[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays - Restrict Mana Drain? the Nov/Dec Report

[Eastman]

In short, since the number of drains hasn't really increased, mana drain isn't the culprit.

If the percentage of Mana Drain decks in both reports is above 40 and indeed is now appraoching 50%, how does that mean Mana Drain isn't culprit? 

I want to dig into one unspoken premise of this discussion: how much of an impact would the restriction of mana drain really have?  I don't think it's totally accurate to call Mana Drain the engine of this archetype.  The archetype is more properly called 'broken blue' or something, and its 'engine' is the synergy between instant speed draw, reactive control spells, mana expansion, and the restricted list.  Most of the current Tezz lists would not be gutted by the restriction of their secondary counterspell.

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.  I am certain that you'd still see significant (<10%) top 8 numbers from blue draw/control variants. 

[Nehptis]

Drains are culprits, enablers, whatever label you care to use.  They along with Rituals and Shops are catalysts for archetypes.  But, I suggest that they are pillars of our format, thus making them unmovable.  So, we must look to other means of keeping balance.  Restrictions, unrestrictions, innovation, new cards, etc.  Vault was a nice experiment.  But, proven to be too powerful.  So, back to the depths it must go.

And to an earlier argument that Tezz decks win more often with DSC than Vault.  Well, consider this.  How many of those matchups did the opponent have to expel resources to keep Tezz, or Vault, or Key off the table prior to then losing to DSC?  Meaning perhaps the reason DSC seems to win the majority of Tezz matches is because opponents ran low on resources fighting what they view as the Primary win condition (Tezz/Vault).

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.

I agree.  I've seen Drain decks win w/o resolving  a single Drain.  However, it is far less likely to see a Shop or Ritual or Bazaar deck to do the same.

It feels to me like we are dancing around a very similar discussion with Mana Drain that Steve has written about regarding YWill.  What if Ywill were banned?  What would that free up from the B/R list?  Similarly what if Drain were restricted?  What does it's existence as a 4 prohibit from being unrestricted (e.g. Gifts).

[the boogie man]

I think that gush could be unrestricted. As I remember, not too many gush decks ran drain. I believe that the gush decks had a favorable game against drains as well. Without merchant scroll and brainstorm (and ponder) around, constant chaining of gushes is nowhere near as dangerous, baring a silly draw.

Maybe now, for the same reasons, flash could also be unrestricted. Except now, without brainstorm to put numerous combo pieces back, and no merchant scroll for free protection, it would not be as dangerous.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I think that gush could be unrestricted.

Seriously?  Did you play vintage 9 months ago?

[Smmenen]

I think that gush could be unrestricted.

Seriously?  Did you play vintage 9 months ago?

Ben:

9 Months ago, Merchant Scroll, brainstorm, and Ponder were also unrestricted.

If Ponder, Brainstorm, and Merchant Scroll are all restricted, unrestricted Gush is completely safe.   

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.

I agree.  I've seen Drain decks win w/o resolving  a single Drain.  However, it is far less likely to see a Shop or Ritual or Bazaar deck to do the same.

Huh???

It's far less likely for a Storm deck to win without playing Dark Ritual than a Mana Drain without playing mana drain?  On what grounds do you make that claim? 

Mana Drain is obviously the engine that fuels Drain decks.   While it may be a secondary counterspell in the sense that it insn't the best counterspell, since Force obviously is, that doesn't mean that its presence is any less a necessary condition.   

I want to dig into one unspoken premise of this discussion: how much of an impact would the restriction of mana drain really have? 

A BIG impact.    Everyone with a lick of common sense knows this.   Mana Drain is a super format defining card, and every time Gush wasn't in top 8s, that's been true. 

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.  I am certain that you'd still see significant (<10%) top 8 numbers from blue draw/control variants. 

I agree.   But that doesn't mean it's restriction wouldn't have a giant impact.

If every blue card were restricted, blue would still be the best color and make a great deck. 

[Nehptis]

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.

