Aside from Force of Will, which is an over-arching and fundamental effect in Type I, Mana Drain has been a defining card for the control archetype for many years. Despite this, most players do not handle the mechanics and subtleties of Mana Drain properly. The card has much more depth and impact on player interaction than what is currently practiced.

For example, see the following scenario:

Scenario 1:
In a matchup between Slavery and Tog, it's the beginning of turn 3 and the game stands as follows:

Tog: (Played First)
In Play: Underground Sea, Volcanic Island
Hand: Mana Drain, Force of Will, Merchant Scroll, Tropical Island

Slavery:
In Play: Volcanic Island, Shivan Reef, Mox Pearl
Hand: Thirst for Knowledge, Force of Will, Mishra's Workshop, Gilded Lotus, Karn, Silver Golem

Turn 3:
Tog: draw (Accumulated Knowledge), Tropical Island, go

Slavery: End of Turn (EOT): Thirst for Knowledge

Tog: Mana Drain

Slavery: draw (Mishra's Workshop), Karn, Silver Golem

Turn 4:
Tog: draw (Underground Sea), Merchant Scroll, Intuition->Accumulated Knowledge, go ...

Tog's Hand: Accumulated Knowledge number three, Accumulated Knowledge number four, Force of Will... with two lands untapped.

Slavery: draw (Chalice of the Void), Mishra's Workshop number two, Gilded Lotus, Chalice of the Void four two

Tog: Accumulated Knowledge for three (draw: Wish, Deep Analysis, Fetch), Force of Will (pitch Deep Analysis)

Turn 5:
Tog: draw (Intuition), Accumulated Knowledge 4, Fetch land, go * End turn with three untapped lands and six cards in hand.

In this scenario, the Slavery player properly took Mana Drain into account on their second turn and didn't cast Thirst for Knowledge into two untapped Islands. This put the Tog player's Mana Drain mana off for another turn, but it also slowed the Slavery plan a bit by taking away the ability to play cards from the Thirst for Knowledge on turn 2 Also, by forcing the Tog player to Mana Drain on their End Step, the Slavery player has avoided the dreaded Two-Islands-Up on their Turn 3. While this may appear to be the proper method for the Slavery player to deal with Mana Drain, it is not optimal. The following scenario displays the results of a relatively small change in the Slavery player's timing:

Scenario 2:
Same starting conditions as Scenario 1...

Turn 3:
Tog: draw (Accumulated Knowledge), Tropical Island, go*

* Seeing as how the Tog player has implicitly declared the end of their turn from their First Main Phase (FMP), the Slavery player indicates that they would like to respond to the Tog player's implicit declaration of their Attack Step.

Slavery: First Main Phase: Thirst for Knowledge

Tog: Mana Drain

Tog: Second Main Phase (SMP): Merchant Scroll->Intuition, burn two

Slavery: draw (Mishra's Workshop), Karn, Silver Golem

Turn 4:
Tog: draw (Underground Sea), Underground Sea, go ...

Tog's Hand: Accumulated Knowledge 1, Intuition, Force of Will... with four lands untapped

Slavery: draw (Chalice of the Void), Mishra's Workshop 2, Gilded Lotus, Chalice of the Void @2

Tog: Force of Will pitching Accumulated Knowledge

Tog: EOT: Intuition->Accumulated Knowledge

Turn 5:
Tog: draw (Intuition), Accumulated Knowledge 3, Fetch land, go ... * End turn with three untapped lands and three cards in hand

By casting Thirst for Knowledge during the Tog player's First Main Phase (FMP), the Slavery player has forced the Tog player to utilize their Mana Drain mana earlier than expected and with two lands already tapped. This leads to an awkward and inefficient use of the mana, which not only reduces the Tog player's resources (lost mana), but also disrupts their game plan, forcing them to play differently in response to subsequent threats (Force of Willing a threat instead of drawing in response and finding other answers).

It's arguable that you should cast your threatening instants on your opponent's upkeep, in order to force the control player to make a decision about Mana Drain before seeing their next card. Following are the Pros and Cons of the three functional timings for baiting on the Mana Drain player's turn:

All Three Cases:
Pro: - Mana Drain not available to them on your next turn.

Pro:
- They usually (barring previous Brainstorm or tutor) will not know what their next card is, thus forcing them to make a slightly uninformed decision.

