[Discussion] Melting Pot For Thoughts On Extirpate

[Goaswerfraiejen]

But why not simply kill it twice? Will the opponent draw the 3rd copy - maybe. I have a simple example with basic cards for this:

You have in your hand a Lightning Bolt and an Extirpate. The opponent has on the board an Erg Raider. You bolt the Raider and Extirpate it so you never have to deal with another one. Next turn, the opponent drops a Black Knight. Oh noes.

Take the same example and replace Extirpate with another burn spell, or a counter, or a critter, or Moat, or CoP Black, or Edict, or just about 100 cards that are better. The difference is now huge.




Bad example: your conclusion seems to ignore the issue that was raised. The talk was of Extirpating something that's particularly problematic for your deck--so Blood Moon, Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, large creatures with protection from your removal, recurring Factories, etc. It's feasible to be able to deal with these once in a game, but you need to draw your answer and you need to be able to play it--often through a counterwall (not against Dragon Stompy, obviously). The point is simply that you're forced into a reactive position by cards that are problematic, and you don't want that to happen too often. Extirpate helps you to get rid of that worry. The reason you can't simply kill it twice is that the cards you want to be Extirpating, if they're difficult for your deck to handle, are not going to be all that forgiving. An easy example to illustrate the point would be Mystic Enforcer or Chameleon Colossus vs. a deck with black removal (Shriekmaw and Smother, for example). You can probably toe it with the other creatures, but the protected ones are hard to deal with. If they hit the board, you *might* be able to block and send one to the graveyard (obviously not if your creatures are black, don't fly, etc.--but that's not the point of this example). Once it's on the table, you can't afford to let it stay long enough to start swinging, or you're in trouble. If you're lucky enough to counter it or somehow send it to the graveyard, Extirpating it is a great idea because you have no other way (no easily attainable, surefire way) to deal with redundant copies.

That's the point that you missed, and missing it makes your quoted argument a straw man. It doesn't mean you're wrong about the card--although I think you are--but it does mean that you considered the wrong issue.

[Nightmare]

Bad example: your conclusion seems to ignore the issue that was raised. The talk was of Extirpating something that's particularly problematic for your deck--so Blood Moon, Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, large creatures with protection from your removal, recurring Factories, etc. It's feasible to be able to deal with these once in a game, but you need to draw your answer and you need to be able to play it--often through a counterwall (not against Dragon Stompy, obviously). The point is simply that you're forced into a reactive position by cards that are problematic, and you don't want that to happen too often. Extirpate helps you to get rid of that worry. The reason you can't simply kill it twice is that the cards you want to be Extirpating, if they're difficult for your deck to handle, are not going to be all that forgiving. An easy example to illustrate the point would be Mystic Enforcer or Chameleon Colossus vs. a deck with black removal (Shriekmaw and Smother, for example). You can probably toe it with the other creatures, but the protected ones are hard to deal with. If they hit the board, you *might* be able to block and send one to the graveyard (obviously not if your creatures are black, don't fly, etc.--but that's not the point of this example). Once it's on the table, you can't afford to let it stay long enough to start swinging, or you're in trouble. If you're lucky enough to counter it or somehow send it to the graveyard, Extirpating it is a great idea because you have no other way (no easily attainable, surefire way) to deal with redundant copies.

That's the point that you missed, and missing it makes your quoted argument a straw man. It doesn't mean you're wrong about the card--although I think you are--but it does mean that you considered the wrong issue.
Let me know the first time your black deck draws Extirpate while staring down a Mystic Enforcer, instead of an answer to the card you know is a problem for it. Or, more likely, you draw Extirpate while staring down Blood Moon, and can't actually cast it. In both these situations, simply playing more answers to your problematic cards is strictly better than playing Extirpate, because it's another dead draw while you're trying to answer said card. Sure, it's wonderful in the narrow situation where you've already dealt with one of them (Through Countermagic) and you don't want to fight over a second (Through Countermagic, and assuming they actually draw the second copy, which we've already established as a deal breaker for your side - not that anyone on the Pro- side is willing to concede that point). However, it's a terrible topdeck in a disadvantageous position, and won't actually, you know, effect anything.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Isn't it obvious how Extirpate is terrible at answering something that is "problematic" for your deck? I mean, if something is difficult for you to deal with the first time it shows up, which it has to for Extirpate to function, you are simply much better off having more answers for the problematic card.

Nightmare beat me to it.

[thefreakaccident]

The argument is that Ichorid can still win after Bridges or Ichorids have been removed. Not as quickly, obviously, but still attainable. If Leyline or Crypt were there instead Ichorid would have had no chance to rebuild however Extirpate leaves that open for possibilities. I've came to realize that Extirpate isn't great GY hate but rather a card that diminishes the effect of the opposing deck.

You have it backwards... See, with cards like leyline/crypt... they just need a bounce spell, and all their action is back online...

With extirpate, the card is gone and can never be used again.


Lets face it, there are only two decks in the format that even care about the grave:

1. ichorid
2. loam

Now, lets see...

Extirpate has won me a lot of games against ichorid... either you are playing blockers for ichorid/reanimated trolls... or you are playing disruption... in which case 3 ichorids are not going to get theree.

Loam is truely where 'pate shines... as it turns off their engine, which is generally devastating...as their inevitability goes out the window.


People that cannot see this either do not play magic, or are blind and haven't tested it.


Arguing that a card HAS to be in the yard for pate to be good is irrelevent.... try to stop goyf with a crypt... I dare you.

[Nightmare]

Arguing that a card HAS to be in the yard for pate to be good is irrelevent.... try to stop goyf with a crypt... I dare you.
This pretty much says everything I could possibly hope to say about why Extirpate is a bad card. Thanks.

[DragoFireheart]

Extirpate also reveals your opponents hand AND deck. This CAN be relevant in providing you information on what to expect, or to see what (post game 1) sideboard cards they plan to use on you.

Edit:

Also, I think Extirpate was intended as a sideboard card for control decks. The fewer win cons they have, the more relevant Extirpate becomes.

[Shriekmaw]

Extirpate also reveals your opponents hand AND deck. This CAN be relevant in providing you information on what to expect, or to see what (post game 1) sideboard cards they plan to use on you.

Edit:

Also, I think Extirpate was intended as a sideboard card for control decks. The fewer win cons they have, the more relevant Extirpate becomes.


I agree that Extirpate should only be used as a sideboard card. The type of decks were I think extirpate can be more useful are The Rock/Landstill. These are both control decks that utilize discard/counterspells to force your opponents cards into the graveyard. Extirpate was made to fight the long attrition wars.

I don't believe Extirpate should be used as a replacement for Tormod's Crypt to fight graveyard decks, such as Ichorid/Iggy Pop/Aggro Loam. I would use Extirpate as a complement to Crypt but not as a replacement.

I've also noticed that Extirpate makes you play your deck very differently in the fear of always have the black mana open to cast the spell. I've seen this cost a lot of games, but it may be just the inexperience of players when it comes to this card.

[Forbiddian]

Most certainly that's the inexperience of the users playing it. It's best to pretend that you don't have Extirpate when you do and bluff Extirpate when you don't have it. Loam players think twice about Loaming at all (although they should Loam if they can and just trade down, even if they know I have an Extirpate), and think three times or more about using Burning Wish on a non-critical target if they think they might lose LftL. That's at least as much of an edge as keeping a B untapped every now and then.

If keeping B open gets in the way, then just cast whatever you need and wait for the next untap to Extirpate (unless his graveyard play would be devastating, but then Extirpate is probably your best answer anyway?).

[Peter_Rotten]

Bad example: your conclusion seems to ignore the issue that was raised. The talk was of Extirpating something that's particularly problematic for your deck--so Blood Moon, Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, large creatures with protection from your removal, recurring Factories, etc. It's feasible to be able to deal with these once in a game, but you need to draw your answer and you need to be able to play it--often through a counterwall (not against Dragon Stompy, obviously). The point is simply that you're forced into a reactive position by cards that are problematic, and you don't want that to happen too often. Extirpate helps you to get rid of that worry. The reason you can't simply kill it twice is that the cards you want to be Extirpating, if they're difficult for your deck to handle, are not going to be all that forgiving. An easy example to illustrate the point would be Mystic Enforcer or Chameleon Colossus vs. a deck with black removal (Shriekmaw and Smother, for example). You can probably toe it with the other creatures, but the protected ones are hard to deal with. If they hit the board, you *might* be able to block and send one to the graveyard (obviously not if your creatures are black, don't fly, etc.--but that's not the point of this example). Once it's on the table, you can't afford to let it stay long enough to start swinging, or you're in trouble. If you're lucky enough to counter it or somehow send it to the graveyard, Extirpating it is a great idea because you have no other way (no easily attainable, surefire way) to deal with redundant copies.

That's the point that you missed, and missing it makes your quoted argument a straw man. It doesn't mean you're wrong about the card--although I think you are--but it does mean that you considered the wrong issue.

Nightmare and ObFree pretty much summed up my view, but I'll expand a little.

Let's say you're playing a Jank WB deck and Blood Moon is a problem. How does Extirpate solve that problem? It doesn't. Disenchant solves it. So if you are worried about Blood Moon, why not run more Disenchant effects rather than Ex? You're running WUB control? Why not play as many basics as possible? Why not run BEB?

Mystic Enforcer is giving your black deck problems? Why not run more Edict effects?


Extirpating it is a great idea because you have no other way (no easily attainable, surefire way) to deal with redundant copies.

I don't quite understand this. If you have no easy, surefire way to deal with problem card X, then how did you deal with it the first time? Did you save a counter for it? A removal spell? A blocking critter? If so, why can't you do it again?

Ultimately my point is that you handled it once, why can't you do it again?

------

Also, I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but what if the opponent plays Problem Card X (now PCX) and you handle it. It sits in the yard waiting for you to topdeck your Extirpate. Unfortunately, the opponent playes his second copy of PCX. WTF is Extirpate going to do now? Wouldn't you SOOOOOO much rather have an answer to PCX?

[Forbiddian]

If you're worried about BM, you're probably ALREADY running as many basics as you can. I dunno, maybe that comes down to deck construction. Extirpate can't make your shitty all-non-basic deck suddenly beat 8Moon.dec.


Obviously you'd rather have an answer than Extirpate. (And I actually don't think Extirpating a problem card is a very good use for Extirpate and I doubt I'd hit Mystic Enforcer unless it did a cool combat trick like shrunk some Mongooses).

But anyway: How many cards, exactly, are in your sideboard?

You can run Disenchant and Edict or basic lands and Blue Elemental Blast and still have room for 6-8 GY hate spells so you don't keel over and die to Ichorid and have room for the real sideboard cards like Sanctimony or COP: Red or Dystopia or Teferi's Response?

Obviously in an ideal world (well, sub-ideal and imbalanced, but whatever), where you have 300 Sideboard cards, you can afford to run real hoser spells instead of Extirpate. You never have to go, "Damn, I wish my Extirpate was a Disenchant." And you never have to go, "Damn, I wish my Disenchant was an Extirpate." We can always draw into our 8 copies of Blood Moon.

Until then, when we still live in the real world, we have to condense sideboard slots as much as possible. If we want to run Disenchant, we have to cut some of the other 75 cards in the deck. Extirpate serves as GY hate (which it does comparably to Crypt, probably a little worse, but comparable) and it can abuse decks of poor construction or decks whose construction narrowed them down to only a single type of effective win condition. And it can come in as a never-completely-dead card for cards-that-are-completely-dead like Swords against Iggy-Pop.

[thefreakaccident]

This pretty much says everything I could possibly hope to say about why Extirpate is a bad card. Thanks.

I was actually hoping that you would quote me.

See, tormod's crypt cannot stop any further tarmogoyfs later in the game...

Extirpate gets rid of all other tarmogoyfs before they come out.

They are both primarily GY hate cards, but at least extirpate can serve other functions.

[Peter_Rotten]

Extirpate can't make your shitty all-non-basic deck suddenly beat 8Moon.dec.

NO! NO! NO! Whatever spell you used to handle the first Blood Moon is what allows you to beat 8Moon dec. (And, of course, it is important to note that Extirpate can only "handle" 3 of those 7 more Moon effects).

[Forbiddian]

NO! NO! NO! Whatever spell you used to handle the first Blood Moon is what allows you to beat 8Moon dec. (And, of course, it is important to note that Extirpate can only "handle" 3 of those 7 more Moon effects).