I agree.  I've seen Drain decks win w/o resolving  a single Drain.  However, it is far less likely to see a Shop or Ritual or Bazaar deck to do the same.

Huh???

It's far less likely for a Storm deck to win without playing Dark Ritual than a Mana Drain without playing mana drain?  On what grounds do you make that claim? 

Mana Drain is obviously the engine that fuels Drain decks.   While it may be a secondary counterspell in the sense that it insn't the best counterspell, since Force obviously is, that doesn't mean that its presence is any less a necessary condition.   

Huh??? Should I say it louder?  Will that help?  I simply stated that on grounds of personal observation of watching and playing with Drain decks I've seen them win w/o RESOLVING a single Drain.  On the other hand, I can't recall seeing a Shop deck win w/o playing and activating a Shop.  And a Ritual deck finds it very difficult to win w/o resolving a Ritual.  Far more difficult than a Drain deck does in resolving a Drain.

[Smmenen]

While broken blue decks would be weakened by the restriction of mana drain, it would not be to anywhere near the degree that a workshop or bazaar or ritual restriction would impact those archetypes.

I agree.  I've seen Drain decks win w/o resolving  a single Drain.  However, it is far less likely to see a Shop or Ritual or Bazaar deck to do the same.

Huh???

It's far less likely for a Storm deck to win without playing Dark Ritual than a Mana Drain without playing mana drain?  On what grounds do you make that claim? 

Mana Drain is obviously the engine that fuels Drain decks.   While it may be a secondary counterspell in the sense that it insn't the best counterspell, since Force obviously is, that doesn't mean that its presence is any less a necessary condition.   

Huh??? Should I say it louder?  Will that help?  I simply stated that on grounds of personal observation of watching and playing with Drain decks I've seen them win w/o RESOLVING a single Drain.  On the other hand, I can't recall seeing a Shop deck win w/o playing and activating a Shop.  And a Ritual deck finds it very difficult to win w/o resolving a Ritual.  Far more difficult than a Drain deck does in resolving a Drain.

I didn't ask you to restate what you already said.  I asked you to give additional grounds for it.   It's just untrue. 

I can state unequivocally, having played both Drain decks and Ritual decks for years (having designed Meandeck Gifts, for instance), that Ritual decks can win quite easily without ever having to resolve a Ritual, just as Drain decks can.    There are many, many games with TPS or Long where I never played a Dark Ritual and won the game. 

[TheShop]

On the topic of shop decks winning without using a shop:  I think this may have a slight bit of truth to it.  My major project right now is to attempt to create a better version of 5c stax that is not so dependent on the 3-4 mana "shop" based threats...and to get back to a more Kronian idea of 12+ threatening cards that may be played off Land+Mox.  That comment really sparked my interest.

Steve-I read your very old stax primer, along with far too much stax literature and lists from Kron/Chang/Vroman(I know these are vastly different theoretical bases).  Do you have any thoughts on the topic of stax consistency and possibly 12-15 threats playable from land+mox?

[Akuma]

I always believe that the answer to metagame "problems" lies in the cards not in expanding the B/R list.

Enough of the restriction crap, please!

[Bongo]

I think there are some important misconceptions about Mana Drain.


1. Mana Drain is a "pillar" of the format and thus "untouchable"

While it is true that Mana Drain defines Vintage, it is not untouchable. There is no law that Drain, Rituals and Workshop should be unrestricted forever.
It has been shown in the past that a dominant card will get banned. Gush was also a so-called pillar of the format a few months ago, and look where it is now. Even Brainstorm, once a sacred cow of Vintage, is now restricted.


2. Mana Drain is "interactive" and thus "ok"

Interactivity is a pretty loose term, and I think it gets misapplied here. I don't know if getting your spell countered is "interactive".
I suspect it's because you have the illusion that you are somewhat in the game because you can cast spells. However, that doesn't mean anything since the spell is not going to resolve. While it may be psychologically more frustrating when you can't cast spells, countering is actually more powerful than that, because you had to invest the resources to play the spell additionally.


