonable people.  Take the FOW example below.     Certainly under dictionary definition, Force of Will is reacting to what your opponent might play. But functionally, in that example and in the example of most combo decks that run FOW, it's used as a differently costed Duress.  The only difference is between clearing the way or protecting the spell afterward.  A difference of only definitional impact.

@ GI:
 I do not think that "reactivity" as a principle for restriction has any merit. Three reasons. First, it doesn't hold historically. Lots of reactive cards have been restricted and at least one, if not more remains restricted today.

Second, Becuase, as I said, reactivity is a sliding scale. Most cards are proactive and reactive depending on the context. Take Force of Will. Mike Flores has mentioned on more than one occasion that the most combotastic event in Extended History had insane Academy combo decks in the top 8. But every single deck ran Force of Will. What's the difference between using Force of Will as a proactive solution to anything that will stop you from comboing out and Duress?
If my hand is:
Black Lotus, Mox Jet, Land, Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Force of Will, Blue Card

OR
Black Lotus, Mox Jet, Land, Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Duress, 7th Card.

What's the difference between Duress and Force of Will there? They both serve the same function. You could say, well, Force of Will is only reactive. I will only play it if my opponent tries to stop me. Sure. And a short amount of time could be 100 years on a cosmic scale. Let's keep it real. Force of Will and Duress are functionally equivalent in that example. In fact, Force of Will is a duress on their turn should they try to play something like Sphere of Resistence on their turn.

Most cards have proactive and reactive uses. Mana Drain is increasingly used as a tactical card in strategically non-interactive decks. Here is a classic question:
Do you Mana Drain Cloud of Faeries? Mana Draining Cloud of Faeries is not a wise tactical move for a strategically interactive deck most of the time. The Fish player will often follow up with Standstill or Null Rod - a better Drain target. However, most good Drain decks WILL drain Cloud of Faeries. Why? By draining Cloud you are gauranteed two mana to Deep ANalysis, Intuition -> AK, Gifts, Thirst, etc. Fish is also a tempo deck. By Draining it, you get to steal back tempo. Mana Drian is a card that says: steal your opponents turn, and add two colorless mana in your mana pool in your first mainphase in that situation. It is a mana accellerant and functionally proactive.

Third, even if you can identify only reactive and proactive cards on this sliding scale, in order to really stick to the prinicple of reactive cards only being restricted, you'd have to identify a class of cards that are ONLY reactive, and never proactive. That class of cards is very, very small. In at least one or two instances, most reactive cards have proactive uses. And vice versa. It's such a small class as to be practically meaningless.

So it isn't necessarily that I think you can't identify solely reactive cards (although I think that is a serious problem), I think that any definition you choose that holds up will narrow the class of cards such that the whole distintion becomes meaningless as a criteria for restriction.

I beleive we are on the tip of the iceberg in terms of the proliferation of Drain decks that combo out.  This is important for the following reason.  Long term Drain decks don't care about tempo that much.  They don't need to dictate the terms of the game.  So long as they can survive, they will stretch the game as long as possible to demolish the opponents plan.    These decks will use Mana Drain as a means supporting their draw which helps them find more answers.   In these decks, I would actually agree that Mana Drain is used more as a reactive card.

However, most viable Drain decks are really decks that combo out.  Short term card advantage is more important than anything else because they plan on ending the game.  Tempo is everything.  Draining any given spell just to fuel next turns card draw is worth it becuase you will combo out with Gifts/Belcher or Yawg Will, or Thirst + Welder, or Intuition for Oaths, etc.  As a result, Mana Drain more appropriately reads: as a cost to play this spell, you must not use two Islands for any other spell this turn; your opponent loses most of their mana in their mainphase, and you may add 2-3 colorless mana to your mana pool on your first mainphase.  It's the tempo that matters.  

