Mana Drain Mana, A rules nightmare

[epeeguy]

I think we have reached an agreement of some sort. Thing is, what action I would take cannot be covered under a single simple blanker either, as sportsmanship (at least in my case) can be dependent of the sportsmanship of the opponent (if my opponent is unfriendly / displays unsportsmanship, I am more likely to "catch" him on such a mistake, instead of allowing a take-back). Eye for an eye...

Kind of.  Really what it amounts to is that judges cannot force you to be "nice" or "sporting" to your opponent.  Obviously, we want that to be the case, but we cannot force you to be.  All we can do is ask that you accurately represent the game state and ensure that rules are being followed.  So you cannot intentionally misrepresent the game state, misrepresent how the rules work or be unsporting to your opponent (being unsporting =! not being sporting); those things impact the integrity of the tournament, and that's where we have problems.

[dandan]

I am rather surprised at this thread. Surely it is the controller of the Mana Drain's responsibility to keep track of his mana and if he does not and his opponent does, but without misrepresenting the game state then mana burn is the logical consequence. It should be crystal clear that if a player with MDmana does nothing but pass the turn or attack, then they have ended the main phase and the opponent's only responsibility is to remind them of the damage they take.
Playing spells and abilties does muddy the waters a little but IMHO unless player B lets the game state become confused in order to gain an advantage then the MD player must take damage.
If player A casts an artifact for 3 mana and taps a 3 Mishra's Factories then there is no need for player B to do anything (except wonder about the play).
If they tap a Workshop, a simple 'Is that for the XXX spell?' would suffice. Player B needs to know if the floating mana is Workshop mana or not. Ditto for coloured mana.

As has already been said, giving both players equal responsibility to remember the MDmana is almost an invitation for player A to cheat. Basically they can forget MDmana at no penalty.

[epeeguy]

I am rather surprised at this thread. Surely it is the controller of the Mana Drain's responsibility to keep track of his mana and if he does not and his opponent does, but without misrepresenting the game state then mana burn is the logical consequence. It should be crystal clear that if a player with MDmana does nothing but pass the turn or attack, then they have ended the main phase and the opponent's only responsibility is to remind them of the damage they take.

Correct, and no one has suggested differently.  If Player A does not use the mana from Mana Drain, he will take mana burn.  And it is Player A's responsibility to ensure that the mana is actually used.  However, Player B is still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the game state, regardless of whether or not it is his mana to be used.  This could range from simply noting that Player A will burn when they end their Main Phase, to verifying what mana is being used to play a spell when multiple things start happening.

Playing spells and abilties does muddy the waters a little but IMHO unless player B lets the game state become confused in order to gain an advantage then the MD player must take damage.

The problem here is that when multiple spells and abilities are played, with mana floating, not correctly identifying which mana is being used can lead to problems with the game state.  And we've seen before where players with some kind of Storm combo deck that floats a lot of mana (or even 'Tog when it was in Standard) are required to track their mana usage to ensure the accuracy of the game state, and the opponent needs pay attention to ensure it as well.  This makes absolutely certain that Player A (if they are the combo player) doesn't start using mana without specifically identifying what was used (and therefore enable them to use the same colored mana twice).

As has already been said, giving both players equal responsibility to remember the MDmana is almost an invitation for player A to cheat. Basically they can forget MDmana at no penalty.

Actually, it is very much the opposite.  If Player B were to forget about the mana (because he wasn't paying attention to the game state), then Player A could actually cheat (intentionally or otherwise, through accidentally forgetting himself).  In fact, if Player B isn't responsible for this kind of thing, then it is more likely that Player A could get away with doing something inappropriate (intentional or not).  Afterall, you don't catch your opponent committing some kind of Procedural Error when you aren't paying attention, do you?  By having both Players be responsible for the game state (which is not a new concept), this mitigates the opportunities for problems to occur.

Again, you can be sporting about it (for example, specifically stating "Don't forget about the Mana Drain mana."), but you are not required to be (for example, "So you tapped those lands to pay for that?").