? That's what I said.

I don't get what you mean by "NO! NO! NO!" Are you saying that Extirpate beats Blood Moon?

[frogboy]

real sideboard cards like Sanctimony or COP: Red or Dystopia or Teferi's Response?

level?


(which it does comparably to Crypt, probably a little worse, but comparable)

this is inaccurate.


Extirpate gets rid of all other tarmogoyfs before they come out.

PR's point is that it would be better to just run more of whatever let you deal with the Goyf/Moon/Mountain Goat/whatever in the first place.

[Tosh]

PR's point is that it would be better to just run more of whatever let you deal with the Goyf/Moon/Mountain Goat/whatever in the first place.
I think an important thing to note is that you can run cards to deal with multiple things and Extirpate can kind of fill additional roles. For example,

3 Krosan Grip
3 Spellsnare
3 Smother
3 Extirpate
3 Tormod's Crypt/Leyline

In this case, against artifact/ench things you have Grip, but you also get 3 Extirpates which can go along side your Grips to combat your problems. Against combo decks, you can board in Spellsnares and Extirpates to counter a tutor or ritual and get rid of them (or stop an IGG loop). Against creature based decks, you can board in smothers and use that to kill some of their creatures and extirpate them, so you can smother other things as well. Against GY based decks (read: Ichorid) you could board in Crypts/Leylines and Extirpate to have that additional GY removal.

The point is that you could say "instead of boarding in 3 Grips, board in 4 Grips and 2 Naturalizes" but then you can't also say
"instead of boarding in 3 Smothers to instead board 4 smothers and 2 terrors", there isn't enough room for all of that. Extirpate can be more versatile and can complement your other sideboard cards.

(Note: I don't have an opinion about Extirpate, I'm merely offering some counter points and playing Devil's Advocate)

[Peter_Rotten]

? That's what I said.

I don't get what you mean by "NO! NO! NO!" Are you saying that Extirpate beats Blood Moon?
Whups! Sorry! I read "can't" as "can." I blame Octoberfest.

[The Rack]

Why are people calling it a graveyard hate card? If it is going to be classified as one, it's bad. It's not meant for cremating one of their graveyard cards. That's a bonus. You are permanently getting rid of a card that can make or break games. Taking threats away from a low threat density deck is good right? That topdecked Tarmogoyf won't happen anymore because you got rid of them. Extirpate is meant for cards that can only be comfortably handled once. I can take 1 Deed explosion but not 2. I think that's a fair statement.

[DragoFireheart]

Why are people calling it a graveyard hate card? If it is going to be classified as one, it's bad. It's not meant for cremating one of their graveyard cards. That's a bonus. You are permanently getting rid of a card that can make or break games. Taking threats away from a low threat density deck is good right? That topdecked Tarmogoyf won't happen anymore because you got rid of them. Extirpate is meant for cards that can only be comfortably handled once. I can take 1 Deed explosion but not 2. I think that's a fair statement.

Close.

Extirpate is designed to cripple Control decks that have very few kill conditions.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Why wouldn't you run Cranial Extraction, which can pre-emptively deal with these threats? Like, say, removing Tendrils of Agony before you get killed.

[The Rack]

Why wouldn't you run Cranial Extraction, which can pre-emptively deal with these threats? Like, say, removing Tendrils of Agony before you get killed.

Because I would rather do something else with my 4 mana. Maybe we are all wrong here and Cranial Extraction is better everywhere that extirpate was good. I think the consensus would be that by the time you get to turn 5 they have probably already played the copy of the business spell.

[frogboy]

Taking threats away from a low threat density deck is good right?

Rarely.


Against creature based decks, you can board in smothers and use that to kill some of their creatures and extirpate them, so you can smother other things as well.

My deck would have to be pretty bad if I have six cards worse than Extirpate against an aggro deck.

[The Rack]

Rarely.

What? How does that make any sense. Despite my fondness of sarcastic one liners I'm pretty sure this isn't very good argumentation. Why is it rarely good? If I'm playing Landstill that runs 8 Win conditions, I kill 1 Factory, Extirpate it, and now they only have 4 ways of killing me. How is that not a good thing? Enlighten me.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I think the consensus would be that by the time you get to turn 5 they have probably already played the copy of the business spell.

As opposed to Extirpate, where you know they have to have played the business spell before you can use it.

[frogboy]

If I'm playing Landstill that runs 8 Win conditions, I kill 1 Factory, Extirpate it, and now they only have 4 ways of killing me. How is that not a good thing? Enlighten me.

I dunno, I guess I sort of assume that my opponent's decks aren't garbage and that they have multiple routes to victory. I'm not even being facetious; I can't really fathom playing a deck that is just all in like that so it never occurred to me that people did. Besides, don't they have random Tarmogoyfs to murder you with, too?

Even given that, when you take the above approach, you're basically saying "okay, this game is going to go very long and last dozens of turns while we try to cut off each other's routes to victory."

Is that really the way you want to fight a control deck? Really? Once they figure out your plan they can sculpt for inevitability, as well. And what if they, you know, have multiple ways to kill you? What if they have Counterbalance in their deck?

[Forbiddian]

Could people give some example sideboards for Eva Green and xBxxx Landstill?

We seem to be going in circles. I said ages ago that I use Extirpate to save SB space primarily. I'm definitely open to sideboard alternatives, but right now the alternatives don't seem to cover all the bases or cover all the bases that I want to as effectively.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So...

A card that's not terrible against most decks, sorta, but is only actually really good against Life from the Loam, and which does nothing to make you win or prevent the opponent from winning except over a long game, and so is also a terrible sideboard choice when you need to win after having lost G1. Yeah. Um. Why is this card good, again? Why isn't Yixlid Jailer just pretty much always better?

[frogboy]

Why isn't Yixlid Jailer just pretty much always better?

Easier to remove for non-Ichorid decks and relatively easy to Therapy in g3 for Ichorid decks.

[The Rack]

After thinking about it more, I realize that Extirpate is a bad card. It's silly that I argued for it so much and now am changning but if put into perspective, it's horrible. It's not a good graveyard hate card and Cranial Extraction is plain better than it. The card is too situational and conditional. You all have coaxed me. I think the next big debate should be on which card is better graveyard hate, Jailer, Leyline, or Crypt.

[Omega]

Extirpate is not a graveyard hate card. it can serve other purpose

T. Crypt is the best pure graveyard removal. Cost 0, cost 0 to activate.
Leyline : Requires to be in your starting hand (in other words, BAD)
Jailer : 2/1 that stops all graveyard ability. Not too bad against ichorid. However, the cards remain in the graveyard, which can be problematic if opponent deals with jailer

Depending on META, playing only crypt might be the best. A combination of Jailer and Crypt could be needed to fight against heavy ichorid meta. Leyline should never be considered as an option. If it sees any play, that means that the format is degenerate, which it isn't. Ichorid does not see a lot of play. T. Crypt is enough to handle the graveyard question

Robert

[Forbiddian]

I really don't understand why people like Leyline so much. It's strong GY hate when it's in your STARTING hand, but you only see it like 40% of the time and drawing into it is a /laff later in the game.

It makes 4 cards in your deck completely dead draws the 60% of the time that you don't get it.

I still think that Extirpate is a strong contender among those four (Jailer, Extirpate, Crypt, Leyline). It's not like Ichorid laughs off an Extirpate and then keels over and dies to Crypt or something. I think it's stronger than Leyline and Jailer at least.

[Tosh]

I really don't understand why people like Leyline so much. It's strong GY hate when it's in your opening hand, but you only see it like 40% of the time and drawing into it is a /laff later in the game.
(I assume that that's what you meant)

1) You seem to forget that you also need Tormod's Crypt in your opening hand to be useful against Ichorid...

2) You also forget that many deck can cast Leyline and if it's a match that's not Ichorid, turn 4 leyline isn't too bad either (Leyline is not Goyf hate, more like Ichorid/Loam/Reanimator hate) since it will cut of LftL.

[quicksilver]

Most of the time I draw leyline during the game I am happy. In fact I can remember numerous games where I have drawn leyline during the game and won because of it. Against ichorid, it's still great to hard cast since they can't dredge anymore, don't get tokens and only get one more activation from their ichorids. Seems far superior then ripping an extirpate.

[Forbiddian]

You can often tutor for or Brainstorm or whatever into Crypt or Extirpate. At least you have the chance of drawing into it.




Would you throw back a hand of 7 solid cards because it didn't include your graveyard hate? This situation happens 60% of the time (just over).

If you said yes, then 65% of the time, you'll be staring at a hand of 6 with the same question (and a better shot of mana fuck or flood). If you keep saying yes, you end up with an average hand size of 3.81 cards (and Leyline of the Void), but 22% of the time, you'll end up with a hand of 1 that does not even have a Leyline. Feel free to check the math yourself, but good luck beating Ichorid with 2.8 cards. That's like one land and two random spells and your Leyline.

If you said no, then if you ran four Leylines and only four Leylines, you have to hold the fort until turn 4 (assuming that you drew Leyline and didn't get double therapied by then). Which is basically you have no chance. They have to fizzle until turn 4 AND they can't have a strong board position by then or a way to answer Leyline (which won't retroactively slow them down, as soon as they can dig the chain, they can continue where they started).

I'd much rather have Extirpate or Crypt in my deck under those circumstances.



But yes, I did mean "starting hand." Thanks.

[Tosh]

Would you throw back a hand of 7 solid cards because it didn't include your graveyard hate?

Against Ichorid or Reanimator (to a lesser extent, FoW works in this MU as well), I would. I would mull to 4 to find Leyline or Crypt against Ichorid. Those cards are so essential to the game that without them, Ichorid's playing another game 1 and they usually win those.

[Forbiddian]

Against Ichorid or Reanimator (to a lesser extent, FoW works in this MU as well), I would. I would mull to 4 to find Leyline or Crypt against Ichorid. Those cards are so essential to the game that without them, Ichorid's playing another game 1 and they usually win those.

How many Leylines + Crypts total are you running? Er, that sounded a bit condescending, but it wasn't intended to be, I just want to recalculate some probabilities.

[The Legacy Weapon]

I think Extirpate is a great card in a disruptive deck like Eva Green or Suicide Black. The ability to fuck over a 3/4c Threshold player's manabase is really nice. Wasteland their Tropical Island and Extirpate it. Or hit their Fetchland after they popped it for Tropical Island and then waste their Dual. It's also nice to limit FOW to 1 per game. Who knows, you may Thoughtseize and hit FOW with it, Extirpate it, and then they get no FOW. I think that Extirpate may be a little subpar as just a SB grave hate card but as a MD disruption tool I think it's pretty hot. Also, if you Thoughtseize and see two Goyfs, Extirpate just fucked them hard. I don't think Extirpate is for every deck. Just decks that can take advantage of it.

[quicksilver]

Gotta go, I got a heavy prick right behind my back, see you later..

What?!?

[Aleksandr]

What?!?

My chief. He is dork.

[quicksilver]

My chief. He is dork.

Oh I thought you had a huge penis growing out of your back.

[jazzykat]

Well since this has raged on long enough I wanted to quickly weigh in.

I can't think of too many situations except when I can set it up with discard which should be a fortuitous occaison instead of building your deck around, that I would actually want the card.

I suppose in a slow control deck against a jank opponent with a VERY powerful recurring threat the card would be useful. In general I don't think it's worth the cardboard it's printed on because tormod's crypt often does the job much better.

I'm holding onto my 3 for now in case I figure out a use for them but all in all I can't honestly think of a deck or sb that I would want them in at this time.

[hungryboi]

Leyline does a better job than Extirpate in their intended position which is often times combo hate. Leyline comes out on turn 0 and is able to eliminate Ichorid, IGG, and etc... I've actually had in a tournament once where I was playing against an Ichorid deck when my opponent cabal therapied me and took out my extirpate on his second turn during game 2. A lucky guess but it shows the fact that Leyline can't be discarded as long as its in your opening hand can be be a beast. Whatever the case, it will slow most combo decks down until they can destroy it or go about some other way in trying to kill you. That means they will be wasting turns and resources in trying to kill your enchantment while you apply pressure or more disruption.