3. Mana Drain is just an enabler, not the culprit

Not only does Mana Drain counter the spell and the resources to play it, but it gives you an incredible mana boost. Over the years, those Drain mana sinks have evolved from Fact to Intuition to Thirst to Thoughtcast. It's just a matter of time till the next blue draw-engine gets found. Mana Drain is the gasoline that fuels those various engines. Thirst/Intuition/Fact/etc without Drain is playable, but not broken.



There are also good reasons why a restriction of Mana Drain would be good for the format.


1. It would weaken blue as the omnipotent color

Even with restricted Mana Drain, chances are pretty high that blue would still be the best color and a blue-based deck still the best in the format. There are just so many good blue spells that you reach a critical mass even with all the restrictions. Countering and Card-drawing are the best mechanics in the game, and they're Blue's strength.
However, it would give non-blue decks at least a glimmer of hope (or at least rise the amount of non-blue cards played).


2. It would diversify the metagame

Granted, I don't have empirical evidence to back this up, but with the reduced amount of Drains, there would be a greater incentive to play other decks. Especially since Tezzeret wouldn't be the consensus best deck in the format.
While there is a fear that Storm, Workshop and Ichorid would take over, I don't think that's the case. Ichorid's presence is dependent on the amount of hate cards, while Storm would get contained by Workshops and Fish. Workshops won't dominate because they're susceptible to hate-cards, basic lands, aggro-decks, high mulligan-ratios and dependancy on the coin-flip.
One major overlooked strength of Drain decks is their resiliency to hate (because well, they can simply counter the hate-cards).


3. It would lower the cost of the format

Right now, if you want to play competitively, you pretty much have to own P9 and Drains. Aside from Workshops, the new metagame would probably be a lot more friendly to players who can't afford those cards.
This point is also somewhat connected with the proxy/decline of the format discussion, since a more affordable format has a bigger chance of drawing in new players.



To conclude, I find it astonishing that Drain is still unrestricted, even with empirical evidence that it is absolutely dominating. Those numbers eclipse those from previously banned cards (across multiple formats) easily. Restricting Mana Drain would have positive effects in my opinion.

[reaperbong]

3. It would lower the cost of the format

Right now, if you want to play competitively, you pretty much have to own P9 and Drains. Aside from Workshops, the new metagame would probably be a lot more friendly to players who can't afford those cards.
This point is also somewhat connected with the proxy/decline of the format discussion, since a more affordable format has a bigger chance of drawing in new players.

Isn't this one reason why it remains unrestricted though? You bring up Brainstorm and Gush as former 'pilllars' that were restricted but you aren't taking into account that the real world (financial) impact of restricting these cards was always null since they cost about a quarter a piece.

A 1 off Mana Drain may not even be playable, but at the least think of what will happen to the price of a Mana Drain if everyone that owned a playset suddenly had to sell 3 of them off as the cards would be rendered useless. You're talking a very high percentage of players losing a few hundred dollars worth of invested card value a piece. Sounds like a sure fire bet to drive a good percentage of these people to quit the format if you ask me.

I highly disagree that pissing off the majority of dedicated Vintage collectors/players and driving away even more people to quit or move to Legacy is a positive thing. Sorry but real world impacts of such a restriction need to be considered as well, if not more, then the impact on the metagame.

[God_Campbell]

I am frankly appalled at the mere discussion of Mana Drain, it is format defining card, and has been said not a cheap piece of card board. I was ready to quit when Brainstrom went away, but I stuck out as I was curious where the format would go.  If Drain were to be restricted, you can bet that it would not just be me packing up the cardboard as I would be losing out on cardboard I had invested in, but also the only real reason I even still play and that is Blue based Drain control.

While yes, I am sure the format would be able to solider on, but at what cost, a real slippery slop would be caused by restriction of Mana drain, as shop Bazaar and Ritual decks would no longer be safe from losing their pillars, and should that happen? welcome to legacy with P9.

