[Discussion] Melting Pot For Thoughts On Extirpate [Archive]

quicksilver

10-01-2008, 03:03 PM

I can understand why people think it is a very good card. It's because it's very situational. It can win you games, and when it does it's pretty obvious. But it can also lose you games, and when it does it's not so obvious.

Under certain circumstances I would say that extirpate is a fine card. When you need to remove one card from a graveyard it is fine. That's probably about it. Say you need to remove a squee from a graveyard, or remove some regrowth or reanimate target in response, then I think the card is fine. It's a 1 for 1 trade. Of course in this situation I can probably think of a good number of cards that would be better.

Under most other circumstances I do not think it's fine. When people use it to try to prevent someone from drawing that card again, that is bad. Unfortunatly this is how most people use it. Say there is a card in someone's graveyard not doing anything and you extirpate it to prevent them from drawing another one of them that is bad. More often than not it will do nothing except cost you a card and a black mana.

Unfortunatly extirpate often seems to cause people to play it in that second situation. In fact I often see it side boarded in against decks that don't even use the graveyard.

Let me give you some aniticdotal evidence:

Playing survival I have had times when they destroy a survival then extiprate it to prevent me from drawing another one. Now sometimes I have a witness in hand and I witness something back and beat them with the card advantage extirpate gave me.

Another time I had a bayou destroyed and extirpated without running any other lands that produce black. My opponent thought this was great. But I didn't even have any black cards in hand, then a few turns late I draw a birds of paradise, then a shriekmaw the turn after. It didn't impact me in the slightest, and even if I didn't have birds, at best that would have been a 1/1 trade there, and only regaining that card disadvantage after several turns.

I think extirpate is terribe when used to try to prevent people from drawing a certain card, and marginal when used to take a relevant card out of a graveyard. I think the card encourages bad play.

Once in a while it can be very good for you and I think people focus on the good times and easily ignore the bad times since the good times are far more obvious than the bad times.

jrp

10-01-2008, 03:08 PM

Extirpate is fucking terrible. That being said, I did find that having a copy in Fetchland Tendrils was valuable. It basically let me run an IGG-loop through a Force of Will in the graveyard, kind of like Orim's Chant, except I got to peek at my opponent's hand to determine my line of play before committing before committing any other resources.

freakish777

10-01-2008, 03:20 PM

I, for one, think Extirpate used properly, and in the correct context, is extremely powerful (ie, it should only ever be a sideboard card).

Extirpate is a kick in the junk against Ichorid, their only out in their deck/sideboard is Chalice@1 if they even still play that card (and they have to get to 2 mana to do it). For those of you still doing things like Extirpating dredgers instead of Bridges, Ichorids or Narcomoebas (with the trigger on the stack), in that order, you're are playing the card incorrectly against Ichorid. What good is dredging your deck if the explosive cards have already been removed from the deck? In my opinion the card is more powerful then any other answer to Ichorid at the moment and for this reason alone is worth considering as a sideboard option.

Furthermore, in the 4C Threshold mirror, Extirpating Swords to Plowshares, or Nimble Mongoose (or SDT if you're lucky enough to Seize it on turn 1) is a beating even if you give up a card to do it. Leaving the opponent without answers to your Goyfs and Enforcers is brutal. Extirpating Goyf? Kinda meh here.

In the control mirror, Extirpating threats like Decree of Justice, Misrha's Factory, or Eternal Dragon (with it's cost paid and the activation on the stack) typically leave you with more Trump left in the deck than the opponent. In such long games, the usefulness of the card is far more likely to be fully realized.

Less strong argument:

As an aggro or aggro control deck against a control deck, you go for Brainstorms or Swords as it takes away their tempo plays that help keep them in the game early (if you don't draw a lot of threats and they draw Wrath they still need to draw mana to cast it). Not the strongest argument, but dead maindeck cards are dead maindeck cards, and against a control deck like Landstill, Extirpate is better than Tormod's Crypt typically. Extirpate also tends to be on par with Tormod's Crypt against Aggro Loam (you give up getting rid of the lands in their bin with the ability to not let them cycle a land to save Loam).

Deep6er

10-01-2008, 03:30 PM

I disagree here.

1) The point that you're missing with Extirpate against Ichorid is the question of, "will you mulligan for it?" If the answer is yes, then you've effectively mulliganed to x-1. If no, then getting blown out because you didn't have your hate is a logical way for you to lose that game.

Additionally, Extirpate is still the easiest graveyard hate to see coming. Unmask and Cabal Therapy are going to be huge beatings for you. If you didn't drop Crypt/Leyline on turn 0/1, then it's pretty obvious you have either Jailer or Extirpate. The benefit in assuming this is the fact that if they're wrong, and you don't have it, you have no relevant plays.

The fact that you're sitting on Extirpate (and in many cases obviously so), greatly weakens it's value against Ichorid players. Crypt is so much stronger and requires them to dramatically alter their structure of plays, while Leyline is the strongest (supposing you land it on turn 0) in that their plays are dominated by the logistical nightmare of finding an answer to it and then beating you in a short timeframe.

I have to go, but I'll finish this when I get back.

quicksilver

10-01-2008, 03:40 PM

Illissius

10-01-2008, 03:53 PM

Extirpate is extremely useful in control decks against Loam decks, especially control decks which don't also have Counterbalance or Chalice.

Tog

10-01-2008, 04:09 PM

Again on the same note as being situationally useful, I don't think the ability which Extirpate has to force the OPPONENT to shuffle his library be overlooked either. Against control decks which hide cards on top of their library with Brainstorm after a discard spell, you force them to shuffle away. Against Counter Top which is locking three cc spells plays in your hand, you shuffle away. Occasionally, you run in to Lim-Dul's Vault and Enlightened Tutor as well.

nitewolf9

10-01-2008, 04:10 PM

Extirpate is extremely useful in control decks against Loam decks, especially control decks which don't also have Counterbalance or Chalice.

But wouldn't crypt be just as/if not more poweful against loam? You remove EVERYTHING in their graveyard and significantly weaken future loams (or a terrvore that is already on the board), where with extirpate they still have burning wish to get loam back, with everything else still in their yard. Not to mention the synergy with academy ruins, which most control decks are running (or should be running) anyway.

I think the fact that extirpate is severely lacking against ichorid should be enough for a control deck to opt for crypt instead.

ScatmanX

10-01-2008, 04:13 PM

Peter_Rotten

10-01-2008, 04:22 PM

he would get hit by STP an FoW only once

But who is to say that the Thresh would have drawn those cards anyone? Maybe he would have only drawn 1 StP in that match anyway.

Extirpate reminds me of the little kids who mills you with some bad milling card looking carefully at the cards that hit the yard and then says, "ha! I just milled your StP. Now you can't use it."

jrp

10-01-2008, 04:28 PM

Extirpate reminds me of the little kids who mills you with some bad milling card looking carefully at the cards that hit the yard and then says, "ha! I just milled your StP. Now you can't use it."

Exactly what I was thinking. Oh, and sigged.

freakish777

10-01-2008, 04:30 PM

1) The point that you're missing with Extirpate against Ichorid is the question of, "will you mulligan for it?" If the answer is yes, then you've effectively mulliganed to x-1.

Not sure I follow, explain this more thoroughly when you get back.

If no, then getting blown out because you didn't have your hate is a logical way for you to lose that game.

The majority of the time I won't mulligan to find Extirpate against Ichorid, largely because the decks I play have answers that are decent in the first place, or because there are other cards I boarded in that I'm less happy to see, but based on the rest of my hand are just fine against most Ichorid hands.

For instance, saying I'm playing ITF (or maybe a Threshold varient) against Ichorid. In game 2, my opening hand is 2 fetches, Goyf, Swords, EE, Brainstorm, Force. Despite the fact that I don't have hate in this hand, I'm not mulliganning. EE provides protection against them comboing temporarily, Swords takes down an Ichorid or Narco before they get to flashback Therapy keeping Bridge form triggering at least once, Goyf blocks Ichorid and if they get unlucky and don't mill Bridges provides pressure (as a 3 turn clock likely against the damage they do to themselves), Force keeps their first discard outlet from resolving, and Brainstorm if it doesn't get pitched to Force (gigantic if here) is probably digging me into the hate I brought in.

Additionally, Extirpate is still the easiest graveyard hate to see coming. Unmask and Cabal Therapy are going to be huge beatings for you. If you didn't drop Crypt/Leyline on turn 0/1, then it's pretty obvious you have either Jailer or Extirpate. The benefit in assuming this is the fact that if they're wrong, and you don't have it, you have no relevant plays.

The fact that you're sitting on Extirpate (and in many cases obviously so),

Why exactly would you be sitting on Extirpate? Ichorid is the beatdown. They are required to act (sure, they'll slow roll if they think they've got time).

The first target you see, you Extirpate it immediately. They milled a Bridge, it gets Extirpated immediately. They mill an Ichorid? It gets Extirpated. They mill a Narcomoeba (with Cabal Therapy in the bin)? It get's Extirpated in response to it's trigger. They mill all 3 all at once, you Extirpate Bridge. You should be looking first and foremost to Extirpate Bridge, but the majority of the time, you're 100% OK trading 1 card and 1 Black mana 1 for 1 with their creatures acting like an uber Swords to Plowshares that rips copies out of their graveyard hand and Library and doesn't give them life in the process (I'm unsure if you can Extirpate Ichorid in response to them removing a black dude, but if that's possible then that might give you more incentive to sit on it, it's largely inconsequential as Extirpating Ichorid is fairly strong as it leaves them with likely a maximum of 5 non-token creatures they can have in play, Putrid and 4 Narcos, resulting in far less Zombie tokens, Swords/Bolt/Fanatic cuts down further on the number of non-token guys they can have in play).

Crypt is so much stronger and requires them to dramatically alter their structure of plays, while Leyline is the strongest (supposing you land it on turn 0) in that their plays are dominated by the logistical nightmare of finding an answer to it and then beating you in a short timeframe.

This is wrong. Again, they don't have reactive answers to Extirpate, like they do for Leyline and Crypt (Chain, Needle, Ray of Revelation). If their game plan is to simply slow roll until they can Therapy you naming Extirpate, then chances are Extirpate has bought enough time for you to win anyways (you found other cards you can play in the meantime such as Deed). Leyline is poor because you have to mulligan to it. Again, if my hand has Swords, Force, EE/Deed and a Brainstorm or two, I'd much rather have Extirpate in my deck against Ichorid than Leyline. Leyline is just bad.

Nantuko Shady: "Sweet, Leyline is in my opening 6, I keep" (as he plays Nimble Mongoose)
kirdape3: "Is Force of Will and another Blue card in your opening 6?" (as he plays LED and then Chain of Vapor)
Shady: "... No"
kirdape3: "You Lose."

The problem with Crypt is that they're bringing in Needle and/or Chain. If you sit on it, they can play Needle and stop it anyways. If sit on it, they can accidently "Oops I win" you anyways. If you sit on it, they can Therapy naming it it just like they would against Extirpate (with the added benefit of you not being able to respond to Therapy with it). If you don't sit on it, they can sit around until the draw Needle/Chain of Vapor and play them, then proceed to combo you.

In order to win match-ups you need a larger number of relevant cards then your opponents. Having 8 hate cards that you mulligan to is a sure fire way of losing since Ichorid's board deals with the hate the cards fairly effectively (aside from Extirpate, if you mull to Extirpate you allow them the opportunity to slow roll you by not having other obstacles you're putting in their way such as Goyf, Mogg Fanatic, EE/Deed, or Swordsing a guy in the upkeep/draw).

Extirpate doesn't require you to mulligan to it in order for it to be good, allowing the rest of the cards in your deck to do their job.

I have yet to lose a game to Ichorid where I've resolved Extirpate. I can't say the same about Tormod's Crypt (and I've seen the Leyline bounced far too often to realize I'm not running that card). Granted Parcher and Anwar are likely to be stronger Ichorid players then the players I've played against, but I'll still take the card that I've had the best experience with thus far.

Shugyosha

10-01-2008, 04:37 PM

But who is to say that the Thresh would have drawn those cards anyone? Maybe he would have only drawn 1 StP in that match anyway.

We're speaking of Threshold? The deck that is glued together by the most efficient low cost library manipulation?
Its quite nice to rip the only removal of a deck and see if your opponent can counter your threats this turn.

Extirpate is a situational card and your deck has to be build to abuse it to some degree. Same holds true for many other cards and they aren't crappy at all. Putting Life from the Loam for example in Goyf Sligh would be a bad idea but it doesn't make the card bad. The list is simply not tuned to abuse it.

Jaynel

10-01-2008, 04:44 PM

I run Extirpate in my sideboard of RGBSA, and I'm pretty sure it's the right card. In the Massachusetts metagame, you can expect Dreadstill and Ichorid to be present in the field. Extirpate isn't stellar against either of those decks, but it is versatile and able to perform decently enough against both of them.

Phyrexian Dreadnought is rather hard to deal with. Ripping one out early with discard and Extirpating it saves you from having to scramble to deal with it later. Big Game Hunter is hard to recycle, and most artifact removal critters are too slow.
Target Bridges against Ichorid, and that will hopefully stall enough to drop Plagues on Horror and Illusion.

Especially with the sideboard that's kinda tight due to Burning Wish targets, Extirpate offers a general answer to these two prevalent decks.

quicksilver

10-01-2008, 04:46 PM

In a 49 championship here in Brazil, a guy won with this deck:

(19)
4 ohran viper
4 River Boa
4 goyf
3 baloth
3 shriekmaw
1 geneses
(18)
4 smother
4 Diabolic edit
4 extirpate
3 SDT
3 Pernicious Act
(23)
4 Windswept Heath
2 Polluted Delta
2 Bloodstained Mire
6 swamp
8 forest
1 bayou
side:
4 krosan grip
4 CotV
3 Engineered Plague
2 needle
2 tormods

FOUR MD extirpates. and 0 Discard.
Against ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh, he would get hit by STP an FoW only once, destroyed some combos. Agains MonoU, removed the Shackles... Agais goblins, Just one Warchief, Revolucionary Leader or Piledriver. In a game, he used on 2 different fetch lands, screweing the opponents manabase.
His only complains were about the 1 Bayou, wich he is dutting out, because aways were destroyed by wastelands.

Though I would put some discard main, less Crature kill, and a Volrath's Stronghold, he won the championship, so i really don't know what to think.

Sry about the bad english.
Cya

I think this is a good example of my point I am making. Sometimes extirpate can be good and you can get luckey with it and win some games, sometimes enough games in a row to win a tournament. But I think more often than not it will lose you games, and those games it's harder to notice that it was the extirpate that lost it for you. If you take into account all the times it was good and all the times it was bad, I think you will see the bad outnumbering the good. Don't just focus on one incident to judge this card.

I'm unsure if you can Extirpate Ichorid in response to them removing a black dude

No you cannot, if they remove a black dude, they are getting the creature.

frogboy

10-01-2008, 04:51 PM

Extirpate is sometimes good to deny someone strategic advantage going long. For instance, it was really insane when you got to pick off someone's Mystical Teachings with it. Those situations are relatively rare in Legacy, and I can't actually think of any reasonably common scenarios for it.

Whit3 Ghost

10-01-2008, 05:06 PM

It's good as a situational one of in the sideboard of certain Storm Combo decks, but I usually don't run it in other decks.

Volt

10-01-2008, 05:14 PM

Nihil Credo

10-01-2008, 05:16 PM

I've got a slight headache now, so I'll put down my pro-Extirpate reasons ex novo later, when I won't step all over myself in writing a long post. Meanwhile, I'll copy/paste a few posts I made in the past:

Extirpate is powerful enough to singlehandedly win you the mid-to-long game against control, midrange, and engine decks. That is, in itself, pretty amazing, and I'm a big fan of the card.

However, it means you have to care about the mid-to-long game in order to want Extirpate. Control and midrange decks, IMO, should almost always play 3 in the sideboard if able. Aggro and combo probably have no need of it at all. Aggro-control? It depends on how fast they kill; Fish or Funkbrew definitely want it, but something like GAGOMY is too fast to feel its power, despite playing 8 discard spells. More discard or LD would probably win more games.This quote was from an Extirpate thread from almost exactly one year ago (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6852&page=2&highlight=extirpate), which you may want to check out.

I often run Extirpate as my GY hate in black decks. The advantage over Crypt and Leyline is that it doubles as control and combo/control hate.
Extirpate reads "Deny your opponent access to a chosen card". It may conceivably be the least tempo-oriented card you can imagine*.

Extirpate deals with inevitability. It means one less trump card to deal with - Life from the Loam, Mishra's Factory, Back to Basics, you name it. In T2 U/B Teachings Control mirror, one of the main reasons for maindecking an Extirpate was to hit the Triskelavus/Ruins combo... a combination that was an absolute tempo sink, yet provided a large, recurring threat that single-handedly won the matchup.
Extirpate: I'm the biggest fan of this card on the Source, and even I would basically never maindeck it. The card is good in three instances: as an answer to graveyard combo; when you're trying to win a game of attrition (by taking away an opponent's long-term trump engine, like Ringleader or Loam); and when you cut an opponent off a splash colour entirely.
Now, if the first situation is so common that you want to maindeck Extirpate, I suggest you maindeck Yixlid Jailer instead, which at least beats for two. The second one clearly doesn't apply to this deck, which just wants to beat face against a opponent whose hand has been heavily disrupted. The third only applies against a few decks (Threshold, 3/4C Landstill) and only if they drop only one land of the critical colour and if you destroy it and Extirpate it before they can drop/fetch another one. Oh, and
if they don't play a basic Forest (Thresh) or a Scrubland (Landstill). So yeah, pretty low odds overall. Wouldn't it just be better to devote those (now three) slots to more disruption and threats?
You use Extirpate specifically against cards that have no replacements. If you Extirpate Tarmogoyf, that's good, but you can still lose to their other creatures. But if you Extirpate Back to Basics, your mana base is forever safe vs. MUC. If you Extirpate Life from the Loam, and the opponent doesn't run Burning Wish, his deck turns to a bunch of utility lands that would otherwise have never made the cut. If you Extirpate

That's why Extirpate is important for the long game. You will no longer have to plan at all times for CardThatTrumpsMyEntirePlan. They'll have to fight you with their lesser threats.