[Omega]

Whatever the case, it will slow most combo decks down until they can destroy it or go about some other way in trying to kill you. That means they will be wasting turns and resources in trying to kill your enchantment while you apply pressure or more disruption


It will slow down ONLY if you have it in hand. Which means that you will be mulliganing agressively, which means you will not have a starting hand of 7, which means you will be disadvantaged

Robert

[Forbiddian]

Whatever the case, it will slow most combo decks down until they can destroy it or go about some other way in trying to kill you. That means they will be wasting turns and resources in trying to kill your enchantment while you apply pressure or more disruption


It will slow down ONLY if you have it in hand. Which means that you will be mulliganing agressively, which means you will not have a starting hand of 7, which means you will be disadvantaged

Robert

Actually, if you mulligan for it, you won't have a hand at all. Average starting hand size would be 3 (EDIT: thanks for the update, I meant 2.814, see my post a few below for an explanation) cards plus the Leyline.

But yeah, with TES strong and Ichorid on the back foot, I can't justify running Extirpate anymore.

Please note the above sentence and read it again before you make a post pretending to disagree with me.

[nitewolf9]

But yeah, with TES strong and Ichorid on the back foot, I can't justify running Extirpate anymore.

The thing is, extirpate wasn't any good against these two decks in the first place.

[omgkitties]

The thing is, extirpate wasn't any good against these two decks in the first place.


This. TES flat out doesn't care about extirpate or leyline for that matter, and you would prolly have to hit multiples against ichorid for it to be relevant.

[Forbiddian]

This. TES flat out doesn't care about extirpate or leyline for that matter, and you would prolly have to hit multiples against ichorid for it to be relevant.

Hellooo? That's why I said I'm not running Extirpates. Because TES is successful and Ichorid is not.

Seriously, try reading. It's good.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Average hand size ("aggressively mulliganning for Leyline of the Void"):

5.09 cards. 5.09 cards! That COUNTS Leyline of the Void as one of your 5 cards (so it's really a four card hand + a hoser).
Actually, if you mulligan for it, you won't have a hand at all. Average starting hand size would be 3 cards plus the Leyline.
Is Leyline one of those cards that get harder to draw as winter draws near? I had better make sure to stock up on Extirpates before the first snow!

[Forbiddian]

The number (5.08) also refers to if you decide to aggressively mulligan for it before you see your hand.

If you see your first hand of 7 and it DOESN'T have Leyline in it and you choose to mulligan off of that, then the largest possible hand you could have is 5 cards + Leyline. Odds are you'll mulligan again. The sum of THAT average hand size becomes 3.814 cards. That's 2.814 + Leyline of the Void (assuming you didn't see Leyline in your top 7).

That's a more accurate number, although you'll note that there's a 40% chance that the two strategies (mulligan for leyline no matter what and just accept your fate) converge. Where the two strategies differ, it's clear which one is better.



But do an experiment. Try shuffling up a deck of cards and drawing 1 of four Leylines in 6 cards. Repeat with 5. Repeat with 4.

[Peter_Rotten]

Although I won't argue with your math ('cause math makes me head hurt) I don't agree with you counting Leyline as a less-than-a-card card. Statements like, "That COUNTS Leyline of the Void as one of your 5 cards (so it's really a four card hand + a hoser)" make it seem like getting a hoser is bad! Hell, that's the whole reason you're mulliganing in the first place! Getting hosers is obviously good.

[Forbiddian]

Although I won't argue with your math ('cause math makes me head hurt) I don't agree with you counting Leyline as a less-than-a-card card. Statements like, "That COUNTS Leyline of the Void as one of your 5 cards (so it's really a four card hand + a hoser)" make it seem like getting a hoser is bad! Hell, that's the whole reason you're mulliganing in the first place! Getting hosers is obviously good.

It's to make it obvious how many OTHER cards you have to work with. People might assume: "Oh, I'd gladly take a 5 card hand if it gives me Leyline, I've mulliganned to 5 and won before." But you really only have 4 other cards to work with. Five cards is like two land drops, if you get lucky it might not even slow you down too much.

"Five card hand with Leyline" I thought would be ambiguous or people would miss the point that it's "four cards + leyline" which means you'll miss your land drops and probably get thrashed by hardcast Narcomoebas before you can back up your Leyline.

[frogboy]

probably get thrashed by hardcast Narcomoebas before you can back up your Leyline.

um, no. Granted, it's more likely that the other guy will get to his Chain of Vapor before you get to a counterspell, but if your deck can't beat two 1/1s in eleven turns you weren't going to win anyway.

[Forbiddian]

um, no. Granted, it's more likely that the other guy will get to his Chain of Vapor before you get to a counterspell, but if your deck can't beat two 1/1s in eleven turns you weren't going to win anyway.

The hyperbole wasn't obvious enough for you?

[Peter_Rotten]

It's to make it obvious how many OTHER cards you have to work with. People might assume: "Oh, I'd gladly take a 5 card hand if it gives me Leyline, I've mulliganned to 5 and won before." But you really only have 4 other cards to work with. Five cards is like two land drops, if you get lucky it might not even slow you down too much.

But you're making this out like it's a really bad thing. (Obviously 6 other cards and Leyline is MUCH better than 4 other cards and Leyline). But mulliganing to your hosers (depending on how much you need them and how effective they are) is not that bad of a plan.

I guess I'm not sure what we're debating here. Are you saying that it's bad to mulligan to hosers? It seems like you're arguing that taking a mulligan is always a bad thing.

Being a -1 cards does not automatically mean you are at a disadvantage compared to your opponent. You could easily mulligan to great cards - even better ones than the opponents. We've all done it before and seen it before. Sometimes you beat an opponent after mulliganing while he did not.

Specifically for the Ichorid match and looking for Leyline, let's keep in mind that first Ichorid mulligans aggresively already, and second, that Ichorid will likely want to mulligan to Chain of Vapor if he suspects Leyline is coming in.

[FoolofaTook]

4 cards as graveyard hate is either going to draw the hate or not. If you have hate that requires a mulligan if it's not in the opening, as Leyline of the Void often seems to, you do need to factor that into how effective that hate is going to be.

If you're playing in a meta in which a lot of people really abuse the graveyard then you probably want to have a few main deck answers to the graveyard and also some in the sideboard for when you need to double-down against something that's really aggressive and wins out of the graveyard in the first few turns.

Extirpate is one of the few cards out there that doubles as graveyard hate and also a generic weakener for the opposing gameplan due to it's ability to take a key card and remove it from the matchup. In a meta that involves a lot of graveyard manipulation and in a deck that plays black Extirpate is probably not a bad maindeck card as a 2-of or 3-of. Throw in 4 Leyline of the Void from the sideboard when you run into one of the really heavy themes and you probably make your overall matchup against that deck quite favorable. Sideboard out the Extirpates for something more appropriate when you don't see graveyard manipulation.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If you get a graveyard hoser, your card advantage over Ichorid is = Their entire fucking deck and every card that they can conceivably draw, in essence. So I think that argument's a little superfluous.

What are they going to do? Putrid Imp beatdown? They have the answer or they're fucked. They probably don't have the answer, statistically, especially if they don't know which form of graveyard hate you're bringing in (and Crypt is much more common).

[Mordel]

I think I got to page six and my eyes sort of glazed over, so I appologize in advance if this is a redundent comment (many of the posts' gists on this thread are agonizingly redundent though anyway):

Extirpate requires support if you are planning on using it as graveyard hate, this is extremely true, Extirpate is not that good of graveyard hate and generally should be avoided if slots are at a premium, however what the fuck is wrong with running extirpate to curb a deck like landstill's inevitability factor if you are planning on pressuring them and don't want to see another of said card?

I am going to be very honest and say that I do not play any decks that run discard right now and none that run extirpate, in fact I play white stax primarily right now and I am happy that I don't see decks that pack discard that is coupled with sideboard extirpates because that would be a profound pain in my ass. What does a white stax deck do when it doesn't get a chalice out before a discard connects with a stack or crucible and is followed by an extirpate? It has a piss-poor chance of winning when it was already going to rely on a top decks and lose if it didn't get lucky.

That is, but one silly scenario that I can conjure up, but i see nothing wrong with running a card that can eliminate the chances of X being seen through out the game. It baffles me that the debate is still continuing after sixteen pages and that people are not leaving it at debators at one side saying: "I will never use it because it is fucking terrible" and debators on the other side saying: "I might end up using it if it suits my needs". What is so hard to except or understand there? Did I not read enough of the prior standoffs about this card or read similar rebuttles go back and forth for another eleven fucking pages? I am liable to never, ever, ever run extirpate because I don't feel I will be able to use it properly, but arguing that the ability to not see a card for the rest of the game is good, doesn't matter or is outright bad is absurd to me.

In one of the earlier pages I read something about extirpating an eternal dragon being useless or have little effect because it has already been used. This example struck me as a bit off because it is obvious that if a decree gets nailed and you aren't running a deck with duresses or the like and a decree is in the yard, you may be fucked, but saying that because my opponent has just fetched a plains card with his eternal it is pointless to extirpate if you're aiming to make an easier long game for yourself seems like a statement one might make in an overzealous defence of an opinion. Off the top of my head, I can't say whether or not in a landstill mirror it would be at the top of my list for extirpate targets, but if eternal dragon is included in the deck specifically to be cycled once, why don't people just run additional plains or noble templars because they can? The entire landstill mirror scenario just struck me as ridiculous because even though I am not a landstill player, like most 1.5 enthusiasts, I have read up on it plenty and as far as landstill is concerned extirpate seems like a horrible fit for the deck(maybe I need to read more?), when one considers the fact that it was a big time contender before Planar Chaos hit the press.

One of the best and only conceivable fits for extirpate is in a deck that runs numerous cards that cause an opponent to discard. People say that pox doesn't want it and I do not see anything questionable about extirpating my opponent's crucible or loam in a game...at all. Maybe I am just old-fashioned or something, but I have been known to run a card to specifically deal with other specific cards and extirpate strikes me as a one of those cards that I might run to deal with others, nevermind how my opponent's loam deck operates in its entirety, if I am aiming to blow up his lands I do not want to risk him lucksacking a loam or crucible off of the top.

Needless to say, extirpate is a powerful card and I do agree that it is extremely bad in most decks, but lots of the examples and scenarios being given by either side seem pretty far-fetched...I am not affected by peoples' willingness to waste their time trying to convince someone of something they steadfastly disagree with, but I'm still going to have to throw out my two cents that people should just agree to disagree on this one because this thread could go on forever. Right now I think the only home for extirpate is really set up to properly feed it and that is a deck that runs numerous discard effects and goes into the later part of the game more often than not and the only deck I really know of that does that right now is pox. I did see the mention of Haunting Echoes a ways back and it may be better, but I haven't seen any pox decks run it as far as I can remember. I rambled a lot more about this than I thought I would...

In the meantime, as someone that has a huge boner for stax right now, I hope most people go with not running extirpate because I am one of the few people that seem to think that extirpate can totally ruin my day.

[TheRock]

Extirpate should never be maindeck material, except in a metagame where half of the opposing decks are Threshold, you're running 4 Sinkhole and 4 Wastelands, and nobody is running Breeding Pool or City of Brass in their manabases. You can't play a completely dead card in most matchups when a cantrip graveyard removal spell in Relic is around.

There are some decks that do not like seeing Extirpate, and I've been in quite a few pickles because of it. However, Extirpate is NOT a good card - it is an "OK" card that IMHO is extremely useful in two situations and is a steaming pile of shit in most others. Extirpate really shouldn't be compared, power-wise, to Counterspell, Nimble Mongoose, or Mishra's Factory, yet alone the plethora of cards just as good or better.

[Dark_Cynic87]

I like extirpate against anything running blue, honestly. I can truthfully say that Extirpate on FoW makes my life easier every time I do it. From Faerie Stompy to MUC to Thresh and landstill. My life is easier.

Decks should be (and for the most part are) based around the idea that every card is good, and the 4-ofs are necessary. When you hit a 4-of that's part of their gameplan, you cripple a list, whether by taking it's protection or disruption, it's win-con or cripple it's mana base, you are in fact changing the game-state and the way their deck is supposed to work.

That's actually a big complaint I have with StP and 'Pate's lack of interaction. I can't StP a goyf and then remove them. This sucks. Fortunately there is Deed//EE, but the fact remains that I use Extirpate a LOT and it helps me out all the time. I would never not run it in either FDDT or 4-c landstill (which is what I play). It straight-up wins me games.

Pce,

--DC

[troopatroop]

I like extirpate against anything running blue, honestly. I can truthfully say that Extirpate on FoW makes my life easier every time I do it. From Faerie Stompy to MUC to Thresh and landstill. My life is easier.