[dandan]

I think you misunderstand. When I question the idea of equal responsibility, I question the idea that if player A has forgotten that he has Mana Drain mana, somehow that means that player B has any responsibility at all for reminding him at any time before mana burn. Asking 'Is that mana for the Intuition?' is fine but suggesting that anything else is necessary is hard to believe.
What next? Would you like to make me lose life with the Disciple? Isn't this whole question rather similar to that of upkeep effects which was resolved a long time go?

[epeeguy]

I think you misunderstand. When I question the idea of equal responsibility, I question the idea that if player A has forgotten that he has Mana Drain mana, somehow that means that player B has any responsibility at all for reminding him at any time before mana burn. Asking 'Is that mana for the Intuition?' is fine but suggesting that anything else is necessary is hard to believe.

As has been noted, rather explicitly as well, you do not have to remind your opponent that they have Mana Drain mana available to them.  In simplistic situations (for example, that player plays a single spell and then says "Go" or simply declares his attack), then you simply need to make sure they take mana burn.  If multiple things begin to happen (especially in situations where it is possible that mana is being floated for other effects), then you may need to ensure what is going on (i.e., verify what mana is being used).

What next? Would you like to make me lose life with the Disciple? Isn't this whole question rather similar to that of upkeep effects which was resolved a long time go?

As has also been specifically noted previously in this thread, if your opponent's Disciple triggers multiple times, you are under no obligation to remind them to utilize the ability.  Your opponent is the one who has to decide whether or not to utilize the ability (you need not remind them) and it is assumed that failure to say anything about the life loss is an assumption that one has failed to utilize the ability.  Again, the policy is that you are not required to announce a mandatory triggered ability if there are no targets chosen nor say anything when it resolves if there are no choices to be made.  However, both players need to ensure that the game state is tracked if a change occurs (hence why I mentioned the Chalice scenario).

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you say when you are saying "similar to upkeep effects, which was resolved a long time ago" as there have been some philosophical changes within the DCI.  If you are referring to circumstances with Braids and failure to sacrifice to the triggered ability, then I can definitely say that the "auto game loss" is not applied unilaterally anymore (the policy was adjusted during Mirrodin Block with regards to Molder Slug) and that has been changed to having the judge identify if there is a reasonable way to fix the game state.  If there is something else you are referring to, I'm afraid you need to be more specific than that.

[forests failed you]

The only thing that I don't like about the ruling that: manditory triggers are assumed to have resolved regardless of whether or not they are acknowledged and priority has been passed, is that it almost encourages players to misrepresent or intentionally muddle the gamestate.  There is a specific advantage in not reminding one's opponent to put Mana Drain's trigger on the stack, as they may have forgotten and end up burning at the end of the phase.  I think that ruling completely encourages players to purposly misrepresent and allow the gamestate to go into disarray, and I believe that is a bad thing. 

Although I completely agree that it is the person who cast the Mana Drain to remember and put it on the stack (and I always remember myself), I think that it is completely shady and in poor class to not remind an opponent.  I always do, as I don't need to cheat or bend the rules to win games myself.  However, I do understand why the ruling goes that way, it makes a lot of sense.  The cool thing about it is that it is actually up to the Judge's discression to rule on what is happening in the game, so, in instances where an opponent is trying to purposely muddle the gamestate recourse can be taken.  Those are just kind of my random thoughts on the whole matter, now that all of the information has been sifted through.


Thanks a lot to everyone who researched this question, I think that everyone in the community now has a much firmer understanding of these complicated sets of circumstances.

[Limbo]

I think that it is completely shady and in poor class to not remind an opponent.  I always do, as I don't need to cheat or bend the rules to win games myself.

People lose games lots of times because they make playmistakes. Forgetting the availability of mana drain mana is a play-mistake in my book. Therefore I do not consider it bending the rules / cheating when an opponent burns for mana if he could have used the mana if he remembered. Just as you don't lie about the gamestate it is ok. If I do remind my opponent depends on a lot of different factors though (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't).