Forbiddian

10-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Extirpate is probably the most misused card in Magic. Although it's pretty horribly outclassed in terms of graveyard hate by cards like Tormod's Crypt, it brings so many things to the table that Tormod's Crypt could never do. I can't believe that people ignore that in their analysis of Extirpate.

Beyond the obvious Wasteland + Extirpate, Thoughtseize + Extirpate, etc. to give immediate board advantage (or the even cooler Thoughtseize + Wasteland + Extirpate), Extirpate has real long term effects on the game.

Deep6er brought up the situation earlier where Aggroloam (presumably) casts Loam into 3 land in the graveyard. Then the Extirpate player Extirpates Loam to end up 1 card down to his opponent's +2.

I'll point out that although the trade sucks ass, it puts Landstill in quite a strong position given the circumstances.

Aggroloam is MUCH weaker without Life from the Loam, obviously, especially against control where they rely on the long term uncounterability of LftL. At the very least, the landstill player reduced the bad trade for every Loam the AL player happened to have in hand, and he has pseudo card advantage on greatly weakening the go-to Devastating Dreams bomb (which is no longer like a 4:1 for AL) and the go-to Seismic Assault finisher. This is the best you could hope for.

Secondly, Deep6er mentioned that a lot of graveyard hate is better. Other than Leyline of the Void, I can't think of anything (and Loam can often deal with Leyline game 2) that would be remotely better. Crypt leaves them either with Loam in the yard or with 3 land in hand (strictly a worse trade than Extirpate). The worst case scenario is if you Crypt the loam but they had a second one in hand, effectively doing less than nothing with your card. Coffin Purge is similar, you knife the Loam and maybe a second Loam later.

If Aggroloam has 3 land in yard and they go for the Loam, you're in pretty bad shape no matter what you do, basically. It's a really unfair example.

Some advantages of Extirpate that nobody has mentioned (at least in this thread):

1) You see the entire contents of your opponent's hand. Even if you don't win the lottery or something and Extirpate Force of Will and they happened to have one in hand, you gain precise knowledge of what your opponent is holding and what his options are. Obviously you don't want to waste time with Peek or Telepathy, and it's really hard to quantify this advantage. You'll know exactly if your opponent is holding Goyfs back to rush after the Deed. You'll know exactly your opponent's combo options, etc. This doesn't affect the game state, but this can often save you a card later in the game. I'd say at least a third of the games, knowing your opponent's hand saves you a card or more (and that's not to mention Cabal Therapy).

2) You see the entire contents of your opponent's deck. This comes up less often because many people are running cookie-cutter crap, but sometimes you see a card you weren't expecting and now you can prepare for it. Sometimes you see that they're completely out of win cons or that they boarded in countertop. I dunno. Legacy is the format with the largest viable card pool (I'm arguing that the power level in Vintage pushes a lot of 3-5 CC tech cards out of the card pool, but even if Legacy is #2 my point is still valid). I'm not exactly the most pedantic Legacy player, but when I browse tournament decklists, I'm surprised every time I'm NOT surprised at an interesting card choice.

And by interesting card choice, I don't just mean like a random 1x Bloodstained Mire in a UBw landstill. I mean like an Empty the Warrens in a Solidarity. Random stuff that wins games not because it's the best card but because your opponent is not prepared for it.

Almost every combo deck transforms either into or out of or parallel to or adjacent to Stiflenought or Countertop or Tarmonought or Countergoyf or whatever else. Why do they spend 10 sideboard slots setting up an inferior Countertop/Goyf combination out of their optimized Stiflenought? Because they're counting on their opponent not expecting what's coming and making poor decisions.

3) Another often-overlooked aspect of Extirpate is that it forces your opponent to shuffle. There is no Vampiric Tutor in Legacy, but still Sensei's Divining Top, Brainstorm (if the player passes priority at upkeep with a fetchland out, he probably likes his topdeck), etc. This is even harder to quantify, but if you can read your opponent at all while he's Topping, you could knife a potentially painful topdeck. Or it's a hard counter to Mystical Tutor.

Anyway, this brings me to my last point.
4) In tournament play, time is really important. Extirpate can take anywhere from 15 seconds to 6 minutes off of the clock (counting the shuffle). Not that this situation comes up terribly often, but you can really ramp up the time pressure on your opponent if he needs to win or maybe you can pull a safe win or a draw out of a losing situation.

For this reason, I'll try to board extirpate against low win-con decks. Extirpate naming Force of Will, look through their deck to make sure they didn't board anything else in, and later extirpate the win con.

Ok, so now that's out of the way: Is all of that actually worth B and a card?

Let's recap the possible situations where it's at least as good as a single card, if not better:

1) Your opponent happens (or you searched him or you read him) to have the card that you're Extirpating in hand.

2) You're facing Ichorid. Or reanimator, I guess.

3) You don't know the contents of your opponent's hand and that knowledge causes you to play better.

4) Your opponent is recurring Life from the Loam and that would win him the game. Extirpate prevents you from losing and doesn't die to your opponent having a cycler in hand.

5) Your opponent only has 1 type of win condition. *cough* Landstill *cough*

6) You're stalling for time. Usually against Landstill if you won game 1 you can just afk until time if you extirpate the Factories.

7) You're not sure what your opponent sideboarded in game 2, and that knowledge causes you to play differently.

So... is it worth it to have in your sideboard? Probably not, unless you have cards like Wasteland, Sinkhole, Duress, Thoughtseize, Cabal Therapy, etc. And not to brag or pretend that Extirpate is a skill card (generally there's only one target), if you time it properly and take full advantage of it, you can reap the rewards.

I generally try to avoid using it, though.

FoolofaTook

10-01-2008, 09:57 PM

Extirpate can be a killer from the sideboard in the right matchups. Against Landstill you can basically win off of the card by Extirpating their wincons, with no possible response from them.

It's a very situational card though and it's not that good in most matchups, only in the matchups where the opponent has a lot of control and few ways to win.

@Forbiddian - Landstill generally has 3 ways to win, Mishra's Factories, Eternal Dragon (probably 80% of the Landstill decks) and Decree of Justice (about the same.)

Goaswerfraiejen

10-01-2008, 10:02 PM

I approve of the amount of David Gearhart in this thread. It gladdens me.

Will you guys please--for the love of whatever you hold dear--stop this kind of self-aggrandizing inside joke? The rest of us couldn't care less about your e-penises, so please stop waving them about.

As for the question at hand, I'd like to applaud Forbiddian's last post: very well said. I have very little to add, save that, as with most cards, "how good" Extirpate is depends entirely on what you're relying on it to do. If you want to use it as blanket graveyard hate/removal, then, as has been pointed out countless times, it's not all that good. If, however (as Forbiddian pointed out), you're using it to deny your opponent resources in a game of attrition, then it's a truly excellent card. That means that when you sling Extirpate into your deck, you have to consider the decks that you want to use it against, as well as your own ability to capitalize on it. That last bit, obviously, is the real key to the problem.

Citrus-God

10-01-2008, 10:31 PM

In Cunning-Landstill, Extirpate is good against any Standstill mirror like Dreadstill and Landstill, Thrash, LtfL decks, and Ichorid.

In the Landstill mirror, I'd prefer my Turn 2 being a Wasteland on Factory followed up with an Extirpate on Factory. Because of this, you can start chaining card advantage through Standstills and such while your opponent is at a clear disadvantage in terms of card advantage. Also, Extirpating opposing Wastelands and DoJs also gives you an edge depending on the state.

Against Dreadstill, I never board out Standstills because I know for sure that having Extirpates gives me the edge against them. As long as I maintain card advantage against the deck, I can never lose... in fact, my track record against Dreadstill is like undefeated. Also, Extirpating Stifles and FoWs is boss....

Against Thrash, I'd usually go for the first threat in the yard or Wasteland. Stifles are easy to play around and arent very much of a threat if you get rid of Wastelands.

LftL and Ichorid was covered already...

Deep6er

10-02-2008, 01:04 AM

Clarification of the first statement: By mulliganing for Extirpate, your hand size is now effectively smaller because Extirpate is rarely card equity. So, supposing you mulligan to a five card hand with Extirpate, you're going to have to make do with just the four cards. So, those four cards had better fucking deal with whatever Extirpate didn't hit.

@Freakish: Sure, if they end up slowing down because they have to deal with Extirpate, that's good for you. However, Leyline and Crypt force the same issue. They have to slow down until they find an answer to it. However, Extirpate is guaranteed to only hit ONE relevant target. That means in game three (when they know that Extirpate is the only graveyard hate you have), they can just go as fast as possible, because getting Bridges/Narcomoebas/Ichorids will overwhelm your Extirpate(s). Thus, weakening the card.

It's true that Ichorid can just mulligan for answers to Leyline/Crypt. But, more importantly, they DON'T have to mulligan for answers to Extirpate. They'll either run into a Therapy before they hit a target, or you'll blow one and they'll continue to draw five or six cards a turn.

With Leyline/Crypt, it's much harder because they don't have the ability to "draw" as many cards as they can normally.

Also, I think for the example that you used, Shady should have definitely been playing Crypt. Leyline is difficult to replay for decks that don't have access to Dark Ritual, and I generally advise that decks that can't quickly replay Leyline should be playing Crypt because dealing with Pithing Needle is generally easier than dealing with 2BB.

I'm glad that you haven't lost to Ichorid with Extirpate yet. I've lost enough for both of us. Coming close to forty or so times. Out of about sixty games. Extirpate is not enough. Experience tells me this.

@Jaynel: Please tell me you're not serious. Wickerbough Elder, Indrik Stomphowler, Tin Street Hooligan, and Big Game Hunter are LUDICROUSLY insane against Dreadnought. The fact that those cards are GUARANTEED card advantage is a big goddamn deal. Extirpating those cards is so insanely awful that I can't even begin to describe it. Playing a better card would just be significantly better.

@Volt: Removing Explosives when they have Ruins is decent, but Crypting them would also stop any other cards they have that would work well with Ruins. Or, stopping the Ruins is a good way of dealing with it as well. Which are generally better than Extirpate.

@Forbiddian: Extirpate cannot create board advantage. It's functionally impossible. Please clarify what you were trying to say. I'm not nitpicking, I'm generally confused.

1) I would argue that control is weaker being down a card. Who's to say that the list doesn't have Burning Wish? Plus, you need to make sure that you have enough cards in hand to deal with their disruption and their large creatures. Dumping cards does not help that.

2) If you Crypt after a Loam, it's the exact same trade as Extirpating it. If they try to play around Crypt, the burden is on them. If you Crypt before a Loam, you actually make card parity but you're up on the mana investment. Plus, if you Crypt the Loam, they don't have any other lands in the graveyard so they don't have any other cards to get back even if they have a second loam.

3) Saying that looking at their hand is worth a card is vague and indeterminate bullshit. Under no circumstances is it a good idea to throw out a card for no other effect than to look at your opponents hand on the hopes that it will somehow magically save a card later.

4) Looking at your opponent's deck does not help you beat it. Why don't you run Extract? Hell, not only do you get to look at their deck (and by extension, infer what's in their hand), but you get to remove a card! You know why you don't? Because it's awful. Plus, I don't know where you're getting the idea that every combo decks has a transformational sideboard. TES sure as fuck doesn't. Most Belcher lists don't. Solidarity sure as fuck doesn't. Neither does SI/Fetchland Tendrils. Where are these transformational sideboard lists?

5) Making your opponent shuffle is of negligible value. If it's as valuable as you think, then why not tote the benefits of something like Soldier of Fortune? In some cases, it's actually beneficial to your opponent because you gave them a free shuffle effect. Considering the (almost, or at least it fucking feel like) omnipresence of Sensei's Divining Top, I could actually say this is a weakness.

6) The argument of time is terrible. Sure, it's a consideration, but what if you're losing? Then, you need more time. Plus, since there are arguments that it only affects the long game, doesn't that actually make it worse? If it's strength lies in inevitability, then you need to make sure that you don't draw a game you were going to win.

@Fool: How did you deal with the win conditions in the first place? Plus, instead of playing a card that you're guaranteed to have to sit on before you get any kind of use out of it, why not play a good card? You know, one that won't suck if you're losing.

@Go... whatever: No. No. It's cool. Also, I addressed all of Forbiddian's points, which include yours.

@Citrus: You say that they are at a clear disadvantage. But Wastelands on your Factories plus a Decree (which you've already said they have) means that you're also in trouble. Additionally, if they have Dragon, every Extirpate you draw gets distinctly worse. I would love for my opponent (assuming I'm playing a Landstill list that has Dragon/Factory/Decree like you said) for my opponent to assume that. Not only is he down two cards (Standstill and Extirpate), but he's also playing cards to stop my powerful strategies that he just shut off himself (by playing Standstill). That seems amazing for me.

Lego

10-02-2008, 01:24 AM

@Forbiddian: Extirpate cannot create board advantage. It's functionally impossible. Please clarify what you were trying to say. I'm not nitpicking, I'm generally confused.

What if your opponent has a Tarmogoyf in play, you have a Night of Souls' Betrayal in play, and there's a single card in your opponent's graveyard and none in yours?

/Pretending Extirpate is Good

Deep6er

10-02-2008, 01:42 AM

The Extirpate would still go to the graveyard keeping it a 0/1. Even pretending, there's no way.

Lego

10-02-2008, 01:50 AM

The Extirpate would still go to the graveyard keeping it a 0/1. Even pretending, there's no way.

Damn, you're right. So there's a Mirror Gallery and two Night of Souls' Betrayals. And there's a single card with two types in your opponent's graveyard and none in yours.

Makes you realize how absurd Extirpate is, huh?

Skeggi

10-02-2008, 04:10 AM

This thread is like a group of Muslims trying to convert a group of Christians and vice versa. Mac and PC. Mac and BK.

darkalucard

10-02-2008, 04:16 AM

@quicksilver:

Referring to your thoughts on extirpate seeing as I bet allot of the time you faced it, it was me.(KyleH) It didn’t do a very good job but honestly I still think in a non-blue control deck with absolutely no tempo, extirpate is the only card that gives me hope. I have beaten you once or twice with it. It does happen if ever so rare against Survival.

@freakish777:

Right on the money. Extirpate is there for the control mirror. If you’re playing control and you look at all your bad match-ups most of them involve recurring things and Extirpate is the best sideboard vs. this. It wins Control Mirrors, stops recurring Wasteland, Stops Loam, low threat count threshold builds and is good vs. Ichorid (combined with other hate)

Is there any argument that Extirpate should not be played in the following decks sideboards?

Landstill
The Rock (Not an Aggro Build)

And please do not say anything if you have not actually played these decks and tested extirpate in them. Otherwise you are bias because your feelings towards the card are from playing it wrong and in the wrong deck.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-02-2008, 04:31 AM

Yeah, I play slowroll decks, and I can name about a hundred cards I'm more terrified of than Extirpate. Even in a slow-roll scenario, it isn't "powerful enough to singlehandedly win you the mid-to-long game", and if you think it is, you're either incompetent or you test against incompetents.

If you want to beat Control, play mass LD, or something like Haunting Echoes, which is Extirpate with Replicate. If you want to beat graveyard decks, play Crypt. These strategies are counterable, but they do something when they resolve. Extirpate can't make the same promise.

Deep6er

10-02-2008, 04:36 AM

How about this? Go down to this thread (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7680) and look up the deck David Gearhart was playing.

Before I settled on Leyline, I was testing Extirpate. Everyone here (by "here" I mean the people I tested the deck ((in Virginia)) against) can tell you that I was playing Extirpate.

You know why I dropped it? Because it's awful. It wasn't having a high impact in any match up, and it was entirely too weak. The card disadvantage was beating the piss out of me in the Landstill mirror, and the fact that it could never affect the board made it an awful draw when I was losing or when I was trying to stabilize. That's not what you should be looking for in a sideboard card.

MasterC

10-02-2008, 06:41 AM

I don't know if Tier 2+ Decks are considered in this discussion, but in my Opinion Extirpate is created for Pox.

A slow controlish Deck that has the ability to put every single card of an opposing deck into the graveyard, and then extirpate it. (I'm not speaking of maindecking it, because the card has certainly a different degree of effectiveness against the different decks.)

Extirpate against ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh can be nuts, because of the small number of relevant cards it plays. If you take one of their creatures, or their splash color dual, or swords, or whatever hurts you most you can seriously cripple their deck, because all cantripping around wont bring them back their cards. And nobody can tell me that ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh isn't able to draw multiples of a single card in a midrange to late game with all their tops, brainstorms etc.

Extirpating a warchief or piledriver can also be a big relief, because the amount of pressure goblins can apply then decreases dramatically. And they also can easily draw into multiple copies of those cards with ringleaders, or search for it with matrons.