I think all this restriction nonsense needs to just end, we have had a only a few short months to get adjusted to Tezzeret into our format and lots of  top players are getting their jollies off with the Vault combo. As has been with the past, we will see new archetypes come into their own, and this will balance the field, and if not? let Trinishpere and Gush off and lets see what kind of fun that creates? lol

Overall, I liked the metagame report, and wait anxiously for the Jan/Feb report, as I hope the format will have showed a less Mana drain infested top 8 as I would hate to see a card restricted because people prefer to play it over other less "fun options".

[Troy_Costisick]

I highly disagree that pissing off the majority of dedicated Vintage collectors/players and driving away even more people to quit or move to Legacy is a positive thing. Sorry but real world impacts of such a restriction need to be considered as well, if not more, then the impact on the metagame.

Honestly though, should that ever be a consideration for the DCI when it comes to the Vintage B/R List?  You're suggesting that the impact on cardboard speculators is more important than the impact on the metagame?  Such a suggestion is non-sensical.  The B/R List was not created to ensure a healthy after-market environment.  Is was created to ensure a healthy tournament environment.  Your final notion is totally off base, IMO.

[chrissss]

Ok I signed up for premium just to read your stuff Smmenen, I hope you appreciate it.

This could and should have been a PM.
-Godder

[reaperbong]

I highly disagree that pissing off the majority of dedicated Vintage collectors/players and driving away even more people to quit or move to Legacy is a positive thing. Sorry but real world impacts of such a restriction need to be considered as well, if not more, then the impact on the metagame.

Honestly though, should that ever be a consideration for the DCI when it comes to the Vintage B/R List?  You're suggesting that the impact on cardboard speculators is more important than the impact on the metagame?  Such a suggestion is non-sensical.  The B/R List was not created to ensure a healthy after-market environment.  Is was created to ensure a healthy tournament environment.  Your final notion is totally off base, IMO.

In general I agree that the B/R list should not be managed in this way. I just think Mana Drain (along with Bazaar and Shops) deserves special treatment and consideration due to the exceptional cost and value x4. I don't see it any different then the 'reserve' list that WOTC has created to ensure us that Power cards ect. will not be reprinted.
 
I think there should be a general consensus among players that Drain, Shop and Bazaar on are on such a 'reserve' unrestricted list, I would also like to see this officially co-signed by WOTC. Yea dream on i know...

[Troy_Costisick]

I don't see it any different then the 'reserve' list that WOTC has created to ensure us that Power cards ect. will not be reprinted.
 
I think there should be a general consensus among players that Drain, Shop and Bazaar on are on such a 'reserve' unrestricted list, I would also like to see this officially co-signed by WOTC. Yea dream on i know...

Well, I'd have to point out that your argument using WotC's reserve list as support to protect Mana Drain is somewhat undermined because "Power cards etc" like Mana Drain itself don't appear on that list (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/products/reprintpolicy) along with stuff like Force of Will, Lotus Petal, and Wasteland while terrible cards like Thelonite Monk and Leeches are included.  If Wizards isn't even interested in eternally ensuring the monetary value of Mana Drain is protected, why should Vintage players feel the need to consent to place it or any card for that matter on some "protect this thing from restriction no matter how bad the metagame gets so speculators don't get screwed on their investment" list?  That's a very dangerous mindset for the health of Vintage, IMO.  Besides, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating any cards be restricted anyway.  Do you?

Peace,

-Troy

[reaperbong]

No I don't.

And you've made a great point, I concede my argument or whatever. Also didn't realize that Mana Drain isn't on the Reserved list.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I don't see it any different then the 'reserve' list that WOTC has created to ensure us that Power cards ect. will not be reprinted.
 
I think there should be a general consensus among players that Drain, Shop and Bazaar on are on such a 'reserve' unrestricted list, I would also like to see this officially co-signed by WOTC. Yea dream on i know...