[Webster]

The only thing that I don't like about the ruling that: mandatory triggers are assumed to have resolved regardless of whether or not they are acknowledged and priority has been passed, is that it almost encourages players to misrepresent or intentionally muddle the gamestate. There is a specific advantage in not reminding one's opponent to put Mana Drain's trigger on the stack, as they may have forgotten and end up burning at the end of the phase. I think that ruling completely encourages players to purposely misrepresent and allow the gamestate to go into disarray, and I believe that is a bad thing.

I, for one, can say that I have seen thousands of mana drains resolve yet never seen a mana drain trigger verbally placed on the stack by either the caster of mana drain or their opponent.

One detail I have noticed about the way people view mandatory non-targeting triggers and the level of communication may be directly related to the time of entry into the higher-level tournament scene. With the recent policy shift of the DCI, going from the rigid "what you did is what you did regardless of what it may have been what you wanted to do or not" to the fluffier "Oh, that's what he meant to do, so let's back the game up 12 turns" intent orientated view, the general opinion of what _should_ be done in any given situation has changed quite dramatically. Old school players would never remind their opponent that they had mana floating. The mana drain is their card and it is also their responsibility to know what their cards do. It becomes the responsibility of the opponent to clear the gamestate up after the fact in the case of leftover mana. Old school players think like this because it is the way the tournament scene demanded it. Memory rewards those who are best at it. Newer players may think differently because the general tournament attitude has changed which is why there is a difference in opinion as to how the mana drain trigger/gamestate situation should be handled.

Although I completely agree that it is the person who cast the Mana Drain to remember and put it on the stack (and I always remember myself), I think that it is completely shady and in poor class to not remind an opponent. I always do, as I don't need to cheat or bend the rules to win games myself. However, I do understand why the ruling goes that way, it makes a lot of sense. The cool thing about it is that it is actually up to the Judge's discression to rule on what is happening in the game, so, in instances where an opponent is trying to purposely muddle the gamestate recourse can be taken. Those are just kind of my random thoughts on the whole matter, now that all of the information has been sifted through.

A common misconception about being sporting/unsporting is that it is black and white; that there is no middle ground. This is completely false; there is a middle ground, a grey area. A lot of people look at unsporting and sporting as you are either one or the other. What people fail to realize is that the middle ground of "not-sporting" exists. There is no requirement by the DCI to be sporting, only the requirement that you not be unsporting. To think of this in another view would be the character alignment of DND:

Lawful (Sporting) - Making sure every relevant tidbit of the gamestate is verbally acknowledged by both players whether or not that information being known is to your advantage which ensures the bestest game of magic is played every time.

Neutral (Not-Sporting) - Conforming to the rules without actively giving out more information than is required.

Evil (Unsporting) - Being actively malicious. Witholding public information. Cheating. Lying.

By not announcing a mana drain trigger, you are not cheating or bending the rules, you are just being Not-Sporting and that's OK.

[epeeguy]

With the recent policy shift of the DCI, going from the rigid "what you did is what you did regardless of what it may have been what you wanted to do or not" to the fluffier "Oh, that's what he meant to do, so let's back the game up 12 turns" intent orientated view, the general opinion of what _should_ be done in any given situation has changed quite dramatically.

This is a rather gross representation of the policy, that I think many people would draw the wrong conclusion from.  Certainly the philosophy of "ruling by intent" cannot be taken that far (as the normal policy is that games should not be backed up, except for the most extreme and extenuating of circumstances).  Instead, it covers rather minor procedural errors and ensures that the level of technically accurate play does not impair the ability of the players to play the game.  Hence why a player who puts Tooth in Nail in the graveyard before performing the search is not "Assumed to have failed the search".  The policy certainly is not meant to correct actual play mistakes or misunderstandings of the rules that occur (for example, if you played your Wrath of God and assumed that the Disciple wouldn't trigger, then a judge will not "reverse" that play as it was legal and there were no procedural errors).

I want to make that perfectly clear, as people may develop the wrong view of the policy (as this is not its intention in the slightest, and this kind of attitude has never been communicated by the DCI to its judges, ever).