What I agree on is that extirpate as a standalone is a bad sideboard choice against ichorid. It only makes sense in decks that run different hate as well, like mass removal (deed, damnation, explosives) or other relevant hate (for example engineered plague)

In Aggro Decks like Eva Green, leyline seems to be the better choice.

insertnamehere

10-02-2008, 06:48 AM

It is simply a sideboard card against certain decks that gives you the ability to remove up to 4 key threats from Hand/Library/Graveyard.

matelml

10-02-2008, 08:21 AM

Is Cremate useful? For the people who don't know the card: Instant, B, Remove a card in target graveyard from the game, draw a card.

I never see it and I'm not sure how good it is, but if you think this card isn't playable, it's pretty unlikely extirpate is. 3 cards out of someone's library vs a card? I'd know what I'd choose. The fact that it's counterable seems kind of insignificant. Like: who would FoW that? Maybe on a Loam, but who plays Loams AND FoW's.

rleader

10-02-2008, 09:42 AM

don't know if Tier 2+ Decks are considered in this discussion, but in my Opinion Extirpate is created for Pox.

I agree: you win wars of attrition and can often beat even better control decks like 4 color landstill if you find your extirpates before they do (I've run into them although not everyone playing landstill uses them, obviously).

Peter_Rotten

10-02-2008, 10:00 AM

Extirpate can be a killer from the sideboard in the right matchups. Against Landstill you can basically win off of the card by Extirpating their wincons, with no possible response from them...

@Forbiddian - Landstill generally has 3 ways to win, Mishra's Factories, Eternal Dragon (probably 80% of the Landstill decks) and Decree of Justice (about the same.)

To be "good" against Factory, you need to kill it first (probably Wastelanded)

To be "good" against EDragon, you need to have the opponent cycle it first or you have to kill it.

To be "good" against Decree of Justice, well, Decree has to be in the yard. If Decree is in the yard, it was very very likely cycled for a bunch of soldiers marching on your grill.

Extirpate doesn't solve a single one of those cards. Each card was able to be used - a to produce a likely useful effect - before it gets Extirpated.

emidln

10-02-2008, 10:15 AM

Extirpate is amazing at denying specific threats to a combo deck. I use it for this reason in FT. In FT, it takes hard counters out of the equation allowing me to resolve Orim's Chant/Abeyance and win the game from there. It's also useful for the Peek effect in the control matchup. As for other uses, it's good at stalling vs Ichorid (specifically, if you can extirpate Cabal Therapies or Narcomoebas) for enough time to combo out. I did win agame once due to Extirpating a fetch out of my deck for the shuffle effect I've won games due to forcing my opponent to shuffle their deck with CB/Top in play. I'm sometimes able to KGrip + Extirpate enemy combo decks out of the game as well.

quicksilver

10-02-2008, 10:26 AM

freakish777

10-02-2008, 11:01 AM

@Freakish: Sure, if they end up slowing down because they have to deal with Extirpate, that's good for you.

It's very good for you.

However, Leyline and Crypt force the same issue. They have to slow down until they find an answer to it.

No they do not. Ichorid must find a proactive answer to Extirpate (a discard spell) as opposed to reactive answers to Crypt/Leyline (Chain/Neelde). Furthermore (this is a minor argument, so don't focus too much on it), with the most played discard spell in that deck (Therapy) there is a non zero chance they whiff against Extirpate in game 2 if they don't know what hate you brought in (while I think if you play Crypt you should play it immediately against Ichorid, not everyone does).

A key difference here is that if you do not draw Leyline or Crypt in your opening 7 but those 7 are playable, and Ichorid draws its answers to Leyline/Crypt, they haven't been slowed down at all (because they simply drop Needle naming Crypt, or worse still they just go off because they don't see Leyline). However if you're playing Extirpate and they draw the Therapy, when do they play it? Do they play it immediately? If you didn't draw the Extirpate, they whiff, think they're in the clear and start going nuts. If you then proceed to draw Extirpate you still get the utility out of the card (not the case with Crypt when they just drop Needle on it).

When you do draw the cards, Leyline is worse because it forces you to mulligan to find it, resulting in losses because they just Chain it while you're sitting around wishing you'd mulled to 5 to try and find Leyline, Force, and a blue card over the 6 you kept with just Leyline. Tormod's is worse because it can be played around (Putrid + Dredgers in hand means they rebuild).

There is no rebuilding from Extirpate. Those cards are gone.

However, Extirpate is guaranteed to only hit ONE relevant target.

Extirpate only needs to hit one relevant target.

That means in game three (when they know that Extirpate is the only graveyard hate you have), they can just go as fast as possible, because getting Bridges/Narcomoebas/Ichorids will overwhelm your Extirpate(s). Thus, weakening the card.

Again. Wrong. First, who says Extirpate is the only (graveyard) hate card I'm bringing in? Second, no, they really can't overwhelm you with what's left over after you Extirpate a Bridge/Ichorid, and overwhelming you without Narco is feasible but harder. Especially not if you've built correctly and have other general answers (Swords/Bolt for the first Ichorid/Narco, EE for zombie tokens, Deed for zombie tokens, if they slow roll against Deed, you eventually get to use it for 2 against Narcos, or 4 against Ichorids, hit Bridges with Extirpate, ok cool I'll land Plague naming Horror, good luck trying to beat me with Narcos and Dread Return, Extirpate Ichorid/Narco with Mogg Fanatic in play, which is far stronger than playing Crypt with Fanatic in play). Third, the second Crypt can still be rebuilt from. After the second Extirpate the game is literally over.

You're focusing on the hate cards like they're silver bullets, and this is incorrect. The hate cards for Ichorid should simply be part of an overall scheme to out "relevant card" them (just like any other matchup).

Aside: Trump very seldom exists in this format (due to the existance of Sinkhole, Wasteland, Moon effects, and Wizards typically pricing cards mana costs fairly), it definitely doesn't exist against Ichorid since they can answer every hate card.

Back on track: Only your relevant cards have to remove their relevant cards from the game. Bridge is the most relevant card in their deck. It enables the explosive combo kill. It enables savage beats, and endless chumpblocks if the dredge Ichorids.

or you'll blow one and they'll continue to draw five or six cards a turn.

This is where your argument hinges, and ultimately where it breaks down.

Those 5 or 6 cards a turn become significantly worse without the cards that now aren't in their deck/graveyard.

Ichorid is a good card. It's significantly worse without Bridge from Below (ie, it's manageable with Goyf/Swords/Grim Lavamancer/Plague/etc, eventually they run out of black creatures or you run into another hate card).
Narcomoeba is an Ok card. It's terrible without Bridge from Below (at best it beats for 1 a turn, Flashes back Therapy, or with 2 other creatures brings back a sizable GGT which eats Swords anyways).
Bridge from Below is rediculous. It's worse without Narcomoeba (any free creature that doesn't recur) and it's downright terrible without Ichorid.

If you disagree with the above 6 sentences, than I'm left to believe that Parcher and Anwar have "talked you into" losing against them (convinced you that Ichorid is an unwinnable match, when it is winnable) to boost their own prizes and prolong the playability of the deck.

With Leyline/Crypt, it's much harder because they don't have the ability to "draw" as many cards as they can normally.

With Leyline yes, they must find a Chain or hope Putrid gets there (not happening). With Crypt, it's temporary, as they'll simply apply enough pressure to force you to blow it, and then rebuild with the dredger still in their hand.

Also, I think for the example that you used, Shady should have definitely been playing Crypt. Leyline is difficult to replay for decks that don't have access to Dark Ritual, and I generally advise that decks that can't quickly replay Leyline should be playing Crypt because dealing with Pithing Needle is generally easier than dealing with 2BB.

No argument there. My point was simply that Leyline is terrible.

I'm glad that you haven't lost to Ichorid with Extirpate yet. I've lost enough for both of us. Coming close to forty or so times. Out of about sixty games. Extirpate is not enough. Experience tells me this.

What are you targetting with it?

One final point about Extirpate and Therapy. If they have yet to bin Bridges/Narcos/Ichorids and have binned a dredger and they Therapy you, and you're sitting on Extirpate and :b:, you shouldn't respond. There is a nonzero chance that they misread and name Swords/EE/Deed/Goyf/etc instead forcing them to draw/dredge another Therapy (and if they somehow haven't dredged a target by then, then you can respond and take out Therapies).

EDIT:

And I bet for every time you did that you lost 5 games to extirpate being a waste of a card.

Having played against emidln, I'd bet you're wrong.

I agree that a lot of players lose by playing their own cards incorrectly (Extirpate specifically), I don't think emidln is one of them.

Nightmare

10-02-2008, 11:15 AM

Some empirical data:

I have lost to Ichorid after removing their bridges. I have won with Ichorid after having my bridges removed.

I have lost to Ichorid after Extirpating Ichorid. I have won with Ichorid after having my Ichorids Extirpated.

I have never lost to Ichorid after successfully Crypting them. I have never been crypted and won while playing Ichorid.

I'm not saying these are the ultimate scenarios or deal make- or breakers. I'm just giving you some background.

I've found, on the whole, that there are 4 cards that answer Crypt in the Ichorid player's arsenal - 4x Needle. There are up to 8 that answer Leyline - 4x Chain, and 2-4 Ray of Rev or Emerald Charm. Both of these cards basically wreck the matchup in your favor if unanswered. Both can be countered, and the Needle can be EE'd, which you should be bringing in anyway.

There are between 4 and 8 answers to Extirpate - 4x Therapy, up to 4x Unmask. You can counter them, certainly.

Let's say that the Ichorid player has the ability to draw 1x relevant spell in its opener, but if it does, the fastest it can win is turn 3. I realize this is optimistic, but I think its accurate enough to work with. So, you have one hate card also. In almost EVERY situation, I would rather have Crypt than any other card in this situation.

undone

10-02-2008, 11:21 AM

Play against lands. Dont extirpate thier LFTL, and win without price of progress/combo kill. Extirpate is either game breaking or totaly terrible.

Although i sopose it could be good vs decks like say "its the fear" because when they go "Intuition at your EOT for Deed, deed, deed" or "CB,CB,CB" you can extirpate them still at end of turn. It isnt useless but it definately isnt as strong as some seem to think it is. This actualy would bring up a question "is cranial extraction playable?" :rolleyes: I still think not (unless you duress them and use it as an expensive mega discard spell.)

EDIT: although prehaps extracting tendrils on turn 2 in demon stompy could be the answer to stomping storm combo.

emidln

10-02-2008, 11:28 AM

When I see Extirpate, I invariably win the game. It's just that good when you don't completely suck building magic decks and playing magic decks. I can't actually remember the last time I boarded in Extirpate, saw it, and lost. Extirpate really is a house against blue-based control for combo decks. I don't board in Extirpate when unnecessary because I understand what my role is in matchups.

Against Aggro Loam, I have to win the game before my opponent deals lethal damage in a very quick manner. Extirpating LFTL doesn't stop the Terravore from smashing face. Consequently, I don't waste time boarding it in.

Against Ichorid, Extirpate pains with Orim's Chant to provide me enough time to go off in a manner free from cabal therapy. Extirpate stops Zombies from smashing my face by not allowing Zombies to get into play. It allows me to avoid losing my hand/chants to Cabal Therapy.

Against Landstill, I simply need to gain Chant advantage versus their hard counters and chant effects. Thus I use Duress and Extirpate to fish out Counterspell, Force of Will, and Orim's Chants until I resolve my own Chant unabated. I'm in it for the long haul here.

Against CB Aggro-Control, I'm looking to gain advantage by taking hard counters or counterbalances (meaning I won't need to find extra krosan grips). If I can make them go aggro, I'm in a much better position to resolve Chant and win the game.

Against non-CB U-based Aggro-Control, Extirpate functions very much like it does against Landstill. I hit Force of Will and they can't stop Orim's Chant. It pairs nicely with Duress and extra Chant effects in this matchup.

Summary:

When I see Extirpate against blue, I win the game. When I see it against Ichorid, I win the game. I don't see it against anything else because I'm not stupid enough to board it in.

@ Undone

Extirpate on Tendrils won't beat TES or FT. Both have alternate win conditions in either ETW or Grapeshot and FT, the only one that needs to sb it in (TES has access to both main), brings it in against black decks anyway.

@ Nightmare

Chain of Vapor on Tormod's Crypt is another option. It's fairly viable (you can crypt in response, but the Ichorid player hasn't put anything worthwhile in the yard yet either) and happens quite a bit in Vintage. I'd consider any Ichorid player who doesn't see this as a suspect pilot.

Deep6er

10-02-2008, 02:59 PM

@Emidln: Chaining Tormod's Crypt would only be good if you could win that turn. Otherwise, they'll just replay it. Since you likely boarded out the combo, that's going to be difficult. If you have good enough cards in your 'yard to win in one turn, then they'll just Crypt you.

If Extirpate is so good, then why don't you play four? Your build (as of September 26th) only contains two. If you're guaranteed to win the game every time you see it, then you should be playing four.

Your arguments neglect to mention that losing a card is even more painful for a combo deck than it is for a control deck. Sure, if you hit Counterbalance with Krosan Grip or Duress then Extirpate it, you don't have to worry about Counterbalance. But, you're also down two cards. Against a deck playing Force of Will and Daze (possibly Thoughtseize as well). With a swift clock.

@Undone: I would still say that it's bad because the triple card happens pretty rarely. I would only do it if the board was particularly bad for me (triple Deed) or if the board was empty (triple Counterbalance). Neither of those situations strengthens the card. In most other situations, it's not really going to help.

@Nightmare: That is the exact same data that I have Nightmare. I agree wholeheartedly.

@Freakish: You're crafting the scenarios in a very biased manner. You're assuming that they always have the answer to Crypt/Leyline, but go retarded when you have Extirpate. That's an unfair representation. I could answer your biased scenarios by bringing up anecdotal evidence where Anwar has beaten Extirpate (in some cases double or even triple Extirpate) with Ichorid. Quite a few times, actually.

Extirpate being your only grave hate is a reasonable assumption. Why in the fuck would you have Crypt AND Extirpate? Or Leyline? Or Jailer? That doesn't make any goddamn sense. Plus, they can overwhelm you easily because they no longer have to shift their plan. You have few relevant cards, and they can go about their business waiting for you to do something mildly irritating. They don't have the same worries of Crypt or Leyline stopping their ENTIRE plan, but just have to deal with you hitting one card while they're still drawing six or so. That's a trade I'll make all the time. Plus, if they're Therapying and missing, yet you still have Plague, what kind of Ichorid player are we talking about? Since you're not stopping them from dredging, they're going to "draw" more cards than you. Those cards include Cabal Therapy. Generally before turn 3. I've tried Extirpate and Engineered Plague. Generally doesn't work very well.

Those six sentences are pretty true. However, they are also misleading. You haven't said whether or not you would mulligan for Extirpate. Therefore, if your first couple turns are just using the good cards you already have, they're going to have full access to those good cards that Extirpate would hit. I would absolutely mulligan for Crypt/Leyline though. That's because those cards have a much bigger impact than Extirpate. What you're missing is the very important part where you won't always have Extirpate because mulliganing for it is awful.

Plus, there's quite a bit of evidence (anecdotal and otherwise) that indicates that they can still function as a shitty aggro deck that will beat you. Stinkweed Imp actually kills Tarmogoyf, while all of their creatures (with the exception of Golgari Grave Troll) are pretty cheap. They can just throw a ton of guys at you which will eventually get through or stabilize the board. Both scenarios are bad for you.

I've always targeted those cards mentioned. Except for one game where my opponent mulliganed to three and went land, Careful study, discard Grave Troll plus something useless. I Extirpated Grave Troll there. I still lost (I didn't get above two mana for the entire game). He beat me to death with Putrid Imp, Narcomoeba, Stinkweed Imp, and Ichorids. I Extirpated all but the one Narcomoeba that he hardcast, and all of his Bridges.

@Master C: What's important though is that Pox has to operate on limited resources. Losing a card is a big deal to them, and throwing out cards that don't affect the board/hand is going to be even more problematic. You already have so much card disadvantage that you're destroying your topdecking capabilities. Every Dark Ritual, and every Extirpate are bad draws when you're facing down a single creature and no board.

emidln

10-02-2008, 03:06 PM

Forbiddian

10-02-2008, 04:40 PM

They can also Ray the Crypt hardcast or off of FB. I was going to point the chain of vapor thing out, although it's much weaker in Legacy because you can't go like:

Bounce your hate end of turn, activate Bazaar, win off of a second bazaar activation during my upkeep.

@ Deep6er: You're obviously failing to see the forest in the trees. Obviously cards like extract are terrible. Obviously peek is awful. That proves nothing and we're both stupider for being forced to read your list of spells-that-do-1/100th-as-much-as-Extirpate.

"Grizzly Bears is a bad card. If you agree, why would you play Tarmogoyf? It's just a little bit better it's SOOOO conditional! Grizzly Bears is always there for you, but sometimes Tarmogoyf is just a 0/1.

I've never lost a game after resolving Grizzly Bears in a T1.5 game. My friends have never lost games after resolving Grizzly Bears in recent years. Everyone I know has lost dozens of games after resolving Tarmogoyfs. Clearly, Grizzly Bears > Tarmogoyf."

See how that statement is totally fucking meaningless? Well, mine's not, because it sarcastically points out the flaws in the previous arguments, but the previous arguments are arguing that sample sizes of like 10 games with questionable opponents and situations is a strong replacement for evidence.