- Giving them unexpected mana in their FMP may force them to play spells in an otherwise undesirable order, or it may force them to take mana burn.

Con:
- They will make all of their Main Phase decisions with Mana Drain mana in mind, thus negating some of the element of possible misplays on their part due to unexpected mana.

- You will be presenting them with the option to Mana Drain without knowing if they intended to use their mana on their FMP anyway. (If they were planning to tap out for Deep Analysis, you may have just allowed them to do both!)

- Giving them unexpected mana in their FMP may allow them to play a desirable spell sooner than expected (see Mind Twist).

Pro:
- They will proceed with their First Main Phase and make decisions based on no Mana Drain mana. Clearly, this only matters if they were planning on ending their FMP with UU available anyway.

- Giving them unexpected mana in their SMP may force them to play spells in an otherwise undesirable order, or it may force them to take mana burn.

- If they have passed the turn from their FMP, you can be reasonably assured that they did not intend to cast more spells... this usually translates into forcing them into an undesirable/awkward use of mana in their SMP.

Con:
- They may have drawn an additional answer to your threat during their Draw Step. (This entire exercise is predicated on the notion that your spell will get Mana Drained, so this drawback is somewhat off-topic... yet still noteworthy.)

- Giving them unexpected mana in their SMP may allow them to play a desirable spell sooner than expected (see Mind Twist).

Pro: - Any Mana Drain mana will be delayed for a turn.

Con:

- They will begin their following turn with full knowledge of the upcoming mana.

- They will have the maximum benefit of untapped lands + Mana Drain mana on the following turn.

Most decks playing Mana Drain do not have many effects that they would like to tap out for during their turn in the early game (when these examples matter most). This means that forcing them to Mana Drain spells and use the mana in the same turn will most often present them with the aforementioned awkward and inefficient use of their resources, which will frequently lead to subtle shifts in strategy and tempo that a savvy aggressor can exploit. The practice of baiting out Mana Drain during a player's FMP is not always ideal, however. Sometimes it will provide the control player with a large enough mana boost during their SMP such as to accelerate the plan they had for the following turn. The best example of this is Mind Twist, which becomes doubly effective in this case, due to an increase in mana (assuming they Mana Drain a three+ mana spell) and a decrease in the target player's hand size. It is important to be mindful of these negative scenarios, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I don't really want to write this paragraph, but it's a reality: players who do not know exactly how Mana Drain works (i.e."...next Main Phase...") will sometimes Mana Drain on their FMP and still pass their turn without knowing that they get the Mana Drain mana on their SMP. I wish this were not the case, as it frequently results in an argument and in said player being very"disappointed." Still, most Judges will appropriately rule that if you declare the end of your turn in this way, you mana burn. Keep in mind that baiting the Mana Drain player as such is not"sneaky," nor"underhanded," nor"tricking" your opponent. It is merely optimal play that will catch ignorant players double plus unprepared.

What does this mean for Mana Drain-packing control players? Your best defense is to be mindful of what your opponent is watching for. Namely, they are looking for indicators that you are disinterested in playing spells on your turn. When you (as a control player) quickly play draw-go, you are telegraphing your intentions and making your opponent's inferences easier. Take your time. Consider your plays after you draw (even if you have none), and most-importantly: declare your Attack Step. When you deliberately declare your Attack Step (every turn - except when you can't possibly Mana Drain, of course), it tells your opponent that you are aware of their possible tricks and that you're not going to give them the"tell" about how you intend your turn to progress. Granted, if you actually have creatures to swing with, this becomes more complicated (yet psychologically simpler and more effective), as you need to weigh your options about playing spells in both Main Phases. Just don't lose sight of what may happen.

As a control player's opponent, when the control player declares their Attack (without any potential attackers), it forces the difficult decision back onto the aggressor:"Does my opponent plan to cast during their SMP? If I cast now will I be giving them too much information to respond to my threat?" The aggressor can still force the control player into FMP Mana Drains by simply always casting during the FMP in these situations, but this gives the control player the opportunity to manipulate the situation to their advantage more often. If you have only one Main Phase's worth of actions to take, it only makes sense to test your opponent with a"declare my Attack" so as to give yourself as much information up front as possible when you begin casting your spells.

Kevin Cron
A.K.A.: CHA1N5 at Hotmail dot com
+ AIM
+ MSN
www.themanadrain.com