Well, I'd have to point out that your argument using WotC's reserve list as support to protect Mana Drain is somewhat undermined because "Power cards etc" like Mana Drain itself don't appear on that list (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/products/reprintpolicy) along with stuff like Force of Will, Lotus Petal, and Wasteland while terrible cards like Thelonite Monk and Leeches are included.  If Wizards isn't even interested in eternally ensuring the monetary value of Mana Drain is protected, why should Vintage players feel the need to consent to place it or any card for that matter on some "protect this thing from restriction no matter how bad the metagame gets so speculators don't get screwed on their investment" list?  That's a very dangerous mindset for the health of Vintage, IMO.  Besides, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating any cards be restricted anyway.  Do you?

Peace,

-Troy

Those cards aren't on the Reserved List because they're not rares.

[Troy_Costisick]

I don't see it any different then the 'reserve' list that WOTC has created to ensure us that Power cards ect. will not be reprinted.
 
I think there should be a general consensus among players that Drain, Shop and Bazaar on are on such a 'reserve' unrestricted list, I would also like to see this officially co-signed by WOTC. Yea dream on i know...

Well, I'd have to point out that your argument using WotC's reserve list as support to protect Mana Drain is somewhat undermined because "Power cards etc" like Mana Drain itself don't appear on that list (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/products/reprintpolicy) along with stuff like Force of Will, Lotus Petal, and Wasteland while terrible cards like Thelonite Monk and Leeches are included.  If Wizards isn't even interested in eternally ensuring the monetary value of Mana Drain is protected, why should Vintage players feel the need to consent to place it or any card for that matter on some "protect this thing from restriction no matter how bad the metagame gets so speculators don't get screwed on their investment" list?  That's a very dangerous mindset for the health of Vintage, IMO.  Besides, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating any cards be restricted anyway.  Do you?

Peace,

-Troy

Those cards aren't on the Reserved List because they're not rares.

Yes, I agree.

[meadbert]

The other "Interactive" cards that were restricted are Trinisphere and Strip Mine so there is precedent for restricting defensive cards.  Ironically unrestricting Strip Mine would fight many of the best cards in type 1 (Shop, Bazaar, Drain) although it would still leave Dark Ritual free to run rampant.
4 Strip Mine Fish would be an interesting budget option, although there is huge potential for abuse of Strip Mine in Stax and Turboland variants.

I would prefer to see Wizards fight Drain's dominance by printing cards that fight Drain rather than by restricting it.  Perhaps a lower cost In the Eye of Chaos that only applies to blue instants or maybe even an In the Eye of Chaos that can be Cycled for  so you can run it main deck with less fear of having a dead card in certain matchups much like Drain decks run Rebuild now.
Most annoying would be a land that does not tap for mana, but functions as an In the Eye of Chaos and that cycles for 2.  In the Eye's weakness against Drains is that it can be Drained itself.  Using a land means Drain cannot even protect itself.

I am not a card designer and not trying to present any ideas to be used here.
My only point is that there are a lot of options for printing new cards to fight Drain and I would prefer that those options were used rather than restriction.

EDIT:  Another option that would fight Drain more and Force of Will less would be to have a Pitch Stifle:

Pitch Stifle   
Instant
Counter target triggered or activated ability.
You may remove a green card, a creature or a land from your hand rather than paying Pitch Stifle's mana cost.

That card simultaneously fights Fetchlands, with Drain usually relies on to pay for itself as well as Tendrils of Agony.  It could even counter a turn 1 Bazaar activation to be followed up by Wasteland.

Anyway, there are a lot of options for fight Drain other than restriction.

[Grand Inquisitor]

The other "Interactive" cards that were restricted are Trinisphere and Strip Mine so there is precedent for restricting defensive cards.  Ironically unrestricting Strip Mine would fight many of the best cards in type 1 (Shop, Bazaar, Drain) although it would still leave Dark Ritual free to run rampant.
4 Strip Mine Fish would be an interesting budget option, although there is huge potential for abuse of Strip Mine in Stax and Turboland variants.