Extirpate is more than just like a conditional counterspell or something with dubious impact on the game state. It's a combination of a number of factors that make it into a powerful card. Although individually those factors have a small (although non-zero) impact on the game, each adds another possible situation where the Extirpate player comes out on top and that eventually adds up to real card advantage. I can’t believe I have to point this out, but here goes (again):

If all Extirpate ever did was remove a single card in a graveyard from the game and then remove the three library copies, it would be a terrible card.

If all it did was let you see their hand, it'd be a terrible card.

If all it did was let you see what cards they boarded in or which tech cards to expect, it'd be a terrible card.

If all it did was hardcounter top tutors and hard intuitions, it'd be a terrible card.

If all it did was marginally mess up your opponent’s land to business ratio (and mana curve in general), it’d be a terrible card.

If it did nothing but was uncounterable, it'd be a hilarious and terrible card.

Fortunately it does all of those AND it gives the ~25-45% mean probability that they have extra cards in hand. Lets look at an example where you Extirpate Force of Will blind.

If they did not mulligan and Force of Will does not affect their mulligan habits at all (a slightly unfair statistical assumption, but bear with me) and they brainstormed to keep Force of Wills on turn 2 (so they've seen 7 starting cards + the draw on turn 2 + the brainstorm and kept every Force of Will), and they Force of Will your card not pitching the other Force of Will, there's a 33.3% mean chance that they have an extra Force of Will in hand that Extirpate knifes. (Yeah, the situation is pretty specific, but I wanted to start with a tangible value like 33%).

This is Extirpating blind, if you have something like you saw a card or two in your opponent's hand because your opponent dropped his cards shuffling or you can read your opponent, or you have Thoughtseize or Duress, the odds change go up in your favor for being able to grab a second copy.

Anyway, yeah, 33.3% chance to knife a card is not good. It’s horrible. I agree. But it does more than just 33.3% chance of duressing my opponent.

I also remove any chance that my opponent could counter my spells when he's tapped out. I also remove probably 50% of his countermagic entirely. The confidence that I can play with, knowing for a fact that he can do nothing while tapped out is worth a lot. I don't waste my time and my cards baiting the wrong spells. This makes the way I play better, just knowing that he could never ever have another Force of Will (except off of Cunning Wish, which would just make it the worst Counterspell every printed).

It also forces my opponent to compensate. He knows that I know that if he taps out, he's fucked. He also has half the expected counter magic. He can no longer afford to "throw away" counters at my strong-but-not-gamebreaking magic, and he's likely to lose most counterwars anyway. He also can’t afford to go balls-out on a mainphase play because it opens the door up for everything in my hand to come down. He probably can, but he might erroneously choose to play it safe, giving me free tempo.

Of course in addition to that (still for the low, low price of 67% of a card), I get to know exactly what's in his hand. If I see crap, I don't waste my Thoughtseize just yet. I know exactly which threat to counterspell (and I know exactly what his options are for the next turn (and most of his options for the next few turns). I could see that he did not have the threat support to ride a Goyf, and he was trying to bait into a Back to Basics. Also, if I see any card like Force Spike, Disrupt, Divert, Misdirection, you know -- the tricky shit, it'd save me AT LEAST 1 card because I could just play around the Disrupt the entire game. Or he might reveal two counterbalance and a sensei's divining top so I know to counter or get Grip ready.

A benefit I haven’t mentioned but that IS important is that Extirpating Force of Will increases his chance of drawing a land slightly. Against a 24 land opponent, if you extirpate non-land, he’ll draw 3% more lands than he expects (equivalent of running 2 extra land in the deck… like 26 land instead of 24 land). If you extirpate land, it’s doubly effective because he’s already fetched one (or you killed one), so his land count is already down and he could be in danger of mana screw. If you run 24 base and you lose four to extirpate, it’s the equivalent of running 19.5 land (and potential color screw).

Lastly (other than obscure things like time issues which rarely come up), I get to look through his entire deck and see if he boarded in anything tricky. He might have an alternative win con or I might find out that the Mana Leak that owned me game 1 and that I was playing around all of game 2 was a singleton, and that I shouldn’t worry about it. Or that he has Divert and Disrupt in for this game. Or that he boarded out his Swords and my factories are safe except vs. Keggers.

It’s really hard to quantify all this stuff, but don't pretend that there's a 0% chance that he has a second FoW in hand. And that there's a 0% chance that he has a critical surprise card like Daze, Force Spike, Disrupt in hand. And that there is a 0% chance that he is baiting for something (or just as importantly he’s not baiting for anything). And that there's a 0% chance that he has a combo that you weren't expecting. And that there’s a 0% chance that he boarded in anything fun. And that you never get an opportunity to really abuse Extirpate by knifing a Life from the Loam or Intuition or Tutor or Bridge or whatever else.

THOSE assumptions are completely ridiculous and they’re assumptions that almost everyone seems to take for granted about the Extirpate debate (which has boiled down to whether Tormod’s Crypt or Extirpate is stronger against Ichorid).

Somebody earlier pointed out that Extirpate is a card where it’s easy to see where it wins you the game and it’s hard to see where it loses you the game, and so that people way overvalue Extirpate.

I tend to think it’s the opposite. Sometimes you get a really flashy win off of it, but a lot of the wins are because you wrote down the contents of your opponent’s hand and used that information to help you develop a winning strategy, or you reduced your opponent’s deck’s synergy and cohesiveness in the long run, allowing you to win the slow battle of attrition (even though you started the race down a card).

Maagler

10-02-2008, 04:56 PM

Something funny jut happened, I lost to extripate on mws and decided to troll and found this. I think extripate is a good card against certain decks. In the instance that I lost I was playing tempo thresh and they extripated a goyf, leaving me with no more kill conditions.

I also have been playing Ichorid for a while, and have never been hindered enough to loose a game with one extripate. I have found that the extripate need backup, like a tormods or another extripate to hinder Ichorid enough to win.

summary:

+1 for extripate against deck that have few kill cons
-1 for extripate doing a great job against Ichorid

Afro

10-02-2008, 05:30 PM

I don't have anything to bring to this discussion other than Extirpate is the new Lava Dart.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-02-2008, 06:50 PM

I don't have anything to bring to this discussion other than Extirpate is the new Lava Dart.

QFT. Man, this is an old skool reference.

The giant fucking problem with Extirpate is that it's not reliable. That makes it bad. Unreliable cards are bad as a rule. Leyline and Crypt do exactly what you want them to do; destroy graveyard based decks if they're not answered. Often the answering gives you the time you need to win anyway, because, hey, those cards are both free. It's a huge tempo swing at worst.

Also, Relic of Progenitus. It's not tempo-free, but damned that card looks sexy.

Grizzly Bears does what you want it to do, reliably. It's always a 2/2 beater. It's still terrible, but it does have the advantage of reliability.

Extirpate? You don't know what the fuck Extirpate is going to do. Maybe it removes the 4-of your opponent needs to win! Maybe you shuffle away some bad cards he couldn't get rid of with Top! Maybe you spend a card and a mana reducing the odds of him drawing a marginally relevant card (and perhaps increasing the chances of him drawing a more relevant card) for the remaining handful of turns before the game's over.

It's a coinflip card in disguise. You don't play Fiery Gambit, why the fuck would you play Extirpate?

mercenarybdu

10-02-2008, 09:27 PM

The card is a real ass wooper if you know how to use it the right way or iuf you stick it in the right prototype.

I was even daring enough to slip in a full play set in my main prototype that everyone dismissed as always.

The Rack

10-02-2008, 09:41 PM

I was even daring enough to slip in a full play set in my main prototype that everyone dismissed as always.

I'm weeping tears of apathy :cry: .

Extirpate is a strong card, there's no arguing that, but I absolutely love playing Leyline. It wrecks Survival. Keep in mind that I play funkbrew... I love dropping leyline forcing survival to get harmonic and kill it, while i vindicate or deed away their survival. It's not dead later on in the matchup either. I really like Leylione but that's me. I've thought about joining the extirpate club but I want to destroy Ichorid.

Nightmare: How fast was your kill after your ichorids and brisged were destroyed. That affects a lot of the arguability too.

FoolofaTook

10-02-2008, 10:53 PM

To be "good" against Factory, you need to kill it first (probably Wastelanded)

To be "good" against EDragon, you need to have the opponent cycle it first or you have to kill it.

To be "good" against Decree of Justice, well, Decree has to be in the yard. If Decree is in the yard, it was very very likely cycled for a bunch of soldiers marching on your grill.

Extirpate doesn't solve a single one of those cards. Each card was able to be used - a to produce a likely useful effect - before it gets Extirpated.

The first two are fairly easy, because as you point out Wasteland is a fixture in the format with even a higher presence in decks splashing black, and EDragon gets cycled a lot to get white mana on the table, particularly against decks playing Wasteland.

Decree of Justice is another story, although it gets cycled occasionally to provide chump blockers against a Goyf it can easily sit in the opponent's hand until forced out by events or emerges to win the game when the opponent has the upper hand.

My point on Extirpate against Landstill is that many decks that would employ Extirpate in that role are at a real disadvantage in the Landstill matchup and unlikely to win without some way of turning the tables in a big way and Extirpate represents one way to do that which is very hard to handle for a Landstill player.

I actually sided in Extirpates in my last tourney against Landstill and after winning game one I lost two in a row with two Extirpates in the mix, including a recurring Extirpate in game two that removed Force of Will, Decree of Justice and Eternal Dragon. The problem? No Wastelands in the two games and a Landstill player who would not put Mishra's at risk after seeing Extirpate used. A Wasteland in either game and I win the match but it just didn't happen. Not Extirpates fault, my fault for not having Ponders in the list, a late change that proved disastrous.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-02-2008, 11:24 PM

Anyone remember the hype around Ghost Quarter? That's really the card that Extirpate reminds me of the most. Peoples can't count CA.

thefreakaccident

10-02-2008, 11:43 PM

Anyone remember the hype around Ghost Quarter? That's really the card that Extirpate reminds me of the most. Peoples can't count CA.

I believe that in a reactive strategy, extirpate is a much more reliable card.

Leyline is a turn four answer unless you muligan for it.

Personally, I love a free hymm to tourach, or hymm plus against an opponent who is desperate for a leyline, especially if I am packing bounce/whatever for it.

Extirpate, unlike leyline, can be cantripped for/dug up/tutored for reliably without incident... instead of mulliganing for it.

Extirpate is also a much more versatile card all around... being able to take out all of a certain card can be very potent sometimes, especially in today's metagame.

Saying that 'pate is bad because it is card disadvantage is a sorry excuse to not run it.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-02-2008, 11:49 PM

Uhhh.

No, card disadvantage is a great reason not turn a card.

I mean, that's why Sunscour isn't the hot shit.

Card advantage matters. The pretense that it doesn't is idiotic and symptomatic of the laziness endemic in Legacy strategic thought. The "two equally hot chicks" phenomenon, if you will.

The fact that you can play pretty much any card you want in Legacy is factual, not normative.

Atwa

10-03-2008, 12:41 AM

I really don't understand why some people call the card bad.

Sure, it isn't an auto-include in every deck, however it really has it's use in certain decks. Overhyped? Sure, it still is. Bad? Not really.

Omega

10-03-2008, 01:03 AM

Extirpate is a good card, it certainly isnt the card we believe it to be.

Many have said it already, but one must realize that Extirpate is good only in slow decks. You dont usually win a game from resolving an Extirpate (Unless wasteland on TRopical island extirpate against ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh, IE, removing some bridges/ichorid or whatever)

I see extirpate as a way of limiting the kill conditions of my opponent or his responses. To lose all your tarmogoyf (doesn't you would have drawn a second one) hurts the deck. You can say whatever you want, but that is true. Bad use of Extirpate happens when you remove the wrong card or when you remove a card that is of no threat to your deck. I have seen many time people removing Force of will but they also play Duress/Thoughtseize. In my sense, this is stupid. You simply use duress to discard the fow before playing a spell, and saving that extirpate on relevant targets

Also, Extirpate is so much better than Leyline. Leyline is like the most limited SB card ever (exagerated). Does it worth 4 slots? (some argues that you dont need 4. To respond to them, this is very stupid. How do you expect to get leyline in your starting hand reliably without 4? Also, talking about getting it in starting hand, leyline does nothing or little thing when played on turn 4. Talk about a worse SB card, please)

On Card disadvantage. It's not always Card disadvantage. To pay 1 black, to remove a single cards from deck/hand/grave AND to get information on hand, is not Card disadvantage in my opinion. We can also add that it has possibility of affecting the opponent's hand. Suppose you extirpate a creature. He might have 1-2 copy in hand.

Bourgeoise

10-03-2008, 04:02 AM

Many of you are saying that extirpating a certain card will weaken your opponents deck enough that the card disadvantage is worth it but one point I don't see being made enough is that even though you got rid of all their tarmogoyfs or all of their life from the loams they will still draw a card. Extirpate does not say remove all these cards and on the turn you would draw named card skip that draw.

If a deck loses because you extirpate away a win condition then it probably deserves to lose and not because you used extirpate but because their deck is poorly designed with only one path to victory. Surely people playing bad decks with only one or two win conditions isn't a good reason to run a card that is dead until something of value hits your opponents graveyard.

Also, many of these arguments are assuming that cards will hit the graveyard that are worth extirpating. Unless you know the person's hand it just doesn't seem worth it to extirpate something that doesn't recur itself, have an ability from the graveyard, or isn't their main win condition.

Using extirpate without knowledge of someone's hand in an attempt to actually affect the game is like trying to blind flip a 3 drop for your conterbalance, no skill involved just luck. Oh look, I extirpated your fetchland, damn you don't have any more of that fetchland in your hand, say what? that fetch in your graveyard means you still got a land into play? I may as well have just mulliganed to 6 and boarded out those extirpates.

Edit: Actually, everyone here should run extirpate as a 16 of mainboard (This card is hotter than hot). See you all at the Source Tourney!

frogboy

10-03-2008, 04:25 AM

Card advantage matters. The pretense that it doesn't is idiotic and symptomatic of the laziness endemic in Legacy strategic thought. The "two equally hot chicks" phenomenon, if you will.

This deserves a separate thread, but some cards are a lot more relevant than others; I'd almost always rather cast Intuition and do something retarded with it in ITF than cast Standstill and draw three random cards.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-03-2008, 04:37 AM

Extirpate doesn't have that level of versatility. If it were a one mana, split second Cranial Extraction, it'd probably be worth the hype it's getting. But the fact that the card has to be played first simply limits it on a number of levels. A lot of the cards you most want to hit, whether Devastating Dreams, Decree of Justice, Pernicious Deed, or Tendrils of Agony or whatever, you really can't afford to let an opponent put them in the graveyard the natural way most of the time. This reduces you to playing bad combos with discard. The card's being compared to graveyard hate because that's the limit on versatility it has; unless the opponent buries the cards for you, most often the card is simply shit. Removing all their Tarmogoyfs is terrible because it assumes that first they've drawn a Tarmogoyf and it's already dead. And it still doesn't answer the next threat. The damning tension is that the more you want the card in their graveyard gone from their deck, the more damage it's probably already done to you just by getting there. How many Standstills, Sinkholes, Goblin Ringleaders or whatever does the opponent really have to go through to win, especially when you're throwing away cards to prevent a possible draw off the top?

If you're just so desperate to cripple an opponent's late game, anyway, I know this little card called Haunting Echoes...

socialite

10-03-2008, 09:45 AM

Reliability Chart:

[1]
Basic Island
-------
Squire
-------
Peter_Rotten's Personal Computer
-------
-------
Extripate
-------
Falling Star
[10]

FoolofaTook

10-03-2008, 10:38 AM

Peter_Rotten

10-03-2008, 10:45 AM

I believe the appropriate comparisons for Extirpate in terms of effectiveness in Legacy are Krosan Grip and Cabal Therapy. Krosan Grip is a card that is either invaluable (probably a bit less than 50% of the time) or next to useless, depending mainly on what you are facing and how the opponent chooses to deploy assets. Cabal Therapy is a card that requires a significant support element to play effectively against most decks and that is dicey in terms of actual card advantage gained by playing it. Both Grip and Therapy can be decisive cards, however they can also be limiters.

All three of the cards require some foreknowledge of what the opponent is playing to reach their highest levels of effectiveness. All three can be essentially useless in game one depending on what the opponent is playing.

This is, I believe, doesn't really help either side of the debate. It's like saying StP is only good against creatures. Or Islands are only good if you are playing blue cards.

Also, Grip affects the board. It kills a problematic Enchantment/Aritfact.

Therapy can be a bad peek, but more often than not, it is at least a Thoughtsieze without life loss. And sometimes it is decent to amazing card advantage.

Illissius

10-03-2008, 10:52 AM

Anyone remember the hype around Ghost Quarter? That's really the card that Extirpate reminds me of the most. Peoples can't count CA.

No need to go back that far. Extirpate's first debut is far enough. Back when people thought the card was oh so broken, and enamored of the fact that you could even Extirpate your opponent's fetchland. (Who'll likely thank you for it.)

All I'm saying is that it's an extremely useful tool against Loam decks. As a control deck, it turns your game plan from "pray" into "Extirpate Loam, counter Wish, kill some dudes" (and if it's not Aggro Loam, they're not even very big dudes), which is eminently doable. It's great here precisely because it's so much more reliable than the other options. With any one-shot grave removal like Crypt, they can save Loam with a cycling land (and hold back a useful land or two in hand or play), or just draw into another. Leyline is only really good if you draw it in your opening hand, and it can be Gripped. Countertop is a two card combo you need to assemble, and can be Gripped. You might easily find yourself under Wastelock before you can get off Cranial Extraction or Haunting Echoes. Extirpate is a single mana and makes sure Loam (or Wasteland) is gone for good, no matter what. (Assuming you can counter Burning Wish, which is not hard). I'm entirely willing to take a short term hit on technical "card advantage" if it's going to make almost literally the rest of my opponent's deck turn to shit. (By the way, is Crypt not also card disadvantage, by the same metric?)