[Webster]

With the recent policy shift of the DCI, going from the rigid "what you did is what you did regardless of what it may have been what you wanted to do or not" to the fluffier "Oh, that's what he meant to do, so let's back the game up 12 turns" intent orientated view, the general opinion of what _should_ be done in any given situation has changed quite dramatically.

This is a rather gross representation of the policy, that I think many people would draw the wrong conclusion from.  Certainly the philosophy of "ruling by intent" cannot be taken that far (as the normal policy is that games should not be backed up, except for the most extreme and extenuating of circumstances).  Instead, it covers rather minor procedural errors and ensures that the level of technically accurate play does not impair the ability of the players to play the game.  Hence why a player who puts Tooth in Nail in the graveyard before performing the search is not "Assumed to have failed the search".  The policy certainly is not meant to correct actual play mistakes or misunderstandings of the rules that occur (for example, if you played your Wrath of God and assumed that the Disciple wouldn't trigger, then a judge will not "reverse" that play as it was legal and there were no procedural errors).

I want to make that perfectly clear, as people may develop the wrong view of the policy (as this is not its intention in the slightest, and this kind of attitude has never been communicated by the DCI to its judges, ever).

Of course you are right. My comparison was completely sarcastic (but I guess you couldn't see that), not meant to be taken literally, to show the difference, although far less dramatic than stated, in the DCI policy change.

[epeeguy]

Of course you are right. My comparison was completely sarcastic (but I guess you couldn't see that), not meant to be taken literally, to show the difference, although far less dramatic than stated, in the DCI policy change.

I thought you had perhaps intended it that way, but figured it would be best to comment nonetheless (to ensure there was no one who didn't get that).  At the very least, it just keeps it in perspective and doesn't let people assume too muc.

[Limbo]

I thought you had perhaps intended it that way, but figured it would be best to comment nonetheless (to ensure there was no one who didn't get that).  At the very least, it just keeps it in perspective and doesn't let people assume too much.

@ Epeeguy : Always best to prevent wrong assumptions. Also compliments on your "defense of DCI-policy" as it seems in this topic we are all "attacking" "you", but you have provided us with useful and valuable information.

[epeeguy]

@ Epeeguy : Always best to prevent wrong assumptions. Also compliments on your "defense of DCI-policy" as it seems in this topic we are all "attacking" "you", but you have provided us with useful and valuable information.

Actually, I was more concerned that I wasn't explaining the policy properly than anything else.  I'm only here to help out as best I can and explain stuff like this.

[kl0wn]

So now that better players are required to use their superior attention-paying tech to the benefit of their lesser opponents who can't be bothered to learn how to play the damn game well or even take responsibility for their lack of attention to what they're doing, are we now required to allow takebacks too?

For example, in the scenario where Player A has 4 manas floating from a prior Drain and that player taps 3 Islands to cast a mainphase Intuition and Player B points out that Player A has floaters, as per the DCI rules, is Player A now allowed to untap 2 of his 3 previously tapped Islands to 're-adjust' his mana? Or does he now have 3UUU floating that he has to find something to do with?

I only ask because this new Special Olympics style of rules implies that we should accomodate those from the shallow end of the genepool even if it causes those of us who actually pay attention to what's going on in the game we're playing to lose. Normally, I'd say that the fellow in the foam helmet would have 3UUU floating, but you never can be too sure these days, especially with this precedent that we now have to coach our opponents on how to play with the cards in their decks.

[Gabethebabe]

Kl0wn: didn´t we just establish that the correct way would be: OK, you tapped 3 Islands and you pay Intuition with this?

If he says: yes, then he forgot the Drain mana and there will be no problem with the game state later when you remind him. If he says No, I use 2 from my Drain, in that case he actually didn´t forget and also there is no problem with the game state.

Sidenote: if you allow a dude from the shallow end of the genepool to Drain your spell and win with that mana, you also wasn´t first in line when you picked up your braincells

[epeeguy]

So now that better players are required to use their superior attention-paying tech to the benefit of their lesser opponents who can't be bothered to learn how to play the damn game well or even take responsibility for their lack of attention to what they're doing, are we now required to allow takebacks too?