Really. Every time you Extirpate Force of Will your life gets easier. Every time. I think Force could be one of the worst targets to Extirpate.

[Hummingbird TG]

Really. Every time you Extirpate Force of Will your life gets easier. Every time. I think Force could be one of the worst targets to Extirpate.

Why? Assuming you do it in the early game, where Force is a factor that can randomly lose you the game by countering critical cards, or *forcing* you to play around that Force, I fail to see why it wouldn't be better to remove it from your opponent completely...

[Obfuscate Freely]

Unless your opponent is playing combo, Force of Will is usually one of the worst cards in your deck after the early part of the game. Force's cost (either of them) is incredibly steep for a one-for-one trade, so it is much less efficient than the other answers that come online after you've made a few land-drops.

Extirpating an opponent's Force of Will (presumably, after it has already fulfilled its intended purpose), and thus removing every copy of such a costly card from his or her deck, has a pretty significant chance of flat-out improving their subsequent draws. So yeah, I would say that Force is a horrible Extirpate target.

[emidln]

Really. Every time you Extirpate Force of Will your life gets easier. Every time. I think Force could be one of the worst targets to Extirpate.

You obviously don't play enough storm combo. Most decks with countermagic-based control packages don't run a whole lot of hard counters. Without hard counters, opponents have no way of stopping Orim's Chant. If Orim's chant resolves, any soft or conditional counters (Spell Snare, Stifle, Trickbind, etc) as well as useful effects (Extirpate, Lightning Bolt, Krosan Grip, etc) become irrelevant. By taking Force of Will (which is never done early game btw, it is almost universally done the turn before you go off as it can (and usually does) reduce the opponent's hand size) you leave the opponent with fewer (Counterspell in the case of some Thresh builds and Landstill) or no (most Thresh builds and Dreadstill) way of dealing with Orim's Chant. When Chant resolves, the storm combo player's life really does become very easy. Extirpating Force of Will makes this a much more certain proposition.

[Mantis]

If your intention is to get FoW out of the way, isn't Thoughtseize (or Duress if lifeloss is a problem) way better? That card doesn't actually require you to first get a spell countered and can also snag out Stifle if you don't have Orim's Chant in hand. If you play that card because it doubles as gy removal I still think it's a pretty terrible choice because it does little to stop Ichorid or Aggro Loam as others have talked about already.

[emidln]

If your intention is to get FoW out of the way, isn't Thoughtseize (or Duress if lifeloss is a problem) way better? That card doesn't actually require you to first get a spell countered and can also snag out Stifle if you don't have Orim's Chant in hand. If you play that card because it doubles as gy removal I still think it's a pretty terrible choice because it does little to stop Ichorid or Aggro Loam as others have talked about already.

We already play Duress in storm combo. Duress doesn't deal with multiple Force of Wills, Brainstorm, or Sensei's Divining Tops (a key strategy for FT at least is to wait until the last possible moment to combo off against blue, which generally also gives the control player time to find multiple Force of Wills to stop you; extirpate makes this strategy effective). Unfortunately, most blue decks playing Force of Will are also tricky enough to play ways to hide it. Extirpate on Force of Will also serves the duty of adding knowledge about an opponent's remaining counters (hard and soft). Further, Duress must be played on your main phase which further hurts your ability to play around soft counters like Daze and lands with which to play Dark Ritual.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Do I really have to point out the absurd unlikelihood of Extirpate dealing with multiple FoWs, given that it relies on them having drawn at least 3 out of 4 Forces in the first several turns of the game?

Whereas, you know, Cabal Therapy would do the same thing but wouldn't require them to have already cast FoW.

[Apex]

Man, this debate is still going on?

I agree with emidln on the use of Extirpate in storm decks. I don't have experiences with it in other decks (and from what I'm hearing, it sucks alot), but it is very useful in FT.

Getting rid of FoW is exactly what I use it for, considering FoW/Brainstorm/Top are played so extensively in legacy. You Chant, they FoW it. You Extirpate their FoW, take it all away, and they can't do anything about it. You also get to Peek at their hand so you can navigate around soft counters (play rituals in different order, see whether you need to get an additional disruption into your Doomsday pile, or hold off pulling the trigger). It is also very relevant when you need the extra storm and need to go the IGG route. I don't need to resolve chant in this case if I've extirpated their FoW, since a recursed Spell Snare/Daze just isn't as scary as a recursed FoW.

Also, FoW gets hid by Brainstorm alot in response to sorcery disruption, and a quick tap of the Top can get it right back into their hand. I've lost a couple of games due to this. 2 FoWs are a bitch to play against with FT if they've got the Brainstorm/Top thing (You Duress/Thoughtseize/Therapy takes first one, and then they FoW your Chant, and still have mana open for counters against your combo, without you having seen their hand. Or you Chant them, they FoW your Chant, now your Duress/TS/Therapy is useless and they still have 2nd FoW from top to counter your Doomsday).

So Extirpate is very useful for one particular deck, but it's not the anti-graveyard Jesus in most decks.

[Deep6er]

This is a bizarre tangent that the desperate pro Extirpate party is using.

1) They have Force of Will, so you Extirpate it.

You know what? Whatever. Cabal Therapy does this as well. If they have double Brainstorm (to hide, and then re-draw the cards), that's their only out. However, on the plus side, Cabal Therapy is a good card that doesn't require you running one of your best cards in that match up into a Force for it to be good.

2) Isn't the only popular blue deck not running Counterbalance/Top, Landstill?

Isn't it completely fucking irrelevant that you have Extirpate in that match up anyway? You don't really have a problem beating Landstill. The fact that it takes quite a while for them to win (with the exception of Landstill builds with Tarmogoyf, but some of those have Counterbalance in them) should be the nail in the coffin for them. You have so long to build up the right cards, you can probably just storm them out.

3) Extirpate does not deal with Counterbalance.

Not only do you have to get rid of their Counterbalances. But you also have to do it in such a way that it doesn't get hit by the Brainstorms and Forces that you're talking about now. After all, if that card hits, you're in deep shit.

This is fucking mind boggling. Sure, against control you can afford to throw a card in the bin for no effect. But that's only because your match up against them is already pretty stellar. Counterbalance is the card that you should be worried about. Not Force of Will. Plus, you shouldn't be trying to answer it with the shittiest card available.

[emidln]

bizzare tangent etc

I've never argued for Extirpate in any deck other than storm combo. In storm combo, it is better at dealing with classes of threats better than anything short of Meddling Mage and Cranial Extraction. The argument is simply that Extirpate is not terrible all around because it has a very specific use in tendrils combo.



1) They have Force of Will, so you Extirpate it.

You know what? Whatever. Cabal Therapy does this as well. If they have double Brainstorm (to hide, and then re-draw the cards), that's their only out. However, on the plus side, Cabal Therapy is a good card that doesn't require you running one of your best cards in that match up into a Force for it to be good.

They don't need double Brainstorm. They need 1x Sensei's Divining Top and to think through the matchup better than Deep6er.


2) Isn't the only popular blue deck not running Counterbalance/Top, Landstill?

Isn't it completely fucking irrelevant that you have Extirpate in that match up anyway? You don't really have a problem beating Landstill. The fact that it takes quite a while for them to win (with the exception of Landstill builds with Tarmogoyf, but some of those have Counterbalance in them) should be the nail in the coffin for them. You have so long to build up the right cards, you can probably just storm them out.

The matchup against Landstill is amazing because they have 8 hard counters and I have 4 Mystical Tutor, 1-2 Extirpate, and 4 Orim's Chants with an alternate win in Helm/Grapeshot that is able to circumvent their Mages and Runed Halos. Extirpate is the nail that lets the deck resolve Orim's Chant after them seeing 25 cards and having 10 cards in hand on their end step due to Extirpate/Mystical Tutor/Brainstorm breaking their Standstill. I move to my turn guaranteed that my protection will resolve into a win.


3) Extirpate does not deal with Counterbalance.

Not only do you have to get rid of their Counterbalances. But you also have to do it in such a way that it doesn't get hit by the Brainstorms and Forces that you're talking about now. After all, if that card hits, you're in deep shit.

This is fucking mind boggling. Sure, against control you can afford to throw a card in the bin for no effect. But that's only because your match up against them is already pretty stellar. Counterbalance is the card that you should be worried about. Not Force of Will. Plus, you shouldn't be trying to answer it with the shittiest card available.

Extirpate does help deal with CB, especially in my latest builds packing 4 Duress and 4 Pyroblast. I've already dealt with Counterbalance once and would much rather not deal with it again. In this scenario, Extirpate moves my Duresses and Pyroblasts from preventing Counterbalance to preventing hard counters on my Orim's Chants and Doomsdays which is exactly where I want to be.


Do I really have to point out the absurd unlikelihood of Extirpate dealing with multiple FoWs, given that it relies on them having drawn at least 3 out of 4 Forces in the first several turns of the game?

Whereas, you know, Cabal Therapy would do the same thing but wouldn't require them to have already cast FoW.

Yes you do. In fact, you should try playing the matchup a few times before attempting to comment. Even easier, run a few numbers. 7 cards in an opening hand, 2 cards for the first two turns, 3 cards from standstill, 2 cards from fetchlands, and 8 cards from draws per turn gives us 22 cards that Standstill will see with their average Standstill hand assuming they start beating me down with a factory immediately after playing Standstill. I wonder what the likelihood of an opponent seeing two of a four of is when seeing 20 (lower end) to 30 (higher end, not a turn 2 standstill) cards in their deck? The exact reason why FT could manhandle control is the ability to wait a very long time before comboing out. The exact plan was to break a Standstill on the opponent's end step, Extirpate/Mystical Tutor for Extirpate to hit a Force of Will/Counterpsell if possible, and then untap with 6 cards in hand + a card draw per turn with a guaranteed win. Since neither Doomsday nor Ill-Gotten Gains particularly care about high life totals (2 life or 1 life is necessary) the decks take as much time as possible before comboing out. This assures the deck of seeing a maximum amount of disruption for a successful combo turn.

By the way, a really neat fact is that with Sensei's Divining Tops and Duresses as 4-ofs in storm decks with extirpate, the chances of an opponent having already placed a Force of Will or Counterspell in the graveyard are actually pretty good. BTW, it's interesting to note tht I add counterspell to this list. Extirpate is good at removing hard counters after all. After all, storm combo really wants to resolve Orim's Chant so it can resolve its storm engine. To do this, all I really need to do is make my opponent go from 7 potential hard counters to 4 potential hard counters (my hand can contain 4 protection with dark ritual, led, doomsday and an opponent would require 5 hard counters to stop doomsday).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There's... there's multiple problems, there, chief.

Like, first of all? Fetchlands don't let you see another card. Already you're throwing your logistical credentials out the window.

Secondly, I asked about the likelihood of drawing 3 out of the 4 copies of a spell. You talked about seeing 2. This distinction is relevant, since your argument was that Extirpate could strip multiple Forces. But this scenario means that one Force has to be in the yard, and two in hand. Conversely, with Therapy, you can strip two Forces simply by their having drawn two Forces.

Further, Therapy would let you pre-emptively answer Halos, Counterbalance, Chalice, etc., etc...

"Do more testing" isn't an argument, because testing itself isn't important; only the information that testing reveals is important. And if you demonstrate a lack of understanding of card interactions or even strategic game concepts, then how can I trust you to have interpreted any testing data you have correctly despite evidence to the contrary?

[citanul]

Finally got to the end!
There seems to be several topics of discussion of this one card. Comparing it to graveyard hate, card advantage/disadvantage and being good in specific situations/match ups. The big difference in these topics are the comparison to graveyard hate so I’ll split my post in two. Not only that but it also seems to depend on what kind of deck you are playing.

Compared to graveyard hate Extirpate is bad. Other cards are just better. Saying that Crypt/Leyline/Jailer can be hated is flawed, Extirpate can also be hated. If Ichorid is able to wait with dredging to find hate for Crypt/Leyline/Jailer it can wait to find a Therapy to hit Extirpate. As for Loam, if you Extirpate Loam it has already been cast once giving the Loam player a card advantage of 3 (maximum). Yes it slows them down but it doesn’t mean you win. Neither does Crypt but just like Extirpate it slows them down. If Loam was a bad matchup before sideboard, neither of the graveyard hate will be likely to win you the other 2.