(Note that this is primarily from the perspective of a blue based, long game control deck which doesn't necessarily run Countertop and/or Goyf maindeck. If anyone wants to argue that any deck where Extirpate is good is bad, feel free, but you're on much shakier ground there, I think.)

TheCramp

10-03-2008, 11:15 AM

This reminds me of Jamie Wakefield’s issue with thawing glaciers in reverse. He knew intellectually it was a good card, that he should play it, but he hated the card for various eccentric reasons. And, despite it being good, he faired worse when he used it, for various eccentric reasons. I think that people who like extirpate, play it despite that it is card disadvantage because the information it provides them, the opportunities it presents and the cards theoretical potential interests them. So like Wakefield in reverse, they play a card that isn’t as good as some other list of similar cards, yet it helps them play better, and they enjoy their experience playing more. Which does matter, and I for one always play better when I like the cards I have in my deck. I never do well playing some meta-game decision that I am not committed too.

I tend to agree with Deep6er, my crypts hold a spot in many sideboards, and my one extirpate sits in my trade binder. But I don’t think that I would ever tell any one who really loved the card to replace it, because that matters.

It matters because there is not some scale with good magic player on one side, and shitty magic player on the other, and we all fall on that one line somewhere. People come to the game with different interests and expectations. And not like some “the archetypes of magic players” crap like Maro writes about, but even among top competitors, there is a huge range of skills and points of entry. (Points of entry being why you play, what drives you, why do you care, etc.)

The types of things that Forbiddian is talking about, seeing their hand, seeing their deck, shuffling their deck, etc as a byproduct of a reasonable (yet not tire one) card, matters. They are the kind of thing that I can imagin a (type of) GOOD player wants to know, and 'pate provides that information. While the primary ability of ‘pate may be a bit of a coin toss, those by-products are not, they are always there.

emidln

10-03-2008, 11:48 AM

Extirpate fulfills a role that very few other cards in magic can actually perform. It, along with a handful of other cards, can completely deny a strategy independent of opponent's card advantage over you and their ability to manipulate their hand. The strategy that I'm most concerned with, my opponent's ability to play spells that negate my own spells is a role that Extirpate only has a few potential equals to in the entire game (Meddling Mage and Cranial Extraction being the least disruptable). Extirpate is a lot better than either of those two cards in decks that, if left to their own strategy, do not care about the "in play" zone. This is because Extirpate can efficiently deny and opponent the ability to execute a particular strategy (hard counters and split-second shuffling are the strategies of interest to me) in such a way that is difficult to deal with (manipulating your own graveyard with triggers or replacement effects is far harder than manipulating any other zone). Meddling Mage does the same thing, in a less limited way even, but Mage is far more vulnerable to an opponent's arsenal of Magic. Cranial Extraction provides the same lack of limitations, but it requires a heftier mana investment at a slower speed (and can be countered much easier).

For this function of denying an opponent a particular strategy, I submit that Extirpate is the absolute best at what it does. The issue is that many players have a mistaken view that Extirpate is merely graveyard hate. Even against Ichorid, you are not hating their graveyard as much as you are denying them access to a limitless supply of zombies, massive hand disruption, or free creatures.

Hanni

10-03-2008, 12:07 PM

Just a quick chime-in, since I haven't read this whole discussion yet:

I'm not understanding why Extirpate is being labeled bad because it is card disadvantage when other graveyard hate is also card disadvantage. Leyline comes out of hand and sits on the table; it can be considered virtual card advantage, depending on the matchup it comes in against... but it's still card disadvantage initially. Especially if you couldn't mulligan into it and cannot hardcast it. Crypt is, again, card disadvantage... yes it hits multiple cards in a graveyard, but Extirpate hits multiple cards too.

I'm not arguing here whether or not cards like Leyline or Crypt are stronger than Extirpate. I'm simply questioning why the card is being argued as bad on the pretense of card disadvantage when the other forms of graveyard hate are also card disadvantage.

Omega

10-03-2008, 12:15 PM

The way i understood people calling it bad is because it doesnt affect the game state.

Robert

Nightmare

10-03-2008, 12:16 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-03-2008, 12:36 PM

Ebony Charm has versatility at least.

The thing about Extirpate is that all it really does is graveyard removal. And there's usually more effective graveyard removal, unless you're really that worried about counters. Hulk-Flash was actually one of those matchups where you might want Extirpate over Crypt. Maybe if Cephalid Breakfast were big again. But Life from the Loam and Ichorid have other things to play around with. Crypting a twenty card graveyard tends to set them back permanent like, though.

Forbiddian

10-03-2008, 12:55 PM

Did everyone ignore my posts about how Extirpate is reasonably effective in situations where it's NOT graveyard removal?

Probably. Whatever, keep talking about how you'd rather have Tormod's Crypt than Extirpate in one specific matchup. Examples like that are totally relevant to the overall effectiveness of Extirpate.

nitewolf9

10-03-2008, 01:13 PM

Did everyone ignore my posts about how Extirpate is reasonably effective in situations where it's NOT graveyard removal?

Reasonably effective is definitely not a good reason to run a card in the board. I want all my sideboard cards to be devastating at what they're supposed to do. As yard hate, extirpate is not devastating. It is no where near as effective as crypt, leyline, or jailer against ichorid, and I don't think it is better against aggro loam either. In other matchups it can be mediocre to ok. I can see a slight argument for a combo deck like fetchland tendrils to have a few in the board, but even there it seems like there could be something better.

The decks against which extirpate is a bomb are few and far between. If you are running yard hate that doesn't at least hose ichorid you should probably reconsider that slot.

MTG Guru

10-03-2008, 02:00 PM

Extirpate is definitely a situational card that should be only included in SBs, if that. But has anyone tried abusing it with Isochron Scepter? I'm pretty sure that if coupled with discard and removal it might actually be pretty decent on a stick. But that's probably a horrible idea anyway.

freakish777

10-03-2008, 02:37 PM

For starters, let me say that my wireless network card at home is causing me issues so I can only reply at work. So I have to be brief (and likely come across as rude, they aren't meant to be), and won't get as many chances to respond as I'd like.

For the record this entire post pertains only to Extirpate vs. Ichorid.

@Freakish: You're crafting the scenarios in a very biased manner. You're assuming that they always have the answer to Crypt/Leyline, but go retarded when you have Extirpate.

You haven't been paying attention (re-read earlier posts).

Scenario 1. You draw hate, they don't draw an answer. I specifically said "Tormod's Crypt can be rebuilt from. There is no rebuilding from Extirpate, those cards are gone." Granted in that argument you aren't reducing them to nothing, but my previous argument stands, with Extirpate they 5~6 cards a turn (or more) they're seeing are significantly worse, with Tormod's the 5~6 cards they're seeing are just as good as before.

In this scenario, in my opinion Extirpate has a slight advantage over Crypt.

Scenario 2. You draw hate, they draw an answer that prevents your hate from doing anything.

In this scenario, in my opinion there's no difference, you get destroyed (hence it was left out of previous reasoning, I'm only interested in games where we can measure the differences).

Scenario 3. You don't draw hate in your opening hand (keep the hand) and then proceed to draw it later, they draw an answer. This is one of the scenarios I focused on because Extirpate has a tremendous advantage here. If they draw Needle, they play it. Nothing Crypt can do about that until you draw Deed/EE/Chain of Vapor/whatever, giving them the tempo your hate card is supposed to buy you. With a discard spell though, they're going to play it immediately, they aren't going to sit around waiting until they think you've drawn Extirpate, and if they do, you're playing it in response at that point.

In this scenario, in my opinion Extirpate has a monstrous advantage over Crypt.

Extirpate being your only grave hate is a reasonable assumption. Why in the fuck would you have Crypt AND Extirpate? Or Leyline? Or Jailer?

Have you been paying attention to Ichorid in Extended? They have the exact same graveyard hate cards for it (Jailer, Extirpate, Crypt, Leyline). Just about every play in Extended is packing 8 SB cards if they want to beat Ichorid. Seeing as how we have Brainstorm, I've cut to 6.

Do you feel confident enough with a less than 40% chance of seeing your most relevant cards after a game 1 loss?

I'm not.

Plus, they can overwhelm you easily because they no longer have to shift their plan. You have few relevant cards, and they can go about their business waiting for you to do something mildly irritating.

Ok, let's rank cards revelance, because I think you're undervaluing some staple cards against Ichorid.

Extirpate/Crypt/Leyline/Jailer are the most relevant cards in this match.

After those, Swords is very relevant because they force the opponent to dredge another Ichorid (or Narco is you had to off Narco first). Swords in conjunction with Extirpate can be extremely powerful. A hand like:

2 fetch, 2 Swords, Extirpate, etc

if you manage to Extirpate Ichorid should be hard to beat as you'll end up Swordsing 1 or 2 Narcos (or Putrid & Narco) in their draw step, preventing them from being able to make any sort of relevant token army. If you manage to Extirpate Bridges instead and Swords still solves Putrid and still keeps Ichorid off for good. I'm not interested in cards by themselves. I'm interested in 60 cards working together. Swords + Extirpate (where I can play in whichever order and likely maximize them, Extirpating a Narco and Swordsing an Ichorid, or whatever) > Swords + Crypt (where I have to wait to Crypt first, kinda like playing Wrath, then Swords afterwards).

Tarmogoyf while nowhere near as relevant as the hate or Swords still provides a blocker that Ichorid has to get around. 2 Goyfs + Extirpate on a Bridge can also be powerful as they now need to get in around your blockers. Tarmogoyf + Extirate (here you constantly block) just a little bit < Tarmogoyf + Crypt (here you Crypt and beat for a turn or two and then return to blocking).

EE/Deed in the worst case scenario where you activate them are a Fog (not very relevant). In conjunction with Extirpate on Ichorid, they are now a full on Wrath of God, or a Wrath that leaves them with a couple 2/2s (if you hit Narcos/Putrid with Deed). EE/Deed + Extirpate (they don't rebuild after Extirpate, making EE/Deed a Wrath) > EE/Deed + Crypt (they rebuild after Crypt, EE/Deed as a fog).

They don't have the same worries of Crypt or Leyline stopping their ENTIRE plan,

Leyline does in fact stop their entire plan (and forces an answer). Crypt does not. Crypt simply cause them to "combo twice." Now "comboing twice"/rebuilding is a pain, but it doesn't "stop their entire plan" in the long run.

A decent Ichorid player will have at least 1 Dredger in his/her hand after you activate Crypt to get going again. You have yet to address this argument.

but just have to deal with you hitting one card while they're still drawing six or so.

Not all card advantage is created equally. Let's say that without Extirpate having resolved, 3 of those 6 cards (50%) are relevant (10 dredgers, 4 Ichorids, 4 Bridges, 4 Narcos, 4 Therapies, 3~4 Deep Analysis, am I missing something? 29~30 cards we want in our graveyard, 13~14 of which are only good for putting more cards in our bin and don't directly affect the board or opponent's hand, they indirectly affect it if they mill "something good"). Taken to the extreme, if I Extirpate Bridge, Ichorid, and Narcomoeba, you really should not care one bit how many cards Ichorid dredges a turn. Clearly we don't (typically) play in extreme situations, however that doesn't change the fact that with 4 Ichorids/Bridges/Narcos taken out of the equation that of those 6 cards, we're now only at 44% of them being things that are useful in our bin, and on top of that, one fourth of the "something goods" (Bridge/Ich/Narco/Therapy) can't be seen ever, and the other "something goods" become substantially worse. This is gigantic. And you have yet to address this argument.

Since you're not stopping them from dredging, they're going to "draw" more cards than you.

See above.

I've tried Extirpate and Engineered Plague. Generally doesn't work very well.

For reference, this is usually only relevant coming out of the board of a deck that plays Dark Ritual. I neglected to put in a "(if you're playing Eva Green)" at the end of that sentence.

You haven't said whether or not you would mulligan for Extirpate.

I do not take shortcuts on mulligans. In a tournament setting I almost always look at my entire hand and consider whether the individual hand is good enough against my opponent's average hand. This is because I don't care about individual cards, but my 60 cards being able to work together to beat my opponent's 60 cards (obviously some of those 60 cards are better than others, and some work better in conjunction than others).

I really cannot answer that question well. If you want to post some example hands (given a 60 card postboard deck) and ask if I'd mulligan, I'd be happy (though it will take a while given no internet at home temporarily) to give a Yes/No and some reasoning.

Generally, my hand has to be exceptional to not keep without a hate card against Ichorid.

Therefore, if your first couple turns are just using the good cards you already have, they're going to have full access to those good cards that Extirpate would hit.

Irrelevant. If I'm keeping an exceptional hand (without hate), I fully expect to draw into a hate card before they're able to mount an overwhelming position.

I would absolutely mulligan for Crypt/Leyline though.

And end up getting smashed when you can't deal with them Chaining Leyline or Needling Crypt.

That's because those cards have a much bigger impact than Extirpate.

Leyline yes. It is also easier to answer and requires you to mulligan to it and then get smashed when they answer it.

Tormod's no. It has a bigger impact immediately. Extirpate has a bigger impact over the long run. It doesn't matter if you get rid of 2 Bridges and 2 Ichorids if they just dump 2 more Bridges and 2 more Ichorids in. It does however matter if you get rid of Bridges entirely. Unlike the examples of "Extirpate on Threshold's Swords, wow they can't draw another now" and PR's response of "you don't know if they would have drawn another during that game!" claiming that "you don't know if Ichorid will mill another Bridge or not" is awful. Unfortunately I think this argument will eventually come down to heavy statistical analysis as to when Extirpate is useful, and I have neither the time nor the energy to attempt to come up with a percentage of the time that you Extirpate a card against Ichorid that they would have seen another 1 copy, 2 copies, and 3 copies had you not Extirpated.

What you're missing is the very important part where you won't always have Extirpate because mulliganing for it is awful.

What you're missing is the very important part of Magic theory where mulliganning (general speaking) is awful. Again, I'm of the opinion that against Ichorid, there is no trump (that can be played in a timely fashion, Solitary Confinement might count if you somehow couldn't be Therapied), there are no silver bullets. As such, you mulligan because your hand isn't strong enough or keep it because it is. You don't mulligan because "gee I didn't draw my 'trump.'" If you do, that leads to the scenario with Shady and kirdape3, except replace Leyline with Tormod's or Extirpate or Jailer, and replace Chain with Needle, Therapy or Darkblast. You just get smashed when you overvalue your hate cards.

Stinkweed Imp actually kills Tarmogoyf, while all of their creatures (with the exception of Golgari Grave Troll) are pretty cheap.

Stinkweed costs 3, and swings for 1....

Are you joking?

If they're hardcasting Stinkweed, they're not in a winning position.

They can just throw a ton of guys at you which will eventually get through or stabilize the board.

Without Bridges or Ichorids it's significantly harder. And you have yet to address this argument.

I've always targeted those cards mentioned. Except for one game where my opponent mulliganed to three and went land, Careful study, discard Grave Troll plus something useless. I Extirpated Grave Troll there. I still lost (I didn't get above two mana for the entire game).

I wouldn't in a million years Extirpate GGT there. Ever.

He beat me to death with Putrid Imp, Narcomoeba, Stinkweed Imp, and Ichorids. I Extirpated all but the one Narcomoeba that he hardcast, and all of his Bridges.

So you're saying you would have won if you didn't Extirpate the GGT right (in actuality I know this isn't certain)? You would have been able to Extirpate the Ichorids instead if you hadn't. He can only dredge 1 guy a turn (not too bad). You Extirpate in their draw step hitting whatever target they flip first. At some later point you draw an play more Extirpates. The Stinkweed and Putrid would never be hardcast there as long as there are guys to dredge (no lands for 3 mana, no Putrid in opening hand so it isn't in hand ever).

Please address the points I want addressed. Disclaimer again: I am likely coming across as rude, I don't meant to be.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-03-2008, 03:01 PM

Indeed. The comparison to Cremate remains valid. Cremate's marginally useful against every deck, but where is it good? Where does it win games?

Mantis

10-03-2008, 03:09 PM

Why do so many people just assume Ichorid rolls over and dies to one resolved Extirpate, this is not the case. If you remove Bridge they can still get Nacromoebas and Ichorids and just animate some crazy big Grave Troll, they can still play Stinkweed Imp and Golgari Thug. If you Extirpate Dread Return they can still use their Therapies to make tons of Zombie tokens and attack you with Ichorids and Moebas. You can also Extirpate their lone Dredger if they have just one in their graveyard but this is no assurance they don't get another one in the grave and still go crazy.

Against Leyline, they just have to pray they have a land, a card to remove Leyline, a Dredger and a discard outlet in their hand (or draw the missing components later on) or they will flatout lose. I mean, it's quite a decision to throw back a stable hand (for example COB, COB, Cephalid Coliseum, Dredger, Dredger, LED, Ichorid) and expect all the components plus Leyline removal.

I'm not interested in cards by themselves. I'm interested in 60 cards working together. Swords + Extirpate (where I can play in whichever order and likely maximize them, Extirpating a Narco and Swordsing an Ichorid, or whatever) > Swords + Crypt (where I have to wait to Crypt first, kinda like playing Wrath, then Swords afterwards).
While this is an interesting remark, it's hardly a reason to justify Extirpate over Leyline.