I'd be curious to see this metagame play out.  While strip mine sort of has a 'flash effect' of nudging everyone towards making critical plays earlier in the game, having pithing needle as an easy foil or something like relic of progenitus to stop recursion could be enough (along with fetchlands) to make it tenable.  I'd avoid using the word interactive to describe trinisphere or strip mine.  Mana drain is a reactionary spell; that's quite different from trinisphere or strip mine.

43 Mana Drain Decks (45% of Top 8s)

That to me is the far more troubling statistic than the Tez statistic.   

Gush decks, as an ENGINE, were constantly at 25% of the field.    Mana Drain decks are 45%. 

Steve, by chance have you looked at the concentration of duress/thoughtseize during the gush era?  What I'm getting at is the need to tease out symptoms from disease by comparing engines, answers, acceleration and win conditions within their own categories.  It's easy to blur things like mana drain since they both answer a threat and accelerate the next main phase, but I'm not sure if your case for lack of meta diversity is really complete when you're focusing on such a common answer.  Mana drain can be played in Tezzeret, Slaver, Painter, Mono Blue, and Shay's new thing all the while having very different applications and to the metagame (both in terms of how those decks play and what counter-strategies are effective/viable).

In short, I think Time Vault as a win condition is clearly the 'problem' and it just so happens that the lowest common denominator from a metagame, deck construction and lines of play perspective is mana drain.

[Smmenen]

The stats are you looking for are available on Morphling.de

As a relevant point of comparison, here is May, 2008, the month before Gush and Co were restricted (june is not as good since Gush et al were restricted for the last 10 days of the month):

http://www.morphling.de/statistics.php?id=2008.5

Then December of 2008:
http://www.morphling.de/statistics.php?id=2008.12

Mana Drain has surged the second most played spell in Vintage, not even close. 

As you can see, it kicks both Merchant Scroll and Gush's butt.  I considered Merchant Scroll to be the true heart of the Gush engine, and it saw even more play than Gush in that time period and in the preceding months. 

I'd avoid using the word interactive to describe trinisphere or strip mine.  Mana drain is a reactionary spell; that's quite different from trinisphere or strip mine.

Let's please leave the discussion of whether a card is "interactive," "reactive," defensive," or whatever aside, since these terms have no clear meaning.   

I really don't want to have to get into this, but it's basically a semantics game.

Every single magic card is interactive, in the sense that it requires other cards to do anything or produce an effect.   Every card is inherently interactive.   I recognize that isn't generally what we mean by that term, but the fact remains that our understanding of that term, much like other terms, is inherently undefinable.   In an article on "interactivity" Mike Flores cited Sphere of Resistance as a quintessential interactive card, which Suicide Black used to slow down high Tide decks.   I asked, in the forums, how Sphere could be interactive, but Trinisphere not.   It's very context dependent and, frankly, perceptual. 

Your distinction between "reactionary" spells is similarly so.    How is Swords to Plowshares reactive, but Strip Mine not?   Both remove a permanent already in play.   If the answer is that both cards are proactive, then that means that the only cards which are reactive are cards that respond to other spells on the stack, which reduces the term to the set of countermagic in existence. 

Similarly, what is "defensive" or "offensive"?   Creatures are used to block and attack.   Spells like Force of Will are used both to resolve a spell you are playing and to counter a spell.   Pact of Negation is a case in point. 

It's best if we simply avoid terminology like that since it is inherently ambiguous and not susceptible to precise definition and ultimately have no utility as a result of their extreme ambiguity.

43 Mana Drain Decks (45% of Top 8s)

That to me is the far more troubling statistic than the Tez statistic.   

Gush decks, as an ENGINE, were constantly at 25% of the field.    Mana Drain decks are 45%. 

In short, I think Time Vault as a win condition is clearly the 'problem' and it just so happens that the lowest common denominator from a metagame, deck construction and lines of play perspective is mana drain.

I disagree. I don't think that Time Vault is a problem any more than Tendrils of Agony or Darksteel Colossus is a problem.   Mana Drains only went up 4% after Time Vault became legal.   