So in this discussion you ask the question: which graveyard hate is the best? The answer is Leyline of the Void or Crypt. I prefer Crypt but understand that others wish to play Leyline, I just don’t due to Confidants in my deck. Card disadvantage of Extirpate doesn’t matter when comparing with other graveyard hate. Crypt is also card disadvantage of -1 but it does what it’s supposed to do. Leyline and Jailer is parity since they have a continuous effect while being in play.

When Extirpate isn’t compared to other possible graveyard hate the discussion is very different. The card disadvantage here does matter. The card that would have been in that specific spot might’ve been parity or even card advantage. Only when you get lucky Extirpate can be parity and when you get very lucky, card advantage.

Extirpate only deals with copies 2 to 4. You have already dealt with the first copy. I think this is the most used argument from Extirpate haters. I tend to agree with it although I found one reply interesting, where someone said it was used as the 4-6th copy of other sideboard cards. Still, why just not run 4-4-4-3 split instead of cutting one from the 4 and adding 3 Extirpates. Versatility is the answer, since not all of the 4-ofs will be good in those matchups so you basically run 6 hate cards instead of 4. The counterargument is that Extirpate is a dead card without the original hate card, now only played as a 3-of instead of 4.

Extirpate is too situational to be good. Extirpating a Tropical to keep them from green, removing threats so there’s less win conditions from the opponent and any other absurd example people give. Are these situations, bound to so many variables, worth it to waste 3-4 slots? For the rest of the game it will be a dead card.

I once was for Extirpate until I ran it myself. It was just useless or it did nothing than win me the game more. Either I was down in board position and I lost with Extirpate in my hand, casting it before I scooped them up just to look to their deck. Or I was in a winning board position to remove any possible answers they might get if lucky/tutoring.

Extirpate is nothing more than a cool card which can make you lose when being a dead card, win-more when already being ahead or a win in those nice examples we all love and dream of.

Conclusion: Extirpate is inferior as graveyard hate. This means that it has to have other uses, else it wouldn’t be played. The other uses are situational and it’s very unlikely that in those situations Extirpate is game winning. So Extirpate falls back to being a lesser graveyard hate card, where it is trumped by other cards.

[Apex]

Like, first of all? Fetchlands don't let you see another card. Already you're throwing your logistical credentials out the window.

But fetchlands do let you see more cards, since Brainstorm is probably the one of most played card in Legacy (actually, 2nd most, right behind FoW, according to DeckCheck). Brainstorm/Fetch lets you see 2 additional cards (or like 1.9 something cards if you calculate probability) compared to Brainstorm itself. That's what I'm assuming emidln means, because that's the course of action that tends to happen, brainstorm/fetch.


Secondly, I asked about the likelihood of drawing 3 out of the 4 copies of a spell. You talked about seeing 2. This distinction is relevant, since your argument was that Extirpate could strip multiple Forces. But this scenario means that one Force has to be in the yard, and two in hand. Conversely, with Therapy, you can strip two Forces simply by their having drawn two Forces.


Why the triple FoW? 2 FoW, 1 in hand, 1 hidden can do alot to disrupt the FT strategy. Extirpate gets rid of the hidden one (or the extra one in hand). Why does there need to be 3 FoWs? I don't think I've ever got 2 FoWs out of my opponent's hand so far, since all I really want to do is resolve Chant, and Extirpate lets that happen easier since it's got the Split Second clause and it usually disrupts 1 for 1 and gets in a free Peek.

[quicksilver]

it usually disrupts 1 for 1

If by 1 for 1 you mean 1 for 0. Far more often than not they do not have a copy of the card you are extirpating in their hand.

[Apex]

Well, actually, then it becomes no worse than failing to find the 2nd FoW with a Therapy or Duress after your first disruption piece got countered.

I'd be happy to make a 1 for 0 trade if it means my opponent doesn't have a FoW left in hand so I can combo out. Extirpate+Disruption has benefits that double Chant/Chant+Duress sometimes don't, so it's played as a singleton in FT.

[emidln]

Information revealed by testing results isn't relevant here. The relevant information is the way in which the game plays as it affects the card choices, particularly that of Extirpate. Testing this matchup has shown that I am more successful when I wait as long as possible to combo off. This is because blue-based decks put very little pressure on me and my card quality engine of Brainstorm/Sensei's Divining Top/Ponder/Fetchlands/Mystical Tutor allows me to find disruption faster and in larger quantities than they can produce protection. Further, because for a long stretch of the game I am actively not playing spells worthy of countering, they will build up a quantity of nasty countermagic, very possibly multiple Counterspells or Force of Wills, even despite potentially countering something very early or having it Duressed away.

Therapy never strips two Force of Wills unless they also lack blue cards. Given the period of the game that Tendrils attempts to win vs the color blue (which is very late), Cabal Therapy will almost always be countered by Force of Will to protect Force of Will. This still leaves them with a Force of Will which is what I'm trying to prevent.


Further, Therapy would let you pre-emptively answer Halos, Counterbalance, Chalice, etc., etc...

Through blind luck? Most combo decks run few few creatures they can even sacrifice to Therapy, let alone the potential for the creature to be useful or needed by itself.

[quicksilver]

Well, actually, then it becomes no worse than failing to find the 2nd FoW with a Therapy or Duress after your first disruption piece got countered.

Except for the fact that duress and thoughtsieze don't fizzle if they don't have a FOW, they can take other cards like oh idk say counterbalance.

Not to mention duress/thoughtsieze/cabal therapy can handle the first FOW, which extirpate never can. I think that is a pretty majorly important factor here.

[emidln]

Except for the fact that duress and thoughtsieze don't fizzle if they don't have a FOW, they can take other cards like oh idk say counterbalance.

Not to mention duress/thoughtsieze/cabal therapy can handle the first FOW, which extirpate never can. I think that is a pretty majorly important factor here.

No it isn't. Extirpate isn't meant to be first tier disruption against blue. It is meant to complement Duress, Pyroblast, Orim's Chant, and Krosan Grip by permanently removing problematic cards. Extirpate isn't brought in against ultra-fast decks because the roll Extirpate serves is as a late-game bomb ensuring the successful resolution of a storm engine. Cabal Therapy nor Duress/Thoughtseize can fill this critical roll as well as Extirpate.

[Dark_Cynic87]

I think one of it's best abiliities is that fact that it's a Split Second card, and largely uncounterable, which in turn goes to it's most common use in storm; getting rid of hard counters.

It's good against Ichorid (It helps a lot) and against AdN-based combo (wins Chant-Wars effortlessly).

The point of Extirpating Force of Will isn't always to make sure they don't have a force of will, but it does eliminate the chance of them having FoW #2 as well as gathers you information much the same way duress does in letting you know if a.) they have anything else that would hinder you from going off and b.) what you need to play around.

I'm glad someone mentioned landstill, as they run 3x-4x copies of Extirpate themselves...It's funny that it's being used as an argument against 'Pate. Different context of course, but the irony is still noted.

Pce,

--DC

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Since you're waiting a million turns against Landstill anyway, which is apparently the only matchup you care about, why not just run Haunting Echoes and be done with it?

In fact, if you really want to beat Landstill painfully slowly, just play MBC or Train Wreck.

From personal experience in tournaments, I'll go ahead and tell you that strategies that rely on hitting turn 20 are fundamentally terrible. They put you at an enormous disadvantage in a real round with time limits, where the opponent can easily win twice while losing once within 50 minutes, where you can't.

And again, if you were going to go that route, Echoes would be better anyway.

@Apex: 3 because in order for Extirpate to hit the 1 in hand and the 1 in Top range, you need 1 to be in the yard. Extirpate isn't Cranial Extraction. I feel like people keep overlooking this point.

[emidln]

Since you're waiting a million turns against Landstill anyway, which is apparently the only matchup you care about, why not just run Haunting Echoes and be done with it?

In fact, if you really want to beat Landstill painfully slowly, just play MBC or Train Wreck.

From personal experience in tournaments, I'll go ahead and tell you that strategies that rely on hitting turn 20 are fundamentally terrible. They put you at an enormous disadvantage in a real round with time limits, where the opponent can easily win twice while losing once within 50 minutes, where you can't.

And again, if you were going to go that route, Echoes would be better anyway.

@Apex: 3 because in order for Extirpate to hit the 1 in hand and the 1 in Top range, you need 1 to be in the yard. Extirpate isn't Cranial Extraction. I feel like people keep overlooking this point.

1) Haunting Echoes costs mana on your main phase and can be countered.
2) The example I gave was seeing 20-30 cards. Tthe case I actually suggested was seeing roughly 22 cards in 11 turns (initial 7 + standstill + fetch thining/brainstorming/etc, + 9 turns of factory beating face).
3) Extirpate isn't just for Landstill. Threshold' clock isn't actually all that fast. It can be super-quick if they land 2-3 creatures but it isn't usually all that fast. I use the very same principle of waiting until the last moment against threshold.
4) Extirpate doesn't just hit Force of Will. It wants to hit Force of Will, but it's just fine hitting any hard counter. Counterspell is just fine. For example, against UGR Thrash, between Duress and Sensei's Divining Top drawing out hard counters combined with my digging for those two, a hard counter is extremely likely to have hit my opponent's graveyard. The same is true against Landstil. Extirpate is less amazing against UGR CB Thresh and UGW/b CB Thresh because they play fewer hard counters. Consequently, it is far easier to resolve Orim's Chant to begin wtih and Extirpate isn't needed (once you solve the initial problem of CB itself which is what tech like Duress, Pyroblast, and Krosan Grip are for).

[Dark_Cynic87]

Landstill isn't what I'm worried about, but rather one of the more relevant lists to the conversation as it runs Extirpate AND Extirpate is good against it.

I think the comparison between Extirpate and Cabal Therapy is grossly ignorant; possibly even an insult to the players on this site. I am a good enough player (as are most people on this site) to realize that hiding cards is a good strategy if you don't need them at the moment. This is increasingly easier to do if you play blue and run top, and decent players understand this.

Scenario:

You: Cabal Therapy?
Them: Response, Brainstorm.
You: Ok.
Them: It resolves.
You: Force of Will?
Them: Reveals hand, no Force of Will.
You: Combo off.
Them: Response to your Meditate off the Doomsday pile, Tap top//play brainstorm, Force.
You: Crap.

However, here is a different scenario.

You: Chant?
Them: Response, Force of Will.
You: Ok, resolves. Extirpate on Force of Will.
Them: Crap.

I want to point out that you can Extirpate any time and it remains to be true for the rest of the game, whereas if you play Therapy, it's only known to be true until they draw another card.

On the Cranial Extraction bit: In what world is Cranial Extraction good, or even Mediocre, or even comparable to Extirpate? Extirpate's uses are so much different than Cranial Extraction's it's not even funny.

I think the word that needs to be brought up is "synergy". This card doesn't belong in every deck that plays a black mana source, this is true. However, when it's run in conjunction with nonbasic land hate such as Wasteland/Sinkhole, it can be a very strong way to win. Same can be (and has been) said about other forms of disruption such as Duress/T-Seize/Therapy/Unmask/random discard, but only when the goal is to devestate their mana base, or to strip their defenses of all relevant spells.

Synergy is what can and does make this card good.

[Peter_Rotten]

Scenario 1:

You: Cabal Therapy?
Them: Response, Brainstorm.
You: Ok.
Them: It resolves.
You: Force of Will?
Them: Reveals hand, no Force of Will.
You: Combo off.
Them: Response to your Meditate off the Doomsday pile, Tap top//play brainstorm, Force.
You: Crap.

However, here is a different scenario.

You: Chant?
Them: Response, Force of Will.
You: Ok, resolves. Extirpate on Force of Will.
Them: Crap.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges where. In the 1st situation the opponent has at least FoW and Brainstorm in hand, Top on table with at least 2 mana free. Let's replace Cabal Therapy with Extirpate in the SAME situation.

Situation 1
You: (can't do anything with Extirpate until you get FoW in the yard)
Them: (maybe you're playing multiplayer - sorry, grammar joke) Wait to build a better hand which should be easy to do since he has Top AND BStorm.

Extirpate is clearly worse in this situation because it does NOTHING. Now let's replace Extirpate with Therapy in Situation 2:

Situation 2

You: Chant
Them: Response, FoW (resolves)
You: Therapy naming a relevant card. If you still fear FoW, name it.
Them: Damn, where's my hand? If only he cast Extirpate and got nothing out of my hand, but instead he was smart enough to name Daze (or whatever) and took it :(.