I'd much rather have 2 fetch, 2 Swords, Leyline against Ichorid than 2 fetch, 2 Swords, Extirpate for the reasons mentioned above. I mean STP doesn't lose it's relevance if you decide to run Leyline. So the only thing you did was create a scenario where you would win anyway, Leyline or Extirpate doesn't matter much which one you run. That said, there are scenarios if the rest of your hand is junk, where Leyline would win you the game where Extirpate would not like I explained above.

Nightmare

10-03-2008, 03:10 PM

Hey look! A way to kill a bunch of time!

Scenario 1. You draw hate, they don't draw an answer. I specifically said "Tormod's Crypt can be rebuilt from. There is no rebuilding from Extirpate, those cards are gone." Granted in that argument you aren't reducing them to nothing, but my previous argument stands, with Extirpate they 5~6 cards a turn (or more) they're seeing are significantly worse, with Tormod's the 5~6 cards they're seeing are just as good as before.

In this scenario, in my opinion Extirpate has a slight advantage over Crypt.
What exactly is the non-ichorid player doing all the time while the Ichorid Player is "rebuilding?" Sitting there with their pants down? In my experience, the Ichorid player laughs off one Extirpate, and is annoyed by two. The first will make them find avenue #2 to win through, which is either making guys and flashing back Therapies, or swinging with 3/1s, whichever is available. With Crypt in the same scenario, they start over, with no Dredgers in the yard, less than 7 cards in the hand, and get to play either the draw, go game, or they find a discard outlet ASAP. I've had many times where they've been left without a Dredger in hand or in the yard, and have floundered while trying to find one. Meantime, I'm swinging with any guy I can, be it Goyf or Bob, or even fucking Painter, because their deck is a pile without their yard.

I give the edge to Crypt. Every time.

Scenario 2. You draw hate, they draw an answer that prevents your hate from doing anything.

In this scenario, in my opinion there's no difference, you get destroyed (hence it was left out of previous reasoning, I'm only interested in games where we can measure the differences).We can measure again, based on likelihood of them drawing relevant hate, but it doesn't matter. Let's call it a wash.

Scenario 3. You don't draw hate in your opening hand (keep the hand) and then proceed to draw it later, they draw an answer. This is one of the scenarios I focused on because Extirpate has a tremendous advantage here. If they draw Needle, they play it. Nothing Crypt can do about that until you draw Deed/EE/Chain of Vapor/whatever, giving them the tempo your hate card is supposed to buy you.

In this scenario, in my opinion Extirpate has a monstrous advantage over Crypt.The funny thing is, I'm not looking to gain tempo in the Ichorid match. Wizards gave me the opportunity, way back in 1994, to play a card that costs no mana, and literally wrecks that deck. WRECKS. I generally have enough cards in my arsenal (see counterspells, blockers, etc.) to stall the game until I can find a way to deal with their Needle. At which point, I remove them from the game. The good thing about Crypt is, even without the possibility of using it, you can still run it out there to prevent them from making you discard it.

Have you been paying attention to Ichorid in Extended? They have the exact same graveyard hate cards for it (Jailer, Extirpate, Crypt, Leyline). Just about every play in Extended is packing 8 SB cards if they want to beat Ichorid. Seeing as how we have Brainstorm, I've cut to 6.No, I have not been paying attention to Ichorid in Extended. That format has two distinct differences from Legacy which make me not care about the matchup there, AT ALL. 1) Force of Will. 2) Lion's Eye Diamond.

Do you feel confident enough with a less than 40% chance of seeing your most relevant cards after a game 1 loss?Do you feel confident playing the matchup with only 4 relevant cards in your deck after board? How's that 0% game 1 going? Why would you build a deck with no cards that are relevant at all against Ichorid that aren't in the MD? Let's consider my Painter deck. Ignoring the MD Crypt (it's probably not staying MD anyway), you have at the very least, 4 FOW, 1 EE, 1 Echoing Truth, and a bunch of blockers to remove Bridges. This doesn't even count the Trinket Mages to tutor up EE, nor the LDV to find the hate cards. Post board, I go up to a whopping 2 EE and 2 Crypt. That's it! And yet, I've lost a grand total of 1 sanctioned match to Ichorid with the deck, out of at least 10 matches. That 1 loss was to Zach Tartell, who answered my turn 1 Crypt with Needle off the top, with a turn 1 win in hand. We've already chalked those type of wins up to luck.

Extirpate/Crypt/Leyline/Jailer are the most relevant cards in this match.No argument here.

After those, Swords is very relevant because they force the opponent to dredge another Ichorid (or Narco is you had to off Narco first). Swords in conjunction with Extirpate can be extremely powerful.So swords, which does not put a creature into the yard, is good with Extirpate, which needs cards in the yard? Also, swords is in a color which provides you little to no relevant disruption to the Ichorid deck. Why would I go out of my way to use it in this matchup?

I'm not interested in cards by themselves. I'm interested in 60 cards working together. That's because you're playing shitty cards that rely on other ones to make them worth playing (see: Extirpate). I want my trump (and Crypt vs. Ichorid is as close to a trump as you get in this game) card to WIN THE GAME.

EE/Deed in the worst case scenario where you activate them are a Fog (not very relevant).EE is one of the most versatile cards against Ichorid if you're playing Crypt. Their out to Crypt is Needle. Needle dies to EE. If you draw no Crypt, but draw EE, you get to play it on 0 and wipe out their army. If you time it correctly, this can prevent them from ever having the men to Dread return.

A decent Ichorid player will have at least 1 Dredger in his/her hand after you activate Crypt to get going again. You have yet to address this argument.That's because it's a misleading statement that's borderline untrue. Even if they DO have one, it's extremely unlikely that they have 7 cards in hand, and will be able to discard one immediately to continue the chain. Even if they do, they're still down whatever progress they've made up to that point.

Irrelevant. If I'm keeping an exceptional hand (without hate), I fully expect to draw into a hate card before they're able to mount an overwhelming position.Even if you only get one or two draw steps with which to do so?

And end up getting smashed when you can't deal with them Chaining Leyline or Needling Crypt. Meanwhile, you've Extirpated Ichorid, and have gotten straight rolled to hastey 3/3 zombies. See how fun pretendie-time is?

What you're missing is the very important part of Magic theory where mulliganning (general speaking) is awful. Again, I'm of the opinion that against Ichorid, there is no trump (that can be played in a timely fashion, Solitary Confinement might count if you somehow couldn't be Therapied), there are no silver bullets.The HEART of the issue. There's no calling you back in, since you've begun from a misconception, and can't arrive at the correct decision from said invalid start.

Tacosnape

10-03-2008, 03:30 PM

Forbiddian

10-03-2008, 03:57 PM

Extirpate (n. x-tur-pate): 1. A Magic: The Gathering card used in Legacy control decks to provide a means to stopping graveyard or recursion-based strategies, often based on the power of a single card, that the control player would have incredible difficulty stopping otherwise.

Hahaha, QFT. Also hilarious signature.

I thought I'd add more substance to my fanboiism.

This is from the Ichorid thread about how to beat Crypt:

Crypt baiting basically comes down to putting things in there that will kill him if he does nothing and will slowly progress your dredging, while at the same time your hand contains cards that will get you right back in. I usually harrass my opponent something along the lines of: attack with a lonely recurring Ichorid and a Bridge, while dredging a Thug, and playing and flashbacking Therapies while I can. Try to play the game but at a slower pace.
If your opponent plays a gazillion cantrips, or can search out Crypts, or can make it recurring (through Academy Ruins for example) you may want to be more aggressive; dredging faster to force him to use it, but always have some backup left in your hand! Otherwise you're in topdeck and that's a pain in Ichorid.
A Crypt or two with a good clock on your opponents side is usually very difficult to deal with though. But I've won games wherein my opponent succesfully activated three crypts. Remember that Putrid Imp is MVP, so is having two dredgers in your hand (so you get to keep one), hold on to Bridges if they're in your hand, etc.
What I noticed is that a lot of people don't even know when to blow up the crypt, but you shouldn't rely on that.

To disagree with a lot of people, I think Landstill is not such a great MU. They have multiple ways of dealing with your aggression and the slower you play them the more time you give them to set it up.

On the Ichorid recursion, I bring them back whenever it is beneficial for the game state. I won't bring it back if my opponent has a Propaghanda in play and I don't have the mana nor a Bridge in my yard. I'm also hesitant to recur it when it eats away my last dredger (which I usually try to avoid because Dredging hits more food).
Basically, Ichorid is awesome because he deals damage, is food for Therapy and Dread Return and makes tokens.
The situation you mentioned with the Factory, Crucible and Crypt is a difficult one though! It makes Ichorid underwhelming at the least. There're no conditions you have to meet before recurring Ichorids, just don't do it when it doesn't make sense to do it :)

Also, nobody has discussed a combination of Crypts + Extirpates. 2 Crypts, 2 Extirpates seems quite powerful (although more of each is obviously better).

Ichorid usually wins game 1. Then you bring in between 4-8 dedicated hate cards and win game 2. Game 3 is the game that actually matters, because Ichorid knows what your hate is and Cabal Therapy is that much more powerful (and they're on the play and likely not to mulligan a hand with a Turn 1 Therapy).

A combination of Crypts and Extirpates means that your game 3 percentage should go way up (even if you risk being slightly weaker G2).

I think that extirpate is more versatile and a strong sideboard card in multiple matchups, but I don't understand the groups that would refuse to run even 1 copy, if only to throw off Cabal Therapy (the ONLY answer for Extirpate, so obviously if you cast your singleton Extirpate G2, they're gonna therapy for it).

freakish777

10-03-2008, 06:09 PM

Hey look! A way to kill a bunch of time!

Staying late at work on a Friday night, so I can talk to people on the internet. Awesome!

What exactly is the non-ichorid player doing all the time while the Ichorid Player is "rebuilding?" Sitting there with their pants down?

If you mulliganned to Crypt as Dave is suggesting, yes.

In my experience, the Ichorid player laughs off one Extirpate, and is annoyed by two.

Obviously our experiences are different.

With Crypt in the same scenario, they start over, with no Dredgers in the yard, less than 7 cards in the hand, and get to play either the draw, go game, or they find a discard outlet ASAP.

No graveyard hate card (yet printed) also takes out an active discard outlet (or on that's in hand, unless you're dumb enough to Extirpate Breakthrough or something...). In my experience after you Crypt them they have a decent chance of still having Putrid/LED in play, or Careful Stufy/Breakthrough in hand and a dredger ready to go.

I've had many times where they've been left without a Dredger in hand or in the yard, and have floundered while trying to find one.

This has happened for me as well, but it's not the norm in my experiences.

We can measure again, based on likelihood of them drawing relevant hate, but it doesn't matter. Let's call it a wash.

I worded the scenario a little oddly.

In this scenario we can break it down further if you like.

With Extirpate: They need Therapy or Unmask (Therapy being agreed upon, Unmask not), potentially 8 ways to get it, and even more likely if they're dredging to get Therapy. However if they're dredging to get Therapy, they're also increasing the chances that Extirpate hits them beforehand.

With Leyline: They need Chain (or Ray of Revelation) and they have to draw it.

With Crypt: They can draw and play Needle or they can draw and endstep a Chain of Vapor (depending on how good of a position they're left with afterwards and depending on whether or not they think you're going to pop in response). They can also just play through it, slow rolling their dredges. I've seen a number of games where the Ichorid player lets the opponent sit on their Tormod's Crypt (trying to maximize it) while the Ichorid player just lets his 2/2 zombie tokens accumulate off his 1 or 2 Ichorids with 1 Bridge in the bin with the dredge cards safe in his hand.

The funny thing is, I'm not looking to gain tempo in the Ichorid match.

What exactly is it that you think Tormod's Crypt is doing to Ichorid? This is a legitimate question. Yes it's card advantage (which is why you're seeing it as a "This Wrecks Ichorid" card, because its superior at controlling the game and winning through card advantage then your other maindeck cards), but I also would contend that it's stealing tempo from Ichorid.

If they shift gears (to the above strategy which is similar to how an aggro player will play out 2 threats and then wait for Wrath to hit the board before playing more dudes, except in this case it's before dredging more cards) because they see Tormod's on the board, you're generating tempo which you now have to use to generate blockers, Deeds, EEs, Brainstorm into Crypt#2, etc.

I generally have enough cards in my arsenal (see counterspells, blockers, etc.) to stall the game until I can find a way to deal with their Needle.

The times I've played against Needle (naming Crypt), I've categorically lost to 2/2s afterwards regardless of whether or not I've been able to deal with Needle. I draw EE? Great, they still have 4 2/2 zombies in play. I draw Deed? I played Crypt on turn 1 (to avoid Therapy/Unmask/the nuts turn 1 kill) so Deed gets rid of my Crypt also...

The good thing about Crypt is, even without the possibility of using it, you can still run it out there to prevent them from making you discard it.

It costing zero is good, but I'm not sure how strong this argument is. Let me think about this for a bit.

No, I have not been paying attention to Ichorid in Extended. That format has two distinct differences from Legacy which make me not care about the matchup there, AT ALL. 1) Force of Will. 2) Lion's Eye Diamond.

I don't think these impact the the Aggro-Control/Control vs. Ichorid anywhere near as much as access to Brainstorm does. LED is another discard outlet (granted it provides mana to go nuts with Colesium and DA), which makes Ichorid extremely more powerful in Legacy, while FoW basically isn't very impressive in the Ichorid match. It's generally only useful in your opening hand, and even then only if they only drew 1 discard outlet. I know it stops Dread Return, but if they're going for the combo, they're ripping your hand apart first with Therapy. As such, without Brainstorm, I think 8 graveyard hate cards (or potentially 4 with Plagues if you're playing Dark Rit) would be correct if you wanted to ensure the win against Ichorid. With Brainstorm I think we can go down to 6, possibly 5. Four, in my opinion, leaves too much to chance.

Do you feel confident playing the matchup with only 4 relevant cards in your deck after board? How's that 0% game 1 going?

Uh. No? Which is why that entire section is an argument for more than 4 graveyard hate cards post board. I'm not really sure what point you're attempting to make here, I never claimed a 0% game 1 (I was attempting to get across that by the numbers you're less likely to win game 1 against Ichorid than you are to lose).

Again, Swords, Goyf, Deed, EE, Fanatic, Lightning Bolt, and other staples are all relevant cards against Ichorid with varying degrees of relevance.

Post board, I go up to a whopping 2 EE and 2 Crypt. That's it!

Some of my arguments have been directed towards ITF and Dave in particular. The gigantic difference there is that that deck doesn't have blockers (barring mising the Witness) to trade with Ichorid (Goyf will always be too big) to take out Bridges.

In any event, blockers are tempo as well, fitting into my original argument of trying to take enough tempo away from Ichorid to allow you to actually play a game of Magic against them.

And yet, I've lost a grand total of 1 sanctioned match to Ichorid with the deck, out of at least 10 matches. That 1 loss was to Zach Tartell, who answered my turn 1 Crypt with Needle off the top, with a turn 1 win in hand. We've already chalked those type of wins up to luck.

Sounds lucky to me. Again, I'm afraid the only way to "resolve" an argument like this would be with an extreme amount of stastical analysis that I'm fairly sure no one want to do.

So swords, which does not put a creature into the yard, is good with Extirpate, which needs cards in the yard?

Comparatively speaking (to Tormod's), yes.

I have Crypt + Swords. I have to wait until after I Crypt to maximize Swords.
I have Extirpate + Swords. They dredge Narco, I swords in their drawstep (keeping Extirpate safe for another turn from Therapy), then they dredge Ichorid, I extirpate it. Or Swords Ichorid, then Extirpate Narco. Or Extirpate Narco, then Swords Ichorid. Or Extirpate Ichorid, then Swords Narco. All 4 of these are optimize your card usage (note there's a difference between optimizing card usage and optimal situations, here Extirpating Ichorid and Swordsing Narco is the optimal situation). Compared to Swords + Tormod's there's only one 1 to optimize your card usage, which is to Crypt them and follow up with Swords.

Obviously you don't want to be forced to Swords an Ichorid and then Extirpate Ichorids. Just like you don't want to be forced to Swords and Ichorid and then Crypt them afterwards. Swords and Extirpate drawn individually present you some scenarios to optimize your card usage that Swords and Crypt don't.

Also, swords is in a color which provides you little to no relevant disruption to the Ichorid deck. Why would I go out of my way to use it in this matchup?

If you're strictly talking about Painter, then there's no reason to change the colors you're playing. If you're already playing a deck with White in it, and 4 maindeck StPs, why would you ever take them out against Ichorid?

That's because you're playing shitty cards that rely on other ones to make them worth playing (see: Extirpate).

I think you're out of your mind if you think Swords is a shitty card (yes, this means even in the Ichorid match). It does it's job, which is to RFG an Ichorid in upkeep, or RFG a Narco in draw step, prevent Therapy from being flashed back, and keep 2~3 Zombie tokens off the board.

I want my trump (and Crypt vs. Ichorid is as close to a trump as you get in this game) card to WIN THE GAME.

I obviously can't argue with what you want. I'll stand by my statement that I think there are no trump cards against Ichorid, and that if that's the case focusing on trump is very likely to be wrong.

If you draw no Crypt, but draw EE, you get to play it on 0 and wipe out their army.