[policehq]

Most new cards and new deck concepts are shot down for vulnerability to artifact hate such as destruction spells, Null Rod, and Pithing Needle. Surely Time Vault as a win-condition, and by restriction, a one-of, can't be THE problem of Vintage. The format simply must be able to adapt to this card; I can't believe it is unable without intercession from Wizards.

[Smmenen]

Most new cards and new deck concepts are shot down for vulnerability to artifact hate such as destruction spells, Null Rod, and Pithing Needle. Surely Time Vault as a win-condition, and by restriction, a one-of, can't be THE problem of Vintage. The format simply must be able to adapt to this card; I can't believe it is unable without intercession from Wizards.

I completely agree.

Two card combos face inherent consistency restraints in Magic.   This is easily illustrated any number of ways.    Flash was legal in Vintage for a year, and it is far more efficient as a two card combo than Time Vault.

First, Flash had two very powerful unrestricted tutors as support in Merchant Scroll and Summoner's Pact.  YOu couldn't ask for better support for a two card combo, effectively doubling the number of each combo part. 

Second, Flash was a blue instant which could be played at any time for only two mana.   Time Vault costs at least 4 even if you assemble both Vault and Key.

Third, the only ways to stop Flash were countermagic (good luck) and a narrow set of other cards, but most importantly Leyline.

Time Vault, by comparison is much slower, and much more vulnerable.  It can be hit with artifact destruction to be disrupted such as Rack and Ruin or Seal of Primordium, let alone Krosan Grip.   Where Flash couldn't win with Leyline in play, Time Vault is even more vulnerable, with cards like Needle and Rod.   

History has shown that the limitations on two card combos in Vintage generally means that we don't generally run the maximum amount of both combo parts unless you have a pure, speed, combo deck, and even Flash didn't run full Summoner's Pacts in most instances.

Think about Flame Vault Gifts.  Both Flame Fusilade and Time Vault were unrestricted, yet Andy only ran one of each copy.   

Think about Painter.  Even with both combo parts unrestricted, no Painter deck runs 4 of each.  Of course most run 3-4 Painters, since it combos directly with Red Elemental Blast, but most only run 1-2 Grindstones, and use cards like Trinket Mage and general draw to find them. 

My point is that even if Time Vault and Voltaic Key were unrestricted, it is unlikely that Mana Drain decks would run full complements of each.   And as for a pure combo deck, well, if Flash really wasn't all that domineering with running 4 of each ontop of all of that tutor support, it's a safe bet that a pure combo Time Vault deck wouldn't be any better. 

And with Tezzeret around, it really reduces the incentives to run more than one of each, since Tez tutors up the components anyway.   

[TheShop]

Webster defines interactive as:  mutually or reciprocally active

There was no mutual activity or reciprocal activity for a trinisphere on first turn or a flash with 4 counterspells/9 tutors behind it unless you are playing blue (the great defense from keeping our format from being even more venerable to combo). Mana drain is interactive in most cases because it requires double blue to play(not always achievable on first turn-like shop/trinisphere) and may not be as easily defended as a flash.  I am not as bothered by a mass amount of drains in the format in two months as others seem to be.    Other viable decks exist.  I would rather see unrestrictions to diversify the format than more restrictions.  This card allows interaction by both players, and does not share the broken power of flash or a first turn trinisphere.

Secondly, this will NOT lower the cost of the format.  Of the broken sets of non-power cards (zaar, shop, and drain)...the drain is the cheapest.  The only way restricting mana drain would make entry cheaper would be if all new players decided to play tendrils in lieu of stax or dredge.  Rituals cost less than those cards.