[Dark_Cynic87]

Situation 1
You: (can't do anything with Extirpate until you get FoW in the yard)
Them: (maybe you're playing multiplayer - sorry, grammar joke) Wait to build a better hand which should be easy to do since he has Top AND BStorm.

Extirpate is clearly worse in this situation because it does NOTHING. Now let's replace Extirpate with Therapy in Situation 2:

Situation 2

You: Chant
Them: Response, FoW (resolves)
You: Therapy naming a relevant card. If you still fear FoW, name it.
Them: Damn, where's my hand? If only he cast Extirpate and got nothing out of my hand, but instead he was smart enough to name Daze (or whatever) and took it :(.

You: Chant
Them Response, FoW (resolves)
You: Extirpate on FoW (resolves); you see their hand, and make game decisions from there without ever worrying about Force of Will from there on out. Seems better for combo.

[Nightmare]

On the Cranial Extraction bit: In what world is Cranial Extraction good, or even Mediocre, or even comparable to Extirpate? Extirpate's uses are so much different than Cranial Extraction's it's not even funny.

I think the word that needs to be brought up is "synergy". This card doesn't belong in every deck that plays a black mana source, this is true. However, when it's run in conjunction with nonbasic land hate such as Wasteland/Sinkhole, it can be a very strong way to win. Same can be (and has been) said about other forms of disruption such as Duress/T-Seize/Therapy/Unmask/random discard, but only when the goal is to devestate their mana base, or to strip their defenses of all relevant spells.

Synergy is what can and does make this card good.

This excerpt from the above post represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that statistics and probability apply to Magic. I'm saddened to think this is the way people continue to think about this card, and Magic in general. I've left the conversation to this point, and will again, because I feel like if you can see things this incorrectly, there's no way I can help you see them in the correct manner.

Does it say nothing to any of you that the creators of some of the most prominent Black-based control decks in the format are on the "Extirpate is terrible" side of the argument?

[Nightmare]

You: Chant
Them Response, FoW (resolves)
You: Extirpate on FoW (resolves); you see their hand, and make game decisions from there without ever worrying about Force of Will from there on out. Seems better for combo.

Duress would have done the same thing better. And, it doesn't suck. And you wouldn't have walked one of your best spells against control into Force like a donkey.

[Peter_Rotten]

You: Chant
Them Response, FoW (resolves)
You: Extirpate on FoW (resolves); you see their hand, and make game decisions from there without ever worrying about Force of Will from there on out. Seems better for combo.

Actually, why wouldn't Therapy then Chant be better here than Chant then Extirpate?

[Swing4Five]

Actually, why wouldn't Therapy then Chant be better here than Chant then Extirpate?

I believe that was the sentiment behind Nightmare's last post.

I suppose I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring, as apparently this thread isn't going to die no matter how much I ignore it.

Extirpate is highly situational, and is generally better off as something else. Except in a very select cases that involve both a) your opponent having a specific deck that has some sort of limited, not-backed-up card central to their strategy, AND b) you having a specific kind of deck that can make sure this central, specific, card gets into the opponents graveyard, and then has the ability to abuse their lack of that card; and incorporate the opponents lack into your own strategy.

A few of these senarios have been detailed in this thread (sometimes with their authors bending logic over backwards in their conception), and these senarios are so select that it should almost never be a maindeck card, and it's inclusion in either the maindeck or the sideboard should always be thought through for how exactly it fits your deck's strategy in each particular match.

[frogboy]

In what world is Cranial Extraction good, or even Mediocre, or even comparable to Extirpate? Extirpate's uses are so much different than Cranial Extraction's it's not even funny.

Cranial Extraction was a lot better than Extirpate could ever have hoped to be in Kamigawa Gifts mirrors.


However, when it's run in conjunction with nonbasic land hate such as Wasteland/Sinkhole, it can be a very strong way to win.

Re-read the thread.

[Apex]

All scenarios so far I've argued for Extirpate involves 2 FoW (or even 2 Counterspell, which is not as bad, but potentially just as hard to play against in the late game), and that's where Extirpate actually shines (which is why it's often played as a singleton in the maindeck in a blue heavy field, or as a singleton in the sideboard in FT). It's because that's the way it often comes down to when FT plays against Landstill etc: "Draw, land, go, Draw, land, go, Mystical, break Standstill, try to combo in one big turn".

A couple of scnearios:

Opponent (2 FoW in hand).
You: Chant.
Opp: FoW
You: Extirpate FoW
Opp reveals hand so you get rid of their 2nd FoW and combo around soft counters (Dark Ritual instead of Cabal Ritual first if you've got 2 mana open so it doesn't get Dazed, bait Spell Snare, etc).

Notice that a second Chant/Duress/Therapy would not have done the trick here, because they can just FoW both your disruption, and still have mana open for soft counters, and often, one misstep on the storm player's part will mean GG.

Here is another situation where I've lost a couple of games to:

Opp (1 FoW in hand, the other FoW in top 3 of library due to Brainstorm in response to Duress 1 or 2 turns ago, top on board).
You: Chant
Opp: FoW from hand
Now I've got no cards in FT that deals with the hidden FoW, I can only try baiting, which is not that effective if my opponent is a good player.

Extirpate gives a good out in this situation, since it strips their 2nd FoW (that they've got access to with the top, so it's effectively in their hand anyway) from their library. Duress/Therapy/Thoughtseize can't touch the hidden FoW (I actually loathe to advocate this as a strategy, because I play storm mostly, but Landstill etc should really look into hiding their FoWs on the top 3 of their library with top when fighting FT).

Again, I can only speak for it in storm, and I never claimed that it is good in other decks. There is a reason it gets played as a singleton in the main/side often, since there aren't many (or dare I say it, any) card that does what Extirpate does (an uncounterable, cheap, tutorable solution in the late game against specific blue decks) for storm decks.

It's also a great card in combo mirrors, since it's mostly all about the Chant wars. You Chant and Extirpate them in response of their Chant is so backbreaking, since it allows you to Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm/Top into another Chant, which they now have 0 solutions to, and basically, whoever resolves Chant first wins in combo mirrors.

[quicksilver]

Notice that a second Chant/Duress/Therapy would not have done the trick here, because they can just FoW both your disruption, and still have mana open for soft counters, and often, one misstep on the storm player's part will mean GG.

How does it not do the trick, if they FOW both your disruption, then you have in fact dealt with both force of wills. They still ahve the same amount of mana open. Only diffrence is they have one less card in hand. Seems not only to do the trick but be superior.

[Nihil Credo]

How does it not do the trick, if they FOW both your disruption, then you have in fact dealt with both force of wills. They still ahve the same amount of mana open. Only diffrence is they have one less card in hand. Seems not only to do the trick but be superior.
In addition to the "FoW floated with SDT" scenario, seeing your opponent's hand on the EOT before you have to go off is pretty huge when you're playing combo. You know exactly what to play around: much easier to do than plan for an unknown combination of Daze/Stifle/other counters/FoW3&4/etc. in hand. The only mystery possibly left is in the top 3 cards if they have a Brainstorm or Top, and even then you can still safely assume that there's no Force of Will in there.

[Peter_Rotten]

Opponent (2 FoW in hand).
You: Chant.
Opp: FoW
You: Extirpate FoW
Opp reveals hand so you get rid of their 2nd FoW and combo around soft counters (Dark Ritual instead of Cabal Ritual first if you've got 2 mana open so it doesn't get Dazed, bait Spell Snare, etc).

Are you planning to go off on the turn you Chant them? I assume so, so I'm unsure as to why Extirpate was good here. It seems like a non-cantripping peek in this situation. And if Extirpate was a Therapy in this situation, you could have lead with it naming FoW and then Chanted them.

If you were NOT planning to go off this turn, why bother Chanting them? Is this just a tricky plan to remove their FoWs from the game? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be better to simply win that turn.

If the combo deck has Chant and Therapy in hand, AND the control deck can handle both of those cards in one turn, there's a very good chance that you won't be winning anyway.


Notice that a second Chant/Duress/Therapy would not have done the trick here, because they can just FoW both your disruption, and still have mana open for soft counters, and often, one misstep on the storm player's part will mean GG.

But the control player will be left with THREE cards in hand. And if those three cards are Stifle, Daze, and Spell Snare, you're screwed whether you Extirpated that 2nd FoW or Therapied it.

Also, NOT playing your spells because you know they can counter them is just as good as them countering your spells. To be specific, knowing you can't cast your Infernal Tutor is as good to them as countering it. It has allowed them time to rebuild.


Here is another situation where I've lost a couple of games to:

Opp (1 FoW in hand, the other FoW in top 3 of library due to Brainstorm in response to Duress 1 or 2 turns ago, top on board).
You: Chant
Opp: FoW from hand
Now I've got no cards in FT that deals with the hidden FoW, I can only try baiting, which is not that effective if my opponent is a good player.

May I ask why you have Chanted this turn?

Second, how does the opponent have a FoW in hand when you Duressed him a turn or two ago? Did he have a Brainstorm that hid two FoWs?


Extirpate gives a good out in this situation, since it strips their 2nd FoW (that they've got access to with the top, so it's effectively in their hand anyway) from their library. Duress/Therapy/Thoughtseize can't touch the hidden FoW (I actually loathe to advocate this as a strategy, because I play storm mostly, but Landstill etc should really look into hiding their FoWs on the top 3 of their library with top when fighting FT).

So Extirpate is good when the opponent has drawn two FoWs, hidden them with Brainstorm (or not drawn the 2nd with Top but keeps it hidden), has Top on the table, has the mana to use it, AND you have whiffed with Duress a turn or two earlier? Do you see the lengths we must go to have Extirpate be good?

Also, it seems like you need an answer to Top in this situation - NOT FoW.


It's also a great card in combo mirrors, since it's mostly all about the Chant wars. You Chant and Extirpate them in response of their Chant is so backbreaking, since it allows you to Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm/Top into another Chant, which they now have 0 solutions to, and basically, whoever resolves Chant first wins in combo mirrors.

OK, let me flesh this scenario out some more - first when the opponent has a crappy hand and then with a great hand:

He has a crappy hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
You: Extirpate Chant
Your Turn: Sit around to draw the goods? (Which he'll may be doing also)

He has a great hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
You: Extirpate Chant
Your turn: Sit around to draw the goods?
His turn: He goes off with the goods.

Let's look at this with Duress (or Therapy or Cashseize):

He has a crappy hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
Your Turn: Duress him and take a relevant card

When you Extirpate the opponent with a crappy hand, then he has to draw X cards to make his crappy hand playable. When you Duress him, he has to draw X plus 1 cards to make that crappy hand playable.

He has a great hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
Your turn: Duress him and take a relevant card
His turn: Hopes to luck sack a top deck to make that great hand playable again.

I see Duress being better in the situations that you have outlined.

[emidln]

About Extirpate never hitting 2x Force of Wills, I did a little math. I checked the numbers with the blue player seeing 20 cards in the game and the blue player seeing 30 cards in the game which is the low to high amount that Dreadstill and Landstill tend to see from testing *still vs FT.

20 Cards Seen
# of Force of Wills --- Probability as a Percent
0 --- 18.7%
1 --- 40.5%
2 --- 30.4%
3 --- 09.4%
4 --- 01.0%

30 Cards Seen
# of Force of Wills --- Probability as a Percent
0 --- 05.6%
1 --- 25.0%
2 --- 38.8%
3 --- 25.0%
4 --- 05.6%

Here's the library I used:


#!/usr/pkg/bin/python2.5
# simple factorials
def factorial(n):
if n <= 1:
return 1
return float(n * factorial(n-1))

# n good choices
# m bad choices
# N chances
# i good results out of N chances
def hgd(n,m,N,i):
sone = factorial(m)*factorial(n)*factorial(N)
top = sone * factorial(m+n-N)
bottom = factorial(i)*factorial(n-i)*factorial(m+i-N)*factorial(N-i)*factorial(m+n)
return top / bottom

# Return a tuple containing the total probability from j to k and a
# list of individual probabilities.
# j - lowest i
# k - highest i
def hgds(n,m,N,j,k):
t = 0
p = []
for x in range(j,k+1):
v = hgd(n,m,N,x)
p.append(v)
t = t + v
return (t,p)

[Peter_Rotten]

So if the opponent draws 30 cards, he as a pretty good chance of seeing 2 FoWs (I am HORRIBLE with math, but your numbers seem a little funky to me. Maybe another math guy can check 'em.) But was does this tell us about Extirpate? Really nothing.