I'm sorry that you feel that this is what the policy actually should be taken to mean.  It's not, nor ever meant to be that, but if you feel that is how it can be distilled down to, then I wish you success in your new career field.

[Komatteru]

For example, in the scenario where Player A has 4 manas floating from a prior Drain and that player taps 3 Islands to cast a mainphase Intuition and Player B points out that Player A has floaters, as per the DCI rules, is Player A now allowed to untap 2 of his 3 previously tapped Islands to 're-adjust' his mana? Or does he now have 3UUU floating that he has to find something to do with?

This has been answered already:

<JDizzle--> ok, so my opponent drains something for, say, 3
<JDizzle--> neither one of us say anything at the very beginning of his mainphase, and he taps 3 lands to play intuition
<JDizzle--> do we have to go back and remind him about the drain mana?
<JDizzle--> or does saying "so you're leaving 3 floating"? cover that
<JDizzle--> and does he get to go back and retap if he has forgotten about the drain mana, but I remind him?
<sdoherty> <JDizzle--> or does saying "so you're leaving 3 floating"? <- this is what you should do, IMO
<JDizzle--> ok
<JDizzle--> so he doesn't get to go back and say "oops, I forgot, can I retap?"
<LeeSharpe> sdoherty: I agree that's what you SHOULD do, but I cannot, based on policy, force him to.
<LeeSharpe> But I don't think anybody would allow the player to back up.

So the answer is, Bryce, is no.  In fact, you don't need to remind him that he has 3 mana after he casts Intuition.  If you are nice enough to do that, you certainly don't have to let him go back and change the way he's tapped his mana.

[LotusHead]

Webster wrote:

One detail I have noticed about the way people view mandatory non-targeting triggers and the level of communication may be directly related to the time of entry into the higher-level tournament scene.

I agreed with everything you said in that post, but this is about communication and resolution.  We don't all play at REL 5 all the time.

We use the attack step in Vintage magic, but no one mentions the Combat Phase on say turn one when you are on the draw.  Nor turn two, usually (assuming a Mana Drain deck and not Weenie decks). However, there are times when this information becomes relevant whether or not you planned for it to be relevent.

For example, on turn 3, there are no creatures in play, I cast a minor spell (Brainstorm, Mystical Tutor, or say Mox Pearl) and I just happen to have Drain Mana up with my Black Lotus on the field.  My opponent Forces my harmless spell unexpectedly, and we fight a counter war over it.  No mention of being in the Second Main Phase occurred, but it was pretty clear (at least to one player) that the Combat Step was not going to be mentioned, but I Drained my opponent's Force of Will and I will have 5 mana on my next main phase.

Given that the Combat phase occurs between the First and Second main phase, and Mana Drain Mana and Mana in general burns at the end of each of those phases, my question is this:

If neither player acknowledged that a Combat step happened (and there are many rounds where we don't acknowledge them. Draw, go...), does it neccessarily need to be the first main phase?

(This example happened online with me. I took 5 burn for lack of colored mana.  My opponent was going to let me say it was 2nd main phase, but I took my burn like a man. I want to know the communities opinion)

[Limbo]

I'd say you get the mana in your second main phase of the same turn. As long as you don't declare an attack, you are in the first main phase of the turn. I use the "I declare an attack" option quite frequently when playing with drains, even when I think it is not wise for my opponent to interrupt me.

[Machinus]

This isn't an issue or controversy at all. If you don't declare attack, you are in FMP.

[Webster]

Webster wrote:

One detail I have noticed about the way people view mandatory non-targeting triggers and the level of communication may be directly related to the time of entry into the higher-level tournament scene.

I agreed with everything you said in that post, but this is about communication and resolution. We don't all play at REL 5 all the time.

It's quite flattering that you think I play at REL5 all the time. I don't but that is besides the main point of my post.

When I said "the higher-level tournament scene", I was referring to REL 2-3 because that is the highest REL that the majority of magic players will play in. I am not sure if you know how certain events rank in the REL system, but if you don't, here's a list:

FMN = friday night magic
PTQ = pro tour qualifier
GPT = grand prix trial
PT = pro tour
GP = grand prix
premier event = nationals, worlds, pro tour, grand prix

REL1: Arena League, FNM, Prereleases, JSS Qualifiers, non-GPT/PTQ side events at premier events.