[Troy_Costisick]

Webster defines interactive as:  mutually or reciprocally active

First, there are uses and meanings for words well beyond Mr. Webster's little book.  Specialized applications, like Magic for instance, take words and reapply them into jargon so that a new concept and meaning can be communicated with them.  If you think every meaning of every word can be found in the Dictionary- especially Webster's!- , then you are sorely mistaken.  Whipping out the almighty dictionary is a school yard rhetorical tactic and does not take into account, in any way, the context where the word is being used.  Pointing to the the definition you found and proclaming it as the one we should all accept is a fool's errand.  You'll then have to argue over what Mutually, Reciprocally, and Active all mean.  Then whatever words you choose to define that definition, will then themselves have to be argued over, heh, ad nauseam.  Like Stephen said, "interactive" is about as easy to define as "powerful" or "overcosted" when it comes to magic cards.  It's better to find other words and concepts to support one's points.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I really don't want to have to get into this, but it's basically a semantics game.

Agreed, lets all get back to the fruitful discussion at hand.

morphling.de/statistics.php?id=2008.12

Mana Drain has surged the second most played spell in Vintage, not even close. 

Thanks, but let me clarify: I was going to see if we instead compared Mana Drain to the other answers being used in the previous metagame.

From your links:
(excluding FoW for obvious reasons)

Answers

May
Leyline of the Void - 354 (538 if combined with TCrypt)
Duress + Thoughtseize - 301
REB + Pyroblst - 225

December
Duress + Thoughtseize - 294
Mana Drain - 248
Tormod's Crypt - 161 (272 if combined with Leyline)

Engines

May
Brainstorm - 380
Merchant Scroll - 220
Gush - 186

December
Thirst for Knowledge - 199
Dark Confidant - 109
...


Now, I'll be the first to admit the caveats to this information.  The largest and most important being the distinction between maindeck and sideboard, this data doesn't tell us much we don't already know.  However, I'd be interested to see the number of maindecked duress + thoughtseize (in May) compared with maindecked mana drains (now) if it were available.  I hope this adds some weight to the idea that you can't look at raw card counts without considering whether something is primarliy used as an engine or an answer*, since they have dramatic effects on how the metagame is shaped.

*I know this may lead down the path to another semantic argument, but at some point you have to start putting labels on abstractions.  I think people familiar with this format can be comfortable appreciating the different impacts something like Flash (an enabler), Mana Drain (an answer) and Brainstorm (an engine) have on the format without getting too bogged down in the details.

[Smmenen]

Your numbers are misleading since they are aggregate rather than percentage of top 8.  There were more tournaments in May than in december.

Also, everyone knows that Mana Drain is both an answer and an engine.    Cards sit in a network of interactions, and we can't isolate one from another in such a simple way.   Everyone knows that Mana Drain is the critical card in these sprawing blue control decks.   Some might say Thirst, but the evidence does not suggest that Thirst is a problem, since its numbers are so much lower than Drains. 

[bluemage55]

Some might say Thirst, but the evidence does not suggest that Thirst is a problem, since its numbers are so much lower than Drains. 

Based on that logic, then we could blame it on Force of Will: "Some might say Drain, but the evidence does not suggest Drain is a problem, since its numbers are so much lower than Forces."

I'm rather skeptical of the argument that mere numbers suggests that one card is a bigger problem than another.

[TheShop]

I think that what I was getting at is that the % of people playing a card in tournament is not normally the reason for restriction.  The reason is normally that a card creates situations where you play solitaire consistently are restricted.  Most cards that aid combo are on the list for this reason, and my point was that trinisphere definitely accomplishes a game of solitaire when it is dropped consistently on first turn. 

The word "interactive" can be defined.  Exercise common sense=it means the same thing here as it does in real life,  "mutual activity."  Mutual activity=both players playing the game.  I will drop the words though, but webster is a better source than the opinion of those who simply disregard my comments.  Not everything is relative and subjective.  I think we are harping on the wrong statistics when we want to restrict cards based on how many people play them (which has been the only reasoning based on stats in this entire topic). 

Lastly, I love Steven's articles and all that he has done for popularizing vintage and educating people about it.  However, I suspect that there a bias in many of his works towards whatever his pet deck is at the time.  Tendrils would definitely be helped by the end of drain.dec.