Let's say the opponent has 2 FoWs and you have two pieces of disruption (of course we should note that the example NEEDS two pieces of disruption since we can't use this example with JUST Extirpate - I know, I know, dead horse). When is Extirpate going to be any better than any sort of combination of the following:

On one turn:
Chant, Duress (or other discard like Therapy and Thoughtseize)
Duress, Duress
Duress, Chant

Over two turns:
Chant to steal an early FoW, Duress to steal a latter FoW
Duress to steal an early FoW, Duress to steal a latter FoW
Duress to steal an early FoW, Chant to steal a latter Fow

[Jaiminho]

So if the opponent draws 30 cards, he as a pretty good chance of seeing 2 FoWs (I am HORRIBLE with math, but your numbers seem a little funky to me. Maybe another math guy can check 'em.)

Those numbers tell the chance of having that exact number of FOWs. This means that, after seeing 30 cards, the chances of seeing at least N FOWs is given by this little table:

At least 0 --- 100%
At least 1 --- 94.4%
At least 2 --- 69.4%
At least 3 --- 30.6%
At least 4 --- 05.6%

So his argument is that, if you get bitten by a single FOW and then use Extirpate on that one, you will get rid of a 2nd FOW 69.4% of the time and will get rid of a 2nd and a 3rd FOW 30.6% of the time. Whether or not he's taking those FOWs out of the opponent's hand depends on whether the opponent kept those FOWs in hand or he somehow saw it but didn't want to keep it in hand, such as Brainstorming back into library or shuffling after seeing it with Top.

On a deeper analysis of those numbers (the 30 cards case), it means Extirpate is better (2 for 1) than Duress 30.6% of the time, worse (0 for 1) 5.6% of the time and equal (1 for 1) 60.4% of the time.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

A deeper analysis of the numbers yet reveals that getting to turn 20 is still a fundamentally terrible gameplan for reasons I've outlined above, that I above all human beings alive should be intimately familiar with, that most decks have cards other than Force of Will to deal with, and the good, nay, the fantastic thing about Duress is that Duress is just as good as Duress for the nineteen preceding turns! Meaning you can take a Counterbalance or Chalice before it comes down, perhaps, or a Haunting Echoes. Or if it's a Thoughtseize or Cabal Therapy, you can take the Tarmogoyf or Meddling Mage or even Decree of Justice that's not going to let you see turn 20. You know. Proactive discard?

What the Hell decks do you people test against? '96 Keeper?

[citanul]

I just started browsing through some articles which are being linked here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609

One of those articles "Is this your card?" by The Ferret which can be found here http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3350 illustrates exactly what the people voting for Extirpate are doing. I advice you read it, think about it and then ask yourself, is Extirpate any good?

[emidln]

A deeper analysis of the numbers yet reveals that getting to turn 20 is still a fundamentally terrible gameplan for reasons I've outlined above, that I above all human beings alive should be intimately familiar with, that most decks have cards other than Force of Will to deal with, and the good, nay, the fantastic thing about Duress is that Duress is just as good as Duress for the nineteen preceding turns! Meaning you can take a Counterbalance or Chalice before it comes down, perhaps, or a Haunting Echoes. Or if it's a Thoughtseize or Cabal Therapy, you can take the Tarmogoyf or Meddling Mage or even Decree of Justice that's not going to let you see turn 20. You know. Proactive discard?

What the Hell decks do you people test against? '96 Keeper?

Do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of math AND english? Seeing 20 cards is not equivilent to waiting until turn 20. Seeing 20 cards means my opponent has drawn/had access to 20 cards between his initial hand, cards he's drawn since with draw per turn, brainstorm/ponder/standstill/etc, and an additional three cards from top. We're talking about turn 7-11 for seeing 20 cards depending exactly upon whether you're playing a slower thresh list, dreadstill, or landstill and how their game has been going.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

On a deeper analysis of those numbers (the 30 cards case),



onoes maths

Although it's extremely questionable if this plan becomes any less terrible relying on seeing turn 7-11 against Threshold or Dreadstill. To be honest, even against Landstill turn 11 is kind of optimistic. What do you imagine these decks are doing during this time period?


I just started browsing through some articles which are being linked here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609

One of those articles "Is this your card?" by The Ferret which can be found here http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=3350 illustrates exactly what the people voting for Extirpate are doing. I advice you read it, think about it and then ask yourself, is Extirpate any good?

Good catch. This is exactly what is going on.

Look, I don't have to argue that Extirpate is a terrible card. This is how terrible the card is; it is so bad that the onus is on you simply to prove that it will do anything at all in a likely situation.

Because the simple fact is that Extirpate doesn't do anything most of the time.

In the average situation that is likely to exist at any given point in time, there is not a card in the graveyard that is important to you that is also in your opponent's hand.

This situation simply doesn't occur very often.

To make matters worse, you usually don't know when it does happen and Extirpate doesn't search the stack.

This is how terrible Extirpate is;

So far from arguing over whether or not the effect is groundbreaking, the argument about it's use centers around whether the card actually does anything at all.

Think about that.

Think about it. You're not thinking yet. Go back and think some more.

[emidln]

onoes maths

Although it's extremely questionable if this plan becomes any less terrible relying on seeing turn 7-11 against Threshold or Dreadstill. To be honest, even against Landstill turn 11 is kind of optimistic. What do you imagine these decks are doing during this time period?

Beating me to about 2 life. That's the exact gameplan actually. The matchup against Standstill decks generally goes about like this for FT:

FT Turn 1: Land + Duress and/or Top and/or Cantrip
SS Turn 1: Land + Duress/Brainstorm/Top/Attempt Stifle (rarely happens against FT if the FT pilot knows they're playing against a Stifle deck (which if they boarded in Extirpate they should) unless there is no other choice)
FT Turn 2: If FT is the on the play, attempt Top/Duress/Cantrip. Otherwise, if the SS deck played a SS, they do nothing (potentially optimize cards in hand with top, but most DS/LS players aren't stupid enough to play a SS down with FT's Top in play). The rest of FT's turns follow this exact same patten until half a turn before the combo turn where extra cards like Extirpate, Mystical Tutor, and Wipe Away might be played. (The single exception is KGrip/Ancient Grudge vs Dreadstill's CB or Dreadnought.)
SS Turn 2: This is where Landstill/Dreadstill start making plays and wondering why FT is doing nothing. The except is when they drop Standstill on a clear board assuming Mishra's Factories carry them the way. That exact scenario is where I derive my 8-11 turn figure from. If they drop a turn 2 standstill with some sort of island + factory I now have 14-16 life, or 8-10 turns to win the game. (I need to be at a minimum of 2 to win with Doomsday.) If they don't have a factory in play yet I get more turns. If they don't put a threat down and play a SS later (perhaps after digging for it) I get more turns. I usually do get these turns because very few opponents are suicidal enough to attempt a Dreadnought against FT knowing it is a 2 for 1 (FT plays 3-4 Krosan Grip, Wipe Away, and potentialy even Shattering Sprees/Ancient Grudges).

Against Threshold, I don't usually go that long. They usually can muster some sort of creature attack + burn and the turn I have to combo off usually becomes somewhere between 6 and 8. Extirpate is still good here because Threshold's cantrips give them the potential to have seen as many cards as Dreadstill did, but in a much shorter period of time. With Pyroblasts, Duresses, and KGrip all taking Counterbalance, I lose part of Extirpate's effectiveness (that it can take actual Counterspell instead of Force of Will but doing roughly the same thing vs a SS deck) but it can be somewhat made up for the fact that by taking Counterbalance I eliminate 3 out of their 6-7 remaining relevant cards against me. Extirpate is amazing against traditional Thrash (lacking CSpells) because Force of Will is their ONLY way to stop Orim's Chant and it functions the same as it does vs CB Thresh/Landstill/Dreadstill when they play Counterspell over Fire/Ice.

@ IBA directly

My argument all along is that Extirpate has done EXACTLY what I thought it would do when I hypothesized that it would be good in storm combo and started testing it. In the situations I wanted it for (against hard counters and against Orim's Chant) it does exactly as advertised and that's what I need. That a turn 2 Extirpate on a Pyroblasted Counterbalance doesn't produce card advantage is an irrelevant argument because (a) FT loses if at any time CB hits the table and I can't KGrip it (which is really hard) and (b) FT cares about card quality more than card advantage. Extirpate isn't played because it generates card advantage. It can and that's helpful. It categorically denies an opponent a certain aspect of their gameplan. Whether that is Orim's Chant in the combo mirror or Force of Will/Counterbalance/Counterspell in the blue matchup, the card I extirpate can't stop me. For a deck that largely wins when it resolves Orim's Chant, that' a pretty big deal. I've actually tested and explored other cards that do similar things to Extirpate in regards to denying my opponent access to cards. Meddling Mage and Cranial Extraction are cards that I've tried. I've even played Meddling Mage in tournaments because it turned out to be pretty good in some matchups.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The list you played in the MTGSal tournament ran 1 Krosan Grip. Of course, it also ran 4x Duress and no maindeck Extirpate.

Regardless, I'm not going to fall into ToadiTog syndrome. I'm not going to argue against phantom lists that can play any number of variable answers and don't have to actually budget card slots. What I am going to object to is the notion that your manabase wants to see Thrash running Wasteland and Stifle, or that testing against players who are too terrified to drop a Counterbalance or Jrednot for fear of Grip is relevant.

But maybe I'm wrong. Out of curiosity, what does this FT list look like?

[emidln]

The list you played in the MTGSal tournament ran 1 Krosan Grip. Of course, it also ran 4x Duress and no maindeck Extirpate.

Regardless, I'm not going to fall into ToadiTog syndrome. I'm not going to argue against phantom lists that can play any number of variable answers and don't have to actually budget card slots. What I am going to object to is the notion that your manabase wants to see Thrash running Wasteland and Stifle, or that testing against players who are too terrified to drop a Counterbalance or Jrednot for fear of Grip is relevant.

But maybe I'm wrong. Out of curiosity, what does this FT list look like?

The list I ran at the MTGSal tourney also played 1 Wipe Away and 2 Ancient Grudge as Dreadnought removal. The list that I adapted because I got sick of losing to CB (and because I talk to Roodmistah way too much :tongue:) looks like this (pulled straight out of my PM outbox here actually):

// Doomsday Fetchland Tendrils
4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands
1 Bayou
1 Tropical Island
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Underground Sea
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
1 Cabal Ritual
4 Pyroblast
4 Duress
2 Orim's Chant
1 Krosan Grip
4 Brainstorm
3 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Doomsday
1 Meditate
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony

SB: 1 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 1 Orim's Chant
SB: 1 Extirpate
SB: 1 Krosan Grip
SB: 1 Pyroclasm
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
SB: 1 Wipe Away
SB: 1 Echoing Truth
SB: 1 Rushing River
SB: 1 Mountain
SB: 1 Helm of Awakening
SB: 1 Grapeshot
SB: 1 Infernal Tutor
SB: 1 Ill-Gotten Gains

The manabase is 17 lands game 1 with the potential for another mountain G2. Krosan Grip was reduced to 2 copies overall (3 split-second removal total) due to the presence of 4-5 red blasts dealing with Counterbalance fairly often now. A third was tested and discarded due to the relatively few targets left (outside of The Might Quinn and Enchantress). A Dreadstill player still doesn't likely risk their Dreadnought into 2 Krosan Grip + 2 Ancient Grudge. We're still talking about a phantom matchup because you don't know the boarding plan so I'll post that too:

-3 Ponder
-1 Cabal RItual
-1 Mystical Tutor
-1 Lotus Petal

+1 Mountain
+1 Extirpate
+1 Red Elemental Blast
+2 Ancient Grudge
+1 Krosan Grip

Ancient Grudge isn't actually meant for Dreadnought. It kills Dreadnought dead (to steal an expression), but it is brought in against Pithing Needle.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Oh, you've been discussing games 2-3.


Emidln, out of curiosity, how often do you play FT in actual tournaments with 50 minute time limits?

One of the reasons that people generally go for the nuclear option in the sideboard, aside from everything else, is that time becomes more of a factor during game 3 when you're trying to avoid that draw that's just barely not a loss. This whole, win 2-3 through attrition tactic just seems really... really... bad for that.

I hope that we agree that you're going to usually lose g1 to most Thresh/Dreadstill lists, yes?

[emidln]

Oh, you've been discussing games 2-3.