Counterspell is much different.  Why?  Counterspell doesn't actually buy you much tempo.  Most spells are 2-3 cc.  Counterspells is 2cc.  So you only get a very marginal tempo boost out of it.  And you paid for it buy losing the opportunity to other spells instead.  Not so with Mana Drain.  Mana Drain recoups your ability to play Spells that you could have played in its place while denying your opponent part of their turn.  Mana Drain isn't just a proactive tempo boost - it's a huge tempo boost.  You lose almost nothing and your opponent loses everything.  If they don't play anything, then you get to play your spell at instant speed on their end step.  So it's not even that Mana Drain is a huge proactive tempo boost, the Threat of Mana Drain is as well.  It's far more like Time Walk than counterspell.

[jpmeyer]

Personally, it's seemed that the best uses of Force of Will are proactive.  You run Force of Will in your control-combo deck so you can well, Force your opponent's Force.  You're using it to win the game there, but if you didn't have the opportunity to cast it, that's probably even better.

OTOH, not being able to cast a Drain that's in your hand can (and often does) hurt the control-combo deck playing it.

I think that's the main difference between Drain and the rest of the counters.

[Shock Wave]

A strict dictionary definition rather than a functional definition may ring hollow in practice and the minds of reasonable people.  Take the FOW example below.     Certainly under dictionary definition, Force of Will is reacting to what your opponent might play. But functionally, in that example and in the example of most combo decks that run FOW, it's used as a differently costed Duress.  The only difference is between clearing the way or protecting the spell afterward.  A difference of only definitional impact.

The last time I checked, Duress and Force of Will are two different cards. Regardless of what they are used for, that doesn't imply that the methods by which they are played (reactively or proactively) are the same.

I guess I play magic in my own little microcosm of reality, but where I'm from, this distinction is very clear.

[Jacob Orlove]

Regardless of what they are used for, that doesn't imply that the methods by which they are played (reactively or proactively) are the same.

Given that the DCI bases restrictions at least in part on tournament results, shouldn't we put more weight on what cards are used for than on the mechanics by which they achieve that use?

[Smmenen]

A strict dictionary definition rather than a functional definition may ring hollow in practice and the minds of reasonable people.  Take the FOW example below.     Certainly under dictionary definition, Force of Will is reacting to what your opponent might play. But functionally, in that example and in the example of most combo decks that run FOW, it's used as a differently costed Duress.  The only difference is between clearing the way or protecting the spell afterward.  A difference of only definitional impact.

The last time I checked, Duress and Force of Will are two different cards. Regardless of what they are used for, that doesn't imply that the methods by which they are played (reactively or proactively) are the same.

I guess I play magic in my own little microcosm of reality, but where I'm from, this distinction is very clear.

I'm not saying that there isn't a distinction.  That's not what I'm saying.  There is a distinction.  But it's a dictionary definition, semantic distinction .  In a very important practical sense, the distinction isn't meaningful becuase the two cards function in the same way in that situation.  LIke I said, most cards that one would consider reactive can be used in a functionally proactive way.

[Shock Wave]

Given that the DCI bases restrictions at least in part on tournament results, shouldn't we put more weight on what cards are used for than on the mechanics by which they achieve that use?

Jacob, my point is that it is a lot easier to make a case for restricting a proactive threat (Trinisphere, Ritual) as opposed to a reactive threat (Mana Drain) because reactive cards are contingent upon a specific board position, or in the case of Mana Drain, your opponent playing a spell.

The mechanics by which a card achieves its use is integral to this discussion. If Mana Drain were proactive as some would claim, then it definitely would be restricted. If there were no conditions that needed to be met in order for you cast a Mana Drain, then certainly it would be an abomination. However, the fact that it can be played around and doesn't nuke your opponent into orbit on Turn 1 has been its saving grace from restriction and will continue to be so. It is a broken card which sits on the boundaries of what is "fair" (in my opinion), but it does not cross the line because of its reactive nature.

In a very important practical sense, the distinction isn't meaningful becuase the two cards function in the same way in that situation. LIke I said, most cards that one would consider reactive can be used in a functionally proactive way.