REL2: GPT

REL3: PTQ, regionals, amateur/vintage/legacy championships

REL4: GP, nationals

REL5: PT, worlds

If neither player acknowledged that a Combat step happened (and there are many rounds where we don't acknowledge them. Draw, go...), does it necessarily need to be the first main phase?

Unless there is a verbal comment about beginning the attack phase from the active player, that turn is in the first main phase.

[forests failed you]

That is quite clear.  If you have not declared an attack you are most definately still in your first main phase.  If you have Mana Drain in your hand and want to play another spell that needs to be protected, you need to declare an attack (even if you have no attackers) and then enter into your second main.  This is of course so that you will get the mana on your next turns first main phase.

Many times this provieds strategic advantage.  Sometimes you want the Mana on your second main phase of the same turn, and other times it is better to get the mana on your first mainphase of your next turn.  With Drain it is important to predict when you want the mana so that you can declare your attack accordingly.

[epeeguy]

If neither player acknowledged that a Combat step happened (and there are many rounds where we don't acknowledge them. Draw, go...), does it neccessarily need to be the first main phase?

Yes, it does.  While many players will "abbreviate" the turn and skip a bunch of Steps and Phases, they still actually happen.  So, for things that trigger mandatorily, they still happen and need to be taken care of.  Likewise, if effects end at certain points, they still end.  So, since Mana Drain adds the mana at the beginning of your next main phase.  If that is your Pre-Combat Main Phase, that is when it is added.  It doesn't "linger" or "skip" to the Post-Combat Main Phase as that is not what the card or the rules tell it to do; it gets added in the Pre-Combat Main Phase and that is when you have to use it.  If you don't, then you suffer from the mana burn.  And if you "forget" about it, then your opponent should inform you that you suffer mana burn when you don't actually use it.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the game requires that the players take a hand in making sure it runs properly.  Since we all don't play MtGO, where all of this stuff would be handled by the game itself, the players are actually more responsible for handling things like this.  Hence why I made my remark about both players need to be aware of things happening and take action to correct the game state ASAP.  When that isn't done, that's when the judges get called over (or if it is unclear what exactly happens).  Either way, you still have to play the game by the applicable rules (and waiving them is very much against the rules).

[Sinister Minister]

Simply put forgetting about your own cards ability should result in mana burn. If somebody "forgets" to sacrifice to smokestack before drawing they get a game loss correct? So how is forgetting about drain mana any different? I should have to tell somebody what their cards do. If it's a question of having to aknowledge the trigger if they forget they should be penalized. Since when did magic forgive mistakes? If i accidentally play the wrong card taking it back is a loss right? So why should somebody get penalized because their opponent forgot what their own cards do? Drain decks tend to be controling and therefore hard to pilot, if you can't remember your own drain mana you should be playing simple aggro. Then again i'm an aknowledged prick. So it could just be that talking.

[Jacob Orlove]

If somebody "forgets" to sacrifice to smokestack before drawing they get a game loss correct?

No. That was once correct, but is not anymore. Please read the earlier posts in this thread. That misperception and many others have been addressed quite well by epeeguy.

[Sinister Minister]