For 1 turn. Then Ichorids come back and make more dudes on their endstep.

That's because it's a misleading statement that's borderline untrue. Even if they DO have one, it's extremely unlikely that they have 7 cards in hand

That argument carried over from a previous argument. In my experience decent Ichorid players have both the Dredge card and the discard outlet ready to go against Tormod's if they're expecting Crypt (or expect Needle to be answered).

Even if they do, they're still down whatever progress they've made up to that point.

Tormod's Crypt also somehow gives you 10 life? Why didn't anyone tell me?!

Even if you only get one or two draw steps with which to do so?

See Brainstorm.

Meanwhile, you've Extirpated Ichorid, and have gotten straight rolled to hastey 3/3 zombies. See how fun pretendie-time is?

4 Narcos, 1 Putrid Imp (at most), and 4 Bridges yields 20 Zombie tokens. If they manage to mill 3 Bridges they have to have 3 guys for 8 Zombies (-1 because they have to Therapy naming Force of Will first). Clearly not impossible, but it seems to me to be harder than just "Play my deck like I would normally" after Needle on Crypt/Chain on Leyline.

The HEART of the issue. There's no calling you back in, since you've begun from a misconception, and can't arrive at the correct decision from said invalid start.

Silver Bullets/trump are termed as such because they straight up make the game unlosable via your opponent's strategy. They don't get answered. They don't get played around. They don't get rebuilt from.

Double Engineered Plague straight up trumps a mono-red Goblins deck with no way to boost toughness (Goblin King) and no guys with toughness over 2.

Moat straight up trumps a deck without flyers (or ways to give creatures flying), without enchantment removal, and without Counterspells.

Tormod's crypt does not, and never will, straight up trump Ichorid.

Forbiddian

10-03-2008, 08:47 PM

I like the debate between mulliganning for Leyline and not mulliganning for Extirpate. Both sides seem to think that this makes their card superior.

One side is arguing that doesn't NEED to be in your starting hand to be effective. Basically if you look at your top 7 and it's a strong anti-Ichorid hand (like Force + two Swords), you can keep the hand and still have the ability to draw into your hate.

If a player playing Leyline of the Void kept that hand, he'd be in a lot more trouble. At the very least 0 chance to draw his hate and 4 dead cards remaining in the deck.

The other side argues that because you are forced to mulligan onto Leyline of the Void, you improve your starting hand quality overall because you were better off mulliganning for the hate in the first place.

I think that this argument is ridiculous and probably based on an inability to understand the mulligan. If the Extirpate player is better off going to 6 cards to try to dig out an Extirpate, then he'll go to 6 cards.

Nobody here on the Source really gives a fuck about probabilities because of whatever reason, but here are some probabilities, because probabilities are good:

Assuming 4x Leyline in a 60 card deck, the probability of getting a Leyline of the Void in the opener:
7 card hand: 39.95%
6 card hand: 35.15%
5 card hand: 30.06%
4 card hand: 24.68%
3 card hand: 18.99%
2 card hand: 12.99%
1 card hand: 6.67%
Probability of never getting a Leyline after going all the way to 1 card: 13.50%

If you mulligan ANY hand without Leyline and keep ANY hand with Leyline:
Probabilities of starting the game with each of the following hand sizes:
7 card hand: 39.95%
6 card hand: 21.10%
5 card hand: 11.71%
4 card hand: 6.72%
3 card hand: 3.90%
2 card hand: 2.16%
1 card hand (with Leyline): 0.0964%
1 card hand (without Leyline): 13.50%

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). I don't know what deck you're playing, but I can't think of a deck that would be happy sitting on a four card hand + a bomb.

This is usually after losing G1, btw. You not only have to beat Ichorid once with a 4.09 card hand, but you have to do it again when Ichorid is on the play usually.

I dunno how much this adds to the debate, but aggressively mulliganning for Leyline of the Void is not a strategy that pays off in the long run. With 6 ways to counter it (usually Chain x4 + Ray x2 hardcast, although they need two land), the deck should have a plan B if Leyline doesn't show up in the top 7 and certainly when Leyline doesn't show up in the top 6.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-04-2008, 03:04 AM

diffy

10-04-2008, 04:33 AM

Against what card or strategy do I want Extirpate where it's not strictly worse than Tormod's Crypt? I'll even leave Haunting Echoes aside for now.

Life from the Loam.

Crypt against Life from the Loam + Cycling Land only slows them down a little, Extirpate against Life + anything assures that they won't be out-card-advantaging you any more. (At least until they find a Burning Wish which you then can counter. If you don't play counters, Extirpate will still stall more than a Crypt.)

For sure Haunting Echoes is pretty damn impressive against Life from the Loam based strategies, but you have to keep in mind that it's pretty horrible against Ichorid as you'll be dead by the time you can cast it. Tormod's Crypt, on the other hand, while pretty impressive against Ichorid doesn't do much against Loam.
Even if we assume that Extirpate is inferior to Tormod's Crypt against Ichorid (which it might be) and worse than Haunting Echoes against Life from the Loam (which it might be), Extirpate is still the jack of all trades, the more flexible choice, and therefore the correct choice - it is just more useful in more matchups than either Crypt or Echoes. With the format being so diverse, I'll rather go with the more flexible card than with the narrower but more powerful card against a particular strategy because I can never make sure that I'll actually face the matchup I prepared for rather than another one where the more powerful choice will be a dead sideboard slot.

Long story short: versatility > power in Legacy.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-04-2008, 12:11 PM

Which is why people play Funeral Charm over Thoughtseize or Swords to Plowshares.

Oh, wait. Nobody does that.

Versatility rarely trumps power in actuality, hence why cards with cycling 2 or the word "charm" in them rarely make a big splash.

Also, I question how often Extirpate is really better than Crypt against Loam from a control viewpoint, given that

a) They run B. Wish, and

b) Crypt goes a long way to nullifying their creatures.

People talk about how bad Crypt is against Loam, but I've never noticed it. They still have to start rebuilding their graveyard from scratch.

Also, a single card would be the worst reason ever to run Extirpate in Legacy. Next you'll be justifying Lava Dart because it's so damn good at killing Lackies.

FoolofaTook

10-04-2008, 12:15 PM

This is, I believe, doesn't really help either side of the debate. It's like saying StP is only good against creatures. Or Islands are only good if you are playing blue cards.

Also, Grip affects the board. It kills a problematic Enchantment/Aritfact.

Therapy can be a bad peek, but more often than not, it is at least a Thoughtsieze without life loss. And sometimes it is decent to amazing card advantage.

Krosan Grip is a competely dead card against Goyf Sligh, Ichorid, Sui-Black, Doran Rock and virtually all of the Storm combo decks that are going to go off just as it's becoming playable or just before that on the draw. It's a tremendously weak card against Aggro-Loam, Goblins, Elves and generally speaking aggro-rush decks. It's no guarantee against EE or Deed, because a smart player is going to deploy those and use them without passing priority.

To steal your paragraph from above: Extirpate can be a bad peek (except that you actually get to remove 1 to 4 problematic cards from the opponent's gameplan), but sometimes it's Thoughtseize without the life loss and sometimes it's decent to amazing card advantage. It can remove problematic lands from the opponent's hand and gameplan.

I understand the wide swing of opinion that we've all had on Extirpate. It's really not a good maindeck card, even in a deck playing a fair amount of discard. However the same can be said for any number of cards that currently hold tenuous main deck slots in Legacy, and Krosan Grip is the primary example of that class of cards in my opinion.

Any card that you can hold in your opening hand that is potentially useless against a third of the meta is probably a bad maindeck inclusion.

I'm going to add a caveat to the point above: if you are playing a highly defensive gameplan like Landstill, with a fair amount of card advantage in it, then obviously you get a bit more leeway in what you can potentially have in your opening hand without giving up too much advantage in the match.

diffy

10-04-2008, 01:07 PM

Which is why people play Funeral Charm over Thoughtseize or Swords to Plowshares.
Oh, wait. Nobody does that.
Versatility rarely trumps power in actuality, hence why cards with cycling 2 or the word "charm" in them rarely make a big splash.

When the difference in power isn't as evident as in your examples, you should consider the more versatile option.
Also, just as an aside, if you read Legacy-France.com you'll find some of the French Legacy players are actually advocating Piracy Charm... (link (http://www.legacy-france.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=a2dabefb7a53f60ee58247c8a1997b4d&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=piracy+charm))

Also, I question how often Extirpate is really better than Crypt against Loam from a control viewpoint, given that
a) They run B. Wish, and
b) Crypt goes a long way to nullifying their creatures.
People talk about how bad Crypt is against Loam, but I've never noticed it. They still have to start rebuilding their graveyard from scratch.

A) This is obviously an issue but compare them having to find one of their 3-4 Burning Wishes (depending whether they had to use their first Wish to get Loam) to them having to Dredge for 2-3 turns to get their yard full again in terms of tempo gained from resolving Extirpate/Crypt.
Also, depending on which deck you play, this is much less of an issue as you have access to permission and/or are going to be hitting Wasteland, which they have no possibility to recover, with Extirpate anyway.

B) Tormod's Crypt against Aggro Loams' creatures: it's not more than a tiny speed bump - it doesn't do anything against Countryside Crusher and is likely to pump their Goyfs. I'll give you that it will shrink their 2-3of Terravores by approximately 60% though.

Also, a single card would be the worst reason ever to run Extirpate in Legacy. Next you'll be justifying Lava Dart because it's so damn good at killing Lackies.

So if I get this point correctly, I could reformulate it to read: 'If Lava Dart is only good at killing Lackies, it's not worth it' which would be moot in the first place as it could be applied to Tormod's Crypt just as well (if it's only good against Ichorid, why bother with it in the first place?).

As stated above, Extirpate is rather versatile - you can board it against anything relying on a single threat to win (e.g.: Tarmogoyf for NQG, ITF, Survival, Stifle for Dreadstill etc.). For sure you have to deal with one copy of the card first but if your control deck struggles at doing that, it probably is pretty bad at its job in the first place. After resolving the Extirpate however you're in a much better position to win the game as the opponent will have to play a sub-optimal version against a mere card disadvantage of 1.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-04-2008, 02:57 PM

Except the difference in power levels is evident. Crypt nukes graveyard based decks. Loam decks, unless they already have a threat on the table (in which case Extirpate doesn't do anything and Crypt likely does), are going to be at the very least Time Stretched by Crypt. For zero mana. What the fuck are you playing in your deck? This is the problem with these arguments, you act like you have no relevant threats or cards at all besides said graveyard hate. I know I usually do pretty good in matchups where my opponent loses two or three turns of growth at once.

You say that Extirpate is versatile, but you haven't named a card besides Life from the Loam where I really want it. If it's a control card, what else should I be controlling with it? This is a serious question. Loam decks aren't dominant. I can't think of any other situation where Extirpate is desirable.

The Rack

10-04-2008, 03:33 PM

Here are my extripate targets when I'm playing Funkbrew:

Any Loam deck- Loam then Devastating Dreams
Threshold- Goyf, Counterbalance, then a vindicated dual
Fetchland Tendrils- The LED after they tried to IGG loop, or Ritual Effects
Landstill- Humility or board control cards
Ichorid- Bridge or Ichorid

That's about all I would board in against.

diffy

10-04-2008, 03:59 PM

Crypt nukes graveyard based decks.

Crypt nukes 'all-in' decks that rely on their graveyard (read: Ichorid), that's true. Extirpate is weaker here, I never said anything opposing that, I'm rather arguing that the loss of strength in the Ichorid matchup is made up by the gain in strength in other matchups.

[Crypt nukes] Loam decks, unless they already have a threat on the table (in which case Extirpate doesn't do anything and Crypt likely does), are going to be at the very least Time Stretched by Crypt. For zero mana. What the fuck are you playing in your deck?

Situation A: the Loam player has no threats on the table.

Tormod's Crypt: stall for 2-3 turns until they have their engine going again
Extirpate: fully get rid of their engine i.e. make them fight on equal terms

Extirpate is the better card here.

Situation B: the Loam player has a threat on the table.

Tormod's Crypt: shrink the threat if it's called Terravore, otherwise: see above.
Extirpate: see above.

Tormod's Crypt is very slightly better here, I don't call that nuking and Timestretching though.

This is the problem with these arguments, you act like you have no relevant threats or cards at all besides said graveyard hate. I know I usually do pretty good in matchups where my opponent loses two or three turns of growth at once.

Which control deck has relevant threats in the early game? Especially threats that can abuse two to three turns so well that you have won after that time? I just don't see this, especially not if you consider that activating Tormod's Crypt does not equal casting double Timewalk: it just costs them two mana a turn while getting them ahead in landdrops and in board position if they have any excess mana.
Especially when playing control decks, I'd rather get rid of something for good rather than having to deal with it again some time later.

Also, from a concept point of view, the card that is better when you have no threats on the table is also the better card when you do have threats on the table - nothing to argue there.

You say that Extirpate is versatile, but you haven't named a card besides Life from the Loam where I really want it. If it's a control card, what else should I be controlling with it? This is a serious question.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: you can use Extirpate against any one of those decks that has made itself close to totally dependant on Tarmogoyf (NQG, ITF, maybe Survival - you get the picture) or any other single threat (Dreadstill, Landstill etc.).
It's also decent in the combo matchups when coupled with permission.

Loam decks aren't dominant. I can't think of any other situation where Extirpate is desirable.

Aggro Loam's rise in popularity (in Europe) would like to have a word with you.
That's probably why you despise Extirpate: you're not playing against Aggro Loam often enough. In Germany, on the other hand, Aggro Loam is always a significant part of the metagame so that I'd rather want to be prepared for it.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-04-2008, 04:59 PM

To answer what I'd get while Loam tries to recover from Crypt; either a combo kill or a Haunting Echoes, respectively.

I suppose if you ping with a Mishra's Factory for ten turns as your win...

The problem with nuking Tarmogoyf, or Counterbalance, or basically anything that's not a graveyard-based strategy is that Extirpate does nothing to help you in that scenario until you've already dealt with the threat the first time (not via StP, hopefully). So you need to wait until you deal with an important card, and then spend another card making sure that they don't draw another copy of it.

That's terrible. Extract never saw any play, and Extirpate is a very minor step up the power curve.If you run Witnesses and Volrath's Stronghold, you could recur it three or four times until it's good. Or you could just play Haunting Echoes and have an actual win condition that's worth expending a card on. You could argue that Echoes costs more, but Extirpate isn't reliably faster since you have to wait until a relevant card gets ditched. It's certainly less potent.

Nihil Credo

10-04-2008, 06:23 PM

The problem with nuking Tarmogoyf, or Counterbalance, or basically anything that's not a graveyard-based strategy is that Extirpate does nothing to help you in that scenario until you've already dealt with the threat the first time (not via StP, hopefully). So you need to wait until you deal with an important card, and then spend another card making sure that they don't draw another copy of it.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is this: what are you siding out to bring Extirpate in against non-graveyard tools? You're making it sound as if bringing Extirpate in causes you to cut more effective spells from the maindeck; but that shouldn't happen.

We all know that it's better to take out an opponent's creature rather than remove his chances of drawing more copies of it. We all know that it's better to have two Duresses in your deck than a Duress and an Extirpate, because you can't be guaranteed that you'll see the Duress before the Extirpate (Mystical Tutor shenanigans aside).

Thing is, it isn't always possible. I'd love to bring in tons of sweepers against creature decks, tons of Krosan Grips against lock pieces, tons of countermagic against Storm combo's Chants.

But the sideboard only has 15 slots. And this is where Extirpate shows a small extra side of itself - in addition to being a slightly worse Crypt against Ichorid, a worse Echoes against long-term recursion, a worse Earwig Squad against combo, and the best against Loam, I mean.

Against any deck whose threats can end up in the graveyard, Extirpate has a chance to cut down drastically on the number and quality of threats your opponent will draw in the rest of the game. It's worse than the flat "-1 to threats drawn" that a simple one-for-one answer provides (how much worse depends on the variance of your opponent's threats: the more concentrated they are - hello ITF! - the greater Extirpate's potential effect); but it's certainly better than either a dead maindeck card or a useless Crypt or Leyline.

[You probably want to ask: when will a deck have more dead MD cards than cards it wants to SB in, so that bringing in Extirpate becomes a +EV move? The most common scenario happens when running against a creatureless or near-creatureless deck: not only do you take out anything dealing with the combat zone, but in all likelihood also some cards that lose their purpose against your opponent's particular path to victory (expensive flying finisher against Storm combo; Counterbalance against a wider mana curve; Stifle against a deck with no meaningful targets; and so on). Usually, the more reactive your deck is, the more likely it is to have dead baggage against strategies that come out of left field - and in no format is the left field as large as it is in Legacy.]

DragoFireheart

10-05-2008, 12:19 AM

The Rack

10-05-2008, 01:42 AM

Extirpate isn't always card disadvantage you know. Coupled with a a few discard cards and a little luck you can get cards out of their hand. If you're running THoughtseize it's not that crazy to think that you'll have a discard and extirpate when they have 2 cards in hand. It doesn't sound like it would come up often but it's not unthinkable. Just a little more info to add.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-05-2008, 02:22 AM

Holy crap, a card's that marginally powerful in conjunction with other cards + luck????!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!? (etc.)

Again, why is this card better than Fiery Gambit? Or, y'know what, Hatching Plans? Shit. Why aren't we playing Vial Horror when we're at it?

Extirpate has no effect til the mid-to-late game in most instances, where it's marginally useful most of the time. It's usually worse than either Cranial Extraction or Haunting Echoes by a very wide margin against most decks.