Yeah, you stated that earlier, and I still disagree. I think my reasoning of why Mana Drain is a reactive threat is very sound. I agree that you can use Mana Drain in a "functionally proactive" manner, but that's irrelevant because of the fact that your opponent needs to play a spell in order for you to cast the damn thing.

[Demonic Attorney]

Taken from the B/R thread in the Open Forum before it tanked.  In the discussion, let's use Trinishpere as an example of an archetypically proactive card, and compare it to mana drain.

Toad Sez:

Mana Drain [isn't interactive], because It just reads "Thanks for that X mana that will allow me to *gain* the game next turn"... It will just totally ignore the opponent to realize its game plan.

First, Mana Drain can be played around by an opponent. Only idiots will walk an unprotected 3 or 4cc spell into a turn 2 drain. People dumb enough to do this deserve to lose; hopefully it will teach them to plan their plays better. Better players can hold back and build up lower cost threats, bait, or counters to protect their key spells from Mana Drain. The process of doing this seems like interaction to me.  Unlike Drain, as a proactive (rather than reactive) card, Trinisphere does not allow this opportunity.

Second, a good use of Mana Drain requires at least some strategic planning; a good use of Trinisphere requires a turn 1 Workshop and nothing more. Barring the above scenario involving a stupid player walking into turn 2 drain, turn 3 lose, players using Mana Drain need to take into account the possibility that their opponent might be baiting them, or might have a means of either countering the drain or stopping the spell that will be cast off the drain mana. For example, someone has four land and two moxes in play, with 4 cards in hand, and a Goblin Welder. They're playing Slaver. They tap the moxes and a land to play Thirst for Knowledge. Do you Drain it? Their next play could be Tinker. They could protect their spell with Force of Will, or stop your play next turn with a Drain of their own and do something really bad to you after that. All these considerations foster a good degree of interaction (reactivity) in my opinion. This degree of planning and strategy is not involved with Trinisphere, as an archetypically proactive card by contrast.

[Smmenen]

Given that the DCI bases restrictions at least in part on tournament results, shouldn't we put more weight on what cards are used for than on the mechanics by which they achieve that use?

Jacob, my point is that it is a lot easier to make a case for restricting a proactive threat (Trinisphere, Ritual) as opposed to a reactive threat (Mana Drain) because reactive cards are contingent upon a specific board position, or in the case of Mana Drain, your opponent playing a spell.

The mechanics by which a card achieves its use is integral to this discussion. If Mana Drain were proactive as some would claim, then it definitely would be restricted. If there were no conditions that needed to be met in order for you cast a Mana Drain, then certainly it would be an abomination. However, the fact that it can be played around and doesn't nuke your opponent into orbit on Turn 1 has been its saving grace from restriction and will continue to be so. It is a broken card which sits on the boundaries of what is "fair" (in my opinion), but it does not cross the line because of its reactive nature.

In a very important practical sense, the distinction isn't meaningful becuase the two cards function in the same way in that situation. LIke I said, most cards that one would consider reactive can be used in a functionally proactive way.

Yeah, you stated that earlier, and I still disagree. I think my reasoning of why Mana Drain is a reactive threat is very sound. I agree that you can use Mana Drain in a "functionally proactive" manner, but that's irrelevant because of the fact that your opponent needs to play a spell in order for you to cast the damn thing.

How many decks have spells in them?  It's like saying Strip Mine isn't functionally proactive because your opponents have to actually play lands for you to "use the damn thing."  If your opponent doesn't actually play a spell at some point, then you can win without actually getting the mana drain mana, but you will have a huge advantage in playing your game plan mostly undisrupted.

[Shock Wave]

If your opponent doesn't actually play a spell at some point, then you can win without actually getting the mana drain mana, but you will have a huge advantage in playing your game plan mostly undisrupted.

.. or maybe there's a possibility that your opponent might actually wait for the right opportunity to play a spell, as opposed to playing like putty in your hands?