What i don't get is the whole "muddle the game state" thing. I mean if i don't tell my opponent he has mana drain mana before he ends his main phase i'm a bad player and should be called cheater and pelted with vegetables? I think not. It is not MY responsibility to remind my opponent to use the mana in his pool. As soon as he changes phases i'll tell him he burnt, if it pisses him off that i didn't remind i'll probably proceed to poke fun at him the rest of the match and hope he cries. Anybody who wants to whine about their own PLAY MISTAKES should go play something else where other folks aren't involved. If i accidentally play a swords on an untargetable creature can i take it back? If i accidentally cast Yawgwill without a graveyard can i take it back? If you play the cards your responsible for knowing what they do and keeping up with it in a game situation. Simple as that, i can't figure out how it is possible to "muddle the game state" by not telling my opponent how his own cards work. I'll simply sit back, crack a smile as he pays mana for spells and tell him to burn at his combat step. If i forget to tell him to burn then it's my stupid mistake and i deserve to be beaten with a small stick and called bad names. And this concept of hinting to the opponent is even more retarded I shouldn't have to ask what mana is for, if they tap lands, they put mana in their pool. If they use it cool, if not better for me. Playing magic for a few years, losing games for misboarding, registry mess ups, missed upkeep abilities etc. Has made me pay attention to every single aspect of my game and i credit myself with it. I haven't lost a match on a technicality in a long ass time. And if a judge has the nerve to penalize me for not pointing out to my opponent something he is supposed to keep track of i'll repeatedly punch him in the throat till he turns blue.

[Jacob Orlove]

If i accidentally play a swords on an untargetable creature can i take it back?

Not only can you take it back, you have to. Illegal plays are not allowed, and you don't get to put swords in your graveyard just because you feel like it--the card goes back in your hand, and depending on when you tapped your mana it's either in your pool or you get it back, too.

And if a judge has the nerve to penalize me for not pointing out to my opponent something he is supposed to keep track of i'll repeatedly punch him in the throat till he turns blue.

Not appropriate at all. Please read the TMD rules here: http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=18027.0[/b]

[Limbo]

@ Sinister Minister: All the points you get "excited about" are actually treated in this thread. If you would read the replies here, you will notice that we actually agreed you DO NOT HAVE TO remind an opponent about mana drain mana until either a phase change takes place OR multiple spells are cast that can make the game state confusing, and even then you have the right to "mind-trick" the opponent by asking: you tapped those cards to pay for those spells right?

Reading previous replies 4tw...

[Gort32]

Related question: How do you get the mana from Mana Drain?  Is there a trigger that goes on the stack or does it just show up in your mana pool?  If I drained an opponent's spell during his turn, when it comes around to my next main phase do I automatically have that mana in my mana pool or is there an item placed on the stack that will add that mana?  In other words, do I have to declare that I have that mana in my mana pool and if I do not declare it then it is not there (until I end the phase, the trigger resolves, and I burn)?

[epeeguy]

If i accidentally play a swords on an untargetable creature can i take it back?

If you "accidentally" play a Swords on an untargetable creature, you've committed a Procedural Error.  Your opponent should point it out and call a judge to get it corrected (which means reversing the action, if possible, or recording that you did commit a Procedural Error).  In this respect, both players are indeed responsible for ensuring that the rules are being followed and that the game is being played "correctly".  Not necessarily played "well", simply that the game rules are being followed.

And this concept of hinting to the opponent is even more retarded I shouldn't have to ask what mana is for, if they tap lands, they put mana in their pool.

If you observe an incorrect game state, you are required as a player to correct that game state or call a judge to correct that game state.  As has been explained repeatidly, you have some freedom in how you correct the game state.  If you want to be "nice" and remind your opponent of the Mana Drain mana before they do anything in their Main Phase, you can.  If you want to simply note its presence and ensure that they burn when they don't use it, you can.  The only thing that has been stated is that if the game state has the potential of getting confused, in which case you do have to take steps to ensure that it isn't confused (and has been discussed, there are ways to do it that are perfectly legitimate, but don't "remind" your opponent about the Mana Drain mana).

And if a judge has the nerve to penalize me for not pointing out to my opponent something he is supposed to keep track of i'll repeatedly punch him in the throat till he turns blue.

And I would happily, and with extreme prejudice, DQ you for this action.  After which, I'm sure you could enjoy your "vacation" from playing Magic in sanctioned events.  And yes, I would do this even in an unsanctioned event (so that other TOs who run unsanctioned Vintage events are aware of what you were on "vacation" for).

@Gort32: Mana Drain has a delayed triggered ability that adds the mana to the next Main Phase.  This is done at the beginning of the Main Phase, and is a normal triggered ability that can be responded to (hence my earlier comment about using Abeyance or Orim's Chant in response to force the mana burn when the player can't play spells).