Emidln, out of curiosity, how often do you play FT in actual tournaments with 50 minute time limits?

One of the reasons that people generally go for the nuclear option in the sideboard, aside from everything else, is that time becomes more of a factor during game 3 when you're trying to avoid that draw that's just barely not a loss. This whole, win 2-3 through attrition tactic just seems really... really... bad for that.

I hope that we agree that you're going to usually lose g1 to most Thresh/Dreadstill lists, yes?

I get to a fair amount of local tournaments that have 45-50 minute rounds. My local metagame is mostly Burn, Threshold, Dreadstill, and other Tendrils decks. We've had Dragon Stompy and misc other metagame decks in the past, but they leave as the Threshold and Tendrils decks can adapt quickly with Serenity.

Not really. Look at that list. 4 Pyroblast, 4 Duress, 2 Orim's Chant, 1 Krosan Grip. I actually win far more games ones than I lose against Thresh and Dreadstill. You might call this an effect of presideboarding against blue, but I'd call it an effect of blue being the dominate color in Legacy. They actually gain more than I do because if they're intelligent, they figure out that Standstill is a horrible strategy and side it out for Pithing Needles and REBs. Moreover, most people don't instantly recognize Fetchland Tendrils and instead put me on some sort of UBx Aggro-Control deck like thresh/dreadstill and let me take g1 in about 10 minutes.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I see 7 fetches and 2 basics. I also see 29 cards with a cc of 1, which is ridiculous by any standard. I see no way of getting your one of Grip that gets through Balance or Chalice.

Even with Blasts, I'm not seeing a fantastic matchup here.

[emidln]

I see 7 fetches and 2 basics. I also see 29 cards with a cc of 1, which is ridiculous by any standard. I see no way of getting your one of Grip that gets through Balance or Chalice.

Chalice @ 1 is rough. I'm not pretending here and I tend to scoop pretty fast when I see it game 1 unless I have a very specific type of hand. My metagame has a very significant lack of chalices due to the high presence of Tarmogoyfs and Serenity from various threshold and ft lists (I'm one of 4 FT players).


Even with Blasts, I'm not seeing a fantastic matchup here.

4 Pyroblast + 4 Duress + 4 Mystical Tutor in response + 1 KGrip. It's also worth noting that it is possible, however unlikely, that a Pyroblast can kill an in-play CB (for instance, if I draw the Pyroblast the turn after CB resolves without a Top on the table).

[citanul]

Why are you two even discussing that? Even if Extirpate is good in that situation of Standstill against FT/TES/AdN, it still doesn't make Extirpate a good card.

[Apex]

Why are you two even discussing that? Even if Extirpate is good in that situation of Standstill against FT/TES/AdN, it still doesn't make Extirpate a good card.

I don't think any of us storm players ever argued any other way. We said, and voted that Extirpate is good in some specific decks, but apparently alot of people don't believe that either. I think I have about several posts of quotes where I said that I don't believe Extirpate is good as a general graveyard hate tool.

As for Extirpate vs Duress in storm combo mirrors, Extirpate gets rid of ALL Orim's Chants from your opponent. That's pretty much the only card that's relevant in the mirror matchup. You resolve Chant, you win, basically. Chant in response of their Chant, and then Extirpate during your turn gets rid of all Chants. There was a time period with the older FT lists that ran 4x Dark Confidants in the board, and along with the maindecked 4x Streetwraith, that was often the win plan against mirror matches. There was even a tourney report somewhere on thesource that detailed how the matchup went (FT vs TES). You basically beat them with dudes while reacting to Chants with Chants/Abeyances. Since many of the newer FT lists don't play Dark Confidants or Street Wraith anymore, you've got to find another way. Chant/Extirpate happens to be a great combination and only takes 1 slot from the board.

In all of those scenarios Peter_Rotten listed (on storm vs storm), if you switch the Extirpate to a Duress/Chant, and you assume that your opponent has also 2 pieces of Disruption in hand, just like you (and the 2 Chant combination is what we are worried about the most):

Opp: Chant (signaling going off, or bluffing, but assuming legit)
You: Chant in response
You Upkeep: Extirpate your Chant

Now their 2nd Chant in hand does nothing and you can safely go off this turn. If you had a Duress or Chant in hand instead, it would have went like this:

Opp: Chant
You: Chant in response
You (your turn): Chant/Duress
Opp: Chant in response
Opp goes off in his turn because it's pretty unlikely for triple Chants to happen.

[citanul]

Even though it is correct to say that an Extirpate on their Chants is good, it does not mean you will automaticly win. They still have a 1 card advantage.
Also, Duress/Cabal Therapy is still better in most of those examples. Let's say you have the same hand except he has a Duress where you have an Extirpate. Both can go off with this hand.
If you are the active player the following happens: You chant, he chants, resolves. During his turn you Extirpate his Chants, he still goes off.
If he is the active player you win right? Nope, he still does. Play Duress, you have to chant since else it will be discarded so you do. He allows it, Chants during your upkeep, you are forced to pass the turn, he wins.

The problem is that you are not talking about the rest in his hand being the same except Extirpate. In your example both have Chants yet you have an Extirpate where the opponents seems to have nothing else relevant.

Yes, getting Chants from the opposing deck CAN be good. Yes, nicking all the Force of Wills from a control deck CAN be good. The question you got to ask yourself is: "would I have lost if this Extirpate was card X". The answer usually is no. The second question you got to ask yourself: "Would I have won if this Extirpate was card X". If the times you answered Yes to the second question is greater than the times you answered Yes to the first then Extirpate is worse than card X.

[emidln]

Even though it is correct to say that an Extirpate on their Chants is good, it does not mean you will automaticly win. They still have a 1 card advantage.
Also, Duress/Cabal Therapy is still better in most of those examples. Let's say you have the same hand except he has a Duress where you have an Extirpate. Both can go off with this hand.
If you are the active player the following happens: You chant, he chants, resolves. During his turn you Extirpate his Chants, he still goes off.

This example is assuming you are bad enough to attempt to chant on your own turn. The number one rule of playing legacy storm combo is don't be aggressive with Orim's Chant. The only time that it is okay to play Orim's Chant on your own turn is if you know they have no Orim's Chant effect (Chant/Abeyance/that shitty cycling card that makes them untargetable/etc) from Duress/Extirpate knowledge and that they have no way (via Brainstorm/Top/random cantrip/Intuition/etc) to get a Chant effect. In all other times, you want Chant in hand (or on the top of your deck if you have Top to avoid Duress) so you can play it defensively. You will wait until you draw a Duress/Creature/Extirpate so never run into the sort of situation that you described.
If he is the active player you win right? Nope, he still does. Play Duress, you have to chant since else it will be discarded so you do. He allows it, Chants during your upkeep, you are forced to pass the turn, he wins.

[citanul]

This example is assuming you are bad enough to attempt to chant on your own turn. The number one rule of playing legacy storm combo is don't be aggressive with Orim's Chant.


This is what I replied to:



As for Extirpate vs Duress in storm combo mirrors, Extirpate gets rid of ALL Orim's Chants from your opponent. That's pretty much the only card that's relevant in the mirror matchup. You resolve Chant, you win, basically. Chant in response of their Chant, and then Extirpate during your turn gets rid of all Chants.


As you can see, he clearly states: Chant in response to their chant, meaning he is Chanting during his own turn. Else it would be bad to respond with your own chant on theirs during your turn, it's not like you can combo anyway this turn.

The only possible time that an Extirpate is better than a discard spell is when the feared card is floating in the top3 cards and the opponent has a SDT. With a Discard other means of getting that top card such as brainstorm is irrelevant since you can just grab the brainstorm then. How many times does that happen exactly?

It's not about situations I described, just picture any situation you like and answer those two questions. Yes you will find some where Extirpate IS better than a discard, those situations do exist. But they are less frequent than the situations where a discard trumphs Extirpate.

[Whit3 Ghost]

It's not about situations I described, just picture any situation you like and answer those two questions. Yes you will find some where Extirpate IS better than a discard, those situations do exist. But they are less frequent than the situations where a discard trumphs Extirpate.
This is the exact reason why the FT list emidln posted runs 4 Duress maindeck and one sideboarded Extirpate.

[The Legacy Weapon]

Why does there have to be a fight over what's better between Extirpate or whatever else? (Duress, Therapy, etc...) There are obvious pros and cons to running Extirpate just like there are for any other cards you might run in it's place. I say if you prefer Extirpate, run it. If we all just ran the same old crap as everyone else, the game would be lame. I'm all for discussion but damn it seems like everyone is so damn pushy with their own opinions that we never really get anywhere.

[Tosh]

Why does there have to be a fight over what's better between Extirpate or whatever else? (Duress, Therapy, etc...) There are obvious pros and cons to running Extirpate just like there are for any other cards you might run in it's place. I say if you prefer Extirpate, run it. If we all just ran the same old crap as everyone else, the game would be lame. I'm all for discussion but damn it seems like everyone is so damn pushy with their own opinions that we never really get anywhere.

This isn't really helping. Sure, you could run Grizzly Bears over Tarmogoyf in <insert deck with Tarmogoyf in it> but it is in no way optimal. The obvious choice is Tarmogoyf. Now, between Extirpate vs other disruption the choice isn't so obvious. What people are trying to do is to logically support their hypothesis and give some data to back it up.

The whole "play what you prefer" is implied since no one is going to force you to play one card over another. I would assert that in this thread opinion is often confused with hypothesis since it is theoretically possible to prove one school of thought right.

[emidln]

As you can see, he clearly states: Chant in response to their chant, meaning he is Chanting during his own turn. Else it would be bad to respond with your own chant on theirs during your turn, it's not like you can combo anyway this turn.

No, you still have it backwards. Chant in response to chant is a play assuming that he is responding to a chant they're playing on his turn. Chant in response to chant on his own turn makes no sense unless you fear them end stepping a Mystical Tutor. His chant in response to chant is for an opponent playing chant on the opponent's main phase in an attempt to combo out. He responds with chant nullifying their turn. On his upkeep, he gets priority first and Extirpates chants disallowing them the opportunity to chant him on his turn. He would then be free to combo out without the worry of chant.


The only possible time that an Extirpate is better than a discard spell is when the feared card is floating in the top3 cards and the opponent has a SDT.

Wrong. Discard spells are pretty universally (at least the good ones) sorcery speed. Extirpate being an instant figures very much into what you want to do with it. Breaking Standstill on your own turn is horrible. Spending extra mana on your turn is bothersome. Getting your Duress/Therapy/Thoughtseize flat out countered because they're holding a second is awful. I've outlined all of these before in my posts.

[citanul]

No, you still have it backwards. Chant in response to chant is a play assuming that he is responding to a chant they're playing on his turn. Chant in response to chant on his own turn makes no sense unless you fear them end stepping a Mystical Tutor. His chant in response to chant is for an opponent playing chant on the opponent's main phase in an attempt to combo out. He responds with chant nullifying their turn. On his upkeep, he gets priority first and Extirpates chants disallowing them the opportunity to chant him on his turn. He would then be free to combo out without the worry of chant.


That's actually what I ment, just worded it wrong I guess. Anyway, if your opponent had the same hand as you except that the Extirpate is a discard he wins, no matter how. Since he will play Duress, where you would have Extirpate, instead of that Chant during his turn. You Chant in response so he can't go off or steal the chant. If you don't chant he'll take it anyway. So during your own turn then, he chants on your upkeep. Then turn gets passed to him and he wins. When comparing two cards you shouldn't forge situations so that it's unequal.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I actually have no problem with Extirpate as a tutorable 1-of post board. That's exactly the narrow situation where I'll allow it, since it's not going to clutter up his hand early on and he doesn't have it in games where it's useless.

[Raider Bob]

Extirpate is the nutz against any deck that runs 3 win conditions.
Decks that have more than three win conditions like any creature based deck in legacy as of late Extirpate is not so good.

[Maveric78f]

The list where I play extirpate for reference: here (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=20914).

Extirpate is good in conjunction with Jotun Grunt: does not affect its ability to remain into play and still gets rid, at instant/split second speed of any graveyard threat or general threat of a deck that hit the yard. The goal of Extirpate is obviously not to make card advantage but to break mechanisms of a deck.

As Raider Bob said, extirpate is good at dealing with kills and I always enter them against Aggro Loam, mainly to deal with their annoying kills which are usually only 3-of among tarmo, terravore, crusher and seismic assault.