[Smmenen]

Exactly - that was part of what I was saying.  By waiting you allow me to actually USE that mana on your endstep with Intuition, Thirst, etc.  Then I can go off (draw all my cards and then Yawg Will combo or Oath or Slaver combo) without being disrupted.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.  One of the ways you are less damned.  But that's the way the card works.  If your opponent doesn't play their spells, then the fear of mana drain has made your game plan that much stronger regardless.

Again, I'm not saying Drain should be restricted right now.  But arguments that it shouldn't because it is reactive - as if that (if true) somehow insulates it, are bogus for reasons already mentioned.  It shouldn't be restricted right now because Mana drain decks aren't dominating and also becuase, like you said, the thing most people just wanted more [tactical] interaction.  Since presumably there will be enough interaction to keep people happy and since Mana Drain decks aren't yet dominating, there is no reason to restrict it.  

But this thread poses an important question that we should consider if the situation changes.  It's important becuase I'm concerned that dominance issues will be outweighed by Mana Drain's historical, etc.  role in the format.  I hope I would be wrong.  

Taken from the B/R thread in the Open Forum before it tanked.  In the discussion, let's use Trinishpere as an example of an archetypically proactive card, and compare it to mana drain.

Toad Sez:

Mana Drain [isn't interactive], because It just reads "Thanks for that X mana that will allow me to *gain* the game next turn"... It will just totally ignore the opponent to realize its game plan.

First, Mana Drain can be played around by an opponent. Only idiots will walk an unprotected 3 or 4cc spell into a turn 2 drain. People dumb enough to do this deserve to lose; hopefully it will teach them to plan their plays better. Better players can hold back and build up lower cost threats, bait, or counters to protect their key spells from Mana Drain. The process of doing this seems like interaction to me.  Unlike Drain, as a proactive (rather than reactive) card, Trinisphere does not allow this opportunity.

Second, a good use of Mana Drain requires at least some strategic planning; a good use of Trinisphere requires a turn 1 Workshop and nothing more. Barring the above scenario involving a stupid player walking into turn 2 drain, turn 3 lose, players using Mana Drain need to take into account the possibility that their opponent might be baiting them, or might have a means of either countering the drain or stopping the spell that will be cast off the drain mana. For example, someone has four land and two moxes in play, with 4 cards in hand, and a Goblin Welder. They're playing Slaver. They tap the moxes and a land to play Thirst for Knowledge. Do you Drain it? Their next play could be Tinker. They could protect their spell with Force of Will, or stop your play next turn with a Drain of their own and do something really bad to you after that. All these considerations foster a good degree of interaction (reactivity) in my opinion. This degree of planning and strategy is not involved with Trinisphere, as an archetypically proactive card by contrast.

There is alot to talk about here.   Much of it comes from the problems involved in using reactivity or even interaction as a weighty consideration.  Sidestepping the thorney issues that require extensive explication for the moment, how would you answer the first post in this thread?  Much of the content in your post doesn't directly bear on that and how you would answer the two questions framing the debate might affect the importance of your views on interactivity/reactivity as restriction criteria.

My personal view is that the DCI has stepped up and said: interaction IS a factor.  I STRONGLY dispute your characterization of Trinisphere, but that is neither here nor there.  Nonetheless, Trinisphere is rather non-interactive.  It just isn't as stupid as you suggest.  However, the DCI has also been willing to restrict cards that create decks that are just too damned good: dominant decks.  Gush is the case in point.  I beleive that at some point in the forseeable future, Mana Drain decks could well dominate.  Dominance does not mean that nothing else could win.  Far from it, GAT was beatable.  I saw people play multicolor control decks that could beat GAT and Oscar Tan really beleived (as did others) that their control decks could beat GAT.  Hell I lost to one at Origins when I was playing 4 Gush GAT and another at GP Philly.  Mana Drain dominance would likely look like 5+ Mana Drain decks consistently in top 8s accross vast geographic boundaries.  I would find that personally unacceptable.  Particularly when you consider the great variety we have had in the last 4-5 months.