Artowis

10-05-2008, 03:39 AM

Times Extirpate is Just Better (tm) than whatever other option you'd of run - When you absolutely need to get rid of Life from the Loam and you know the opp. has infinity counters.

Then again Crypt and Leyline both come down turn 0/1... hm.

Times when Extirpate is Just Worse Baby! - The rest of the time, outside of absurd corner cases which I'm sure you've already been popping out shoulder joints making reaches toward.

In conclusion: Fuck Extirpate. Card is absurdly overrated.

mercenarybdu

10-05-2008, 04:06 AM

Extirpate allows you to kill 4 copies of any card hit by it and assures that they don't come back for the rest of the game unless the enemy has something to wish it back.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-05-2008, 04:10 AM

Adan

10-05-2008, 05:30 AM

Phyrexian Splicer allows you to pay two mana and tap it to remove flying, first strike, shadow or trample from a creature and give it to another creature.

mercenarybdu thinks Extirpate is good. QED, we win. The card is henceforth banned from good decks under penalty of torture.

The last 3 "arguments" of you consisted of compairisons with crap cards, not why Extirpate itself is supposed to suck, Mr. Politician. Just by the way.

I'm not saying that Extirpate is a broken card or such, but it is still a useful card that helps you to cut some of the opponent's resources and solutions.

Against UGw Thresh for example, extirpating Tarmogoyfs or Swords to Plowshares are huge. Extirpating Goyfs against ITF is also good. Or Explosives (and no, that Extirpates are well broadcast should not be an argument since that is a point that varies from player to player).

Against Loam it is without a question a house since it handes Loam without the possibility to save it with a cycle land thanks to split second.

Against Ichorid it might not be that good simply because there are too many targets, but it's still useful to get rid of all the Moebas and Ichorids.

[Repetitions are meant as a stylistic device to emphasize how versatile that card is]

Extirpate can actually fulfill many purposes. When you extirpate Wasteland or Geddons from Stax for example, your manabase is save (if they don't run Ravages of War, tho). Same is true for decks that only run a playset of a single removalspell (i.e. Swords to Plowsahres): When you extirpate them, you will have the advantage as your creatures are all safe.

It was also the reason why DiF retained the black-splash in his UWb Landstill because Extirpate is against control-mirrors very good since it reduces the opponent's resources/outs/winconditions and therefore generate virtual cardadvantage because you know that a player can't use a certain card against you anymore.

Artowis

10-05-2008, 05:48 AM

When you extirpate Wasteland or Geddons from Stax for example, your manabase is safe

Wait, what? If you Extirpate one, wouldn't that still leave the copies of every other mana-denial spell in the deck to deal with? Even in your example you list two things that wreck your mana base. Stripping one from the deck doesn't remove the other!

Against UGw Thresh for example, extirpating Tarmogoyfs or Swords to Plowshares are huge. Extirpating Goyfs against ITF is also good. Or Explosives (and no, that Extirpates are well broadcast should not be an argument since that is a point that varies from player to player).

Why? Nobody ever says why this is in fact a big deal. Exirpating something like Goyf or Plow assumes the opponent was going to see another one to begin with. Even if we concede that as an eventuality, it raises the question of why aren't you playing something that just deals with the cards themselves? And also why is removing a set of good cards from the opp's deck worth a card of your own? Cards like Chalice of the Void or combos like Counterbalance - Top are good specifically because it shuts down a large portion of the opponent's deck. Even pinpoint removal of cards in deck usually come with some bonus (cranial doesn't need you to do extra work, Meddling Mage comes with a body, etc.).

MasterC

10-05-2008, 06:46 AM

Why? Nobody ever says why this is in fact a big deal. Exirpating something like Goyf or Plow assumes the opponent was going to see another one to begin with.

Why does everybody ignore the fact that NQG will VERY likely draw into multiples of a card it needs until midgame with all that brainstorms, ponders, tops + fetchlands and predicts.

Even if we concede that as an eventuality, it raises the question of why aren't you playing something that just deals with the cards themselves?

Because it can't be countered and because your chance to draw your extirpate replacing removal is smaller than the chance of NQG drawing their relevant cards. (because of their cantrips!). You need 1 removal and 1 extirpate to virtually handle 4 goyfs.

URABAHN

10-05-2008, 09:02 AM

If Extirpate is so good, why aren't more people running it and winning with it?

It's funny how people speak about the card disadvantage that Extirpate supposedly brings.

Yet, I still see people place Force of Will. Perhaps card advantage isn't the only fact to consider when rating a card?

Are you seriously comparing Force of Will to Extirpate?

diffy

10-05-2008, 09:46 AM

If Extirpate is so good, why aren't more people running it and winning with it?

Just a quick check using Deckcheck.net:

$1k Legacy Binghamton 09/08: (5 decks with Black)
Smelski, 5th: 3 Extirpate
Quackenbush, 8th: 3 Extirpate

Legacy Finale Emilia 09/08: (2 decks with Black)
Buso, 5th: 4 Extirpate

Magic-League Legacy Trial 30.09.: (5 decks with Black)
Pikanso_BRA, 2nd: 3 Extirpate
Lumbalgic, 4th: 3 Extirpate

Legacy Italia Piacenza 09/08: (2 decks with Black)
Carlo Pulvirenti, 3rd: 3 Extirpate

Liga Valenciana de Legacy #1 09/08: (3 decks with Black)
Jorge Villagrasa, 3rd: 3 Extirpate
Manuel Jesús Puchol, 5th: 3 Extirpate
Hugo López, 7th: 4 Extirpate

GP Madrid Legacy Side Event: (4 decks with Black)
Jose Manuel Martinez, 1st: 3 Extirpate
David Garzon, 5th: 3 Extirpate
Benito Hernandez, 6th: 2 Extirpate

Over the last 7 larger events, 21 Decks with Black top8ed. More than half of them (12) played on average 3.08 Extirpates.
Not too shabby in my opinion.

Adan

10-05-2008, 11:27 AM

Just a quick check using Deckcheck.net:

[...]

Over the last 7 larger events, 21 Decks with Black top8ed. More than half of them (12) played on average 3.08 Extirpates.
Not too shabby in my opinion.

It's easier to see here:

http://www.deckcheck.net/format.php?format=Legacy

On the left side, "MVCs", click on the "View the Top30". There are also the Top10 of the most used Sideboard cards. All the Legacy decks recorded on deckcheck.net run a total of 1342 Extirpates.

I also remember back then when I tested Di's Survival, extirpating Swords to Plowshares against UWb Landstill and then dropping Gaddock Teeg was the sweetest thing you could do.

Wait, what? If you Extirpate one, wouldn't that still leave the copies of every other mana-denial spell in the deck to deal with? Even in your example you list two things that wreck your mana base. Stripping one from the deck doesn't remove the other!

I was talking about other decks as well which only run Wastelands as disruption.

FoolofaTook

10-05-2008, 12:07 PM

It's funny how people speak about the card disadvantage that Extirpate supposedly brings.

Yet, I still see people place Force of Will. Perhaps card advantage isn't the only fact to consider when rating a card?

Force of Will is kind of unique in terms of what it brings to the table. It gives the player a security blanket against an early loss, that while often ineffective works often enough to make people see it as a necessary element in their defense strategy. If you're going to lose 5% of your games early on turn 1 or 2 and Force of Will stops half of those losses then you have a tangible benefit to hang your valuation of the card on.

The fact that Force of Will is a weak counter, compared to other harder counters, in mid-game doesn't really break the stranglehold that the potential early use of it creates on public opinion. The weakness in the midgame is of course from the extra card required to play it and the life it costs to play. Both weaknesses are significant for many control decks at that point in the game, however the fact that Force of Will is just strictly better on the first couple of turns in preventing losses makes control decks suck it up down the road and play an inferior counter. This is particularly true for decks that run 4 Force of Will and fewer than 4 Counterspells.

URABAHN

10-05-2008, 12:17 PM

Hanni

10-05-2008, 01:10 PM

Adan

10-05-2008, 01:11 PM

Looking up Extirpate on deckcheck shows me it's one of the most popular sideboard cards in Legacy in Europe. If Extirpate is as good as the advocates are telling everyone is it, wouldn't it be played in the maindeck? According to deckcheck, Extirpate is rarely seen in anyone's 75 card deck outside of Europe.

Why is that?

It's Tunnel Vision and you are too fucking lazy to take a look by yourself. It's not difficult to klick on the "1342 Extirpate" and browse for non-European tournaments.

I also don't know what you are trying to accomplish with the SIDEBOARD-card argument. I never wanted to argue for maindecking it. This duscussion is about whether Extirpate is good or not.

Well, Geoff Smelski runs Extirpate in 5 of his 7 decks listed on deckcheck.net. Di is running at least 2 Extirpate in his SB in every of his Survival-builds (except in the stone-old ATS list).

Jared Lefkowitz ran 3 Extirpates twice of his 4 Top8 records with RGBSA.

Even the 4color Landstill of Tacosnape is running Extirpates:

http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=18784

http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=13211

http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=9303

Tombstone does run Extirpate, too.

From what I have counted yet, you have been 17 times wrong. Tendency rising.

Citrus-God

10-05-2008, 02:02 PM

Omega

10-05-2008, 02:15 PM

"The fact that Force of Will is a weak counter, compared to other harder counters, in mid-game doesn't really break the stranglehold that the potential early use of it creates on public opinion. The weakness in the midgame is of course from the extra card required to play it and the life it costs to play. Both weaknesses are significant for many control decks at that point in the game, however the fact that Force of Will is just strictly better on the first couple of turns in preventing losses makes control decks suck it up down the road and play an inferior counter. This is particularly true for decks that run 4 Force of Will and fewer than 4 Counterspells."

FOW is stricly superior to any counterspell, both early, mid and late game. Card disadvantage/life is largely compensated by its free casting cost. Due to its free casting cost, aggro/control deck can easily play all-in while having some protection. Even decks like control keep force of will because they can win counterwars. Tap UU for countespell, opponent counter, you fow. FOW is just the best counterspell ever printed, period. Don't argue that

Back onto Extirpate, i am experiencing a newdeck that will play them MD. Its a sort of control deck. With the extirpate, im hoping to shut down some kill conditions of my opponent

Robert

Drac

10-05-2008, 04:04 PM

For the most part i think extirpate is usually not that good of a sideboard card. but there is one exeption

Cunning Wish> extirpate can be absolutly good.

The 1 sideboard slot is totally 100% worth it.

I remember playing landstill. and i was paired versus alluren. she played intuition into alluren and i wish>pate GG.

Also in the control mirror it can shut down annoying recursion engines that else you couldnt have removed.

Also although loam has burning wish, the fact that you can grab it with cunning wish makes it usefull. and worth the 1 sideboard slot.

Im really wondering why nobody has mentioned cunning wish before. i did a CTR+F search on cunning wish in the topic, but i could have missed it.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-05-2008, 05:10 PM

Your statement is completely retarded. I don't see people maindecking Tormod's Crypt. Why is that?

Tormod's Crypt is a nuke against graveyards. Extirpate is not.. It's usefulness is premised on the idea that it's flexible. Of course, Withered Wretch and Shred Memory are flexible graveyard hate cards, but they're not run in sideboards either. Why? Because you don't select sideboard cards to be flexible, but to be powerful for their given task.

"The fact that Force of Will is a weak counter, compared to other harder counters, in mid-game doesn't really break the stranglehold that the potential early use of it creates on public opinion. The weakness in the midgame is of course from the extra card required to play it and the life it costs to play. Both weaknesses are significant for many control decks at that point in the game, however the fact that Force of Will is just strictly better on the first couple of turns in preventing losses makes control decks suck it up down the road and play an inferior counter. This is particularly true for decks that run 4 Force of Will and fewer than 4 Counterspells."

FOW is stricly superior to any counterspell, both early, mid and late game. Card disadvantage/life is largely compensated by its free casting cost. Due to its free casting cost, aggro/control deck can easily play all-in while having some protection. Even decks like control keep force of will because they can win counterwars. Tap UU for countespell, opponent counter, you fow. FOW is just the best counterspell ever printed, period. Don't argue that

Back onto Extirpate, i am experiencing a newdeck that will play them MD. Its a sort of control deck. With the extirpate, im hoping to shut down some kill conditions of my opponent

Robert

Force is free and stops any card in the game. Extirpate is only useful in a few marginal situations. I'm sure you can distinguish the difference there yourself.

Atwa

10-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Force is free and stops any card in the game.

Except Extirpate :) Oh the irony.

Forbiddian

10-05-2008, 06:30 PM

FOW is stricly superior to any counterspell, both early, mid and late game.

Do you even know what "stricly [sic]" means?

FOW is just the best counterspell ever printed, period. Don't argue that

Mana Drain is better than Force of Will, if it resolves the game is usually over in Vintage (or in Legacy because of teh match loss illegal decklist).

But anyway, nobody cares that FoW is good or how good it is. Everyone's willing to accept the card disadvantage.

I hate how people are sticking to retarded arguments like, "That assumes that he or she even would have DRAWN the Swords in the first place!"

That's a dumb argument on like 30 levels. For one, it's unknowable and irrelevant. All we know is that it decreases the average value of cards in their deck. Over enough draws, that makes up for the card disadvantage by itself, because they no longer have a 1:1 with tempo removal. They might not even have instant speed removal at all for your man lands.

For two, knowing that they don't have creature removal changes how you play and allows you to play more aggressively, even using creatures as counterbait (because they know they can't answer your goyf later, they have to counterspell it). This goes hand in hand with the average card value thing. You can probably force them into committing to 2:1 trades and that gets you card advantage.

Lastly that I'll get into, they have a huge chance of having another copy of the card in their hand, giving you right away card advantage. Against a lot of decks, that's far more probable than them "never drawing into a swords" as though that matters.

Please stick to arguments that have a legitimate basis. Also, if you care, here are the actual probabilities of drawing one and only one swords to plowshares for x draws:
10: 40%
15: 44%
20: 41%

Probabilities of drawing more than one swords:
10: 13%
15: 26%
20: 41%

Probability that they see another Swords given the hypothetical situation that one Sword had already been drawn:
10: 43%
15: 59%
20: 71%

So yeah, if they like Brainstorm twice and Ponder once, they've already seen 16-20 cards and have like a 60% chance of having another one in hand, ready to get raped by your Extirpate.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-05-2008, 08:50 PM

16 draws assumes that, even with a Brainstorm + shuffle, you get to turn 6.

It's a lot easier to get to turn 6 if you have cards that do something before then. And if we're focusing on late game plans, you still haven't explained where Cranial Extraction (which can pre-empt any drawing of the card entirely) or Haunting Echoes (which is practically a win condition) wouldn't be better.

Also, I notice that your definition of "raped" means, "Forced to discard an Extirpate, maybe, if they haven't immediately used it and on turn 6 when this could also have been done with Cabal Therapy, Blackmail, or, hell, Cry of Contrition".

At least Unburden has cycling.

Peter_Rotten

10-06-2008, 08:52 AM

Stupid go byebye.

Isamaru

10-06-2008, 11:29 AM

Holy crap, a card's that marginally powerful in conjunction with other cards + luck?

Again, why is this card better than Fiery Gambit? Or, y'know what, Hatching Plans? Shit. Why aren't we playing Vial Horror when we're at it?

Don't class my deck with the likes of Fiery Gambit, Hatching Plans... or worse Extirpate. :eek:

Extirpate is absolutely worthless, even in conjunction with other support. My deck, on the other hand, is the first example I've ever come across that is able to truly claim that the sum of the parts is largely stronger than the individual pieces AND individual 'just good' cards such as in GoodStuff.decs

The idea that synergy outweighs individual weakness is ONLY a valid point if:
(1) The individual cards or at least one of them isn't awful alone, given that the sum is powerful enough. (eg Dreadnought + Stifle)
OR
(2) If each piece is not entirely useful alone, there is a VERY large amount of redundancy. (eg Horror + Drake + Stylus + Scepter)

Extirpate aims to fulfill (1), but fails because the result of the combination isn't that spectacular.

Vision Charm + Dreadnought squeezes through (1) because Vision Charm isn't entirely useless and (2) because Stifle and Trickbind can offer redundancy.

Let's look at one more example: Brand. Brand doesn't fulfill either of these because (1) it is awful alone, and (2) there is no redundancy printed as of yet. The closest WotC has come is with Brooding Saurion, but instead it says "nontoken," so it can't be included as redundancy. It would probably also need to be a 1R or R body with that ability to be considered redundancy worth building around.

rancOr_

10-06-2008, 11:45 AM

Extirpate isnt't bad at all,its just 'better' in some decks.
I play 2x MD extirpate in my Rock deck,and it can be very usefull to loam,which is a bad matchup to start with. Extrpate also improves the combo/ichorid MU, and things like ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh,like pate Goyf.
Even if they see it comming, they still wont be able to stop it.

So.. its a good card in some decks and its worse in others. Care?:/

Omega

10-06-2008, 12:46 PM

How about we put an end to this useless debate? Because clearly, it is leading to nowhere. Some argues that it is good (myself) and others argue that it is bad. In the end, nothing has changed

Those who believe extirpate to be decent, good, useful, play with it, win with it.

Those who believe extirpate to be bad, to be card disadvantage, do not play with it, and win without it.

There, the debate is over. Thanks to relativism. Maybe, someday, we will find some strong criterias for what is right and what is wrong

Robert

10-06-2008, 01:26 PM

I think, somewhere, that perhaps there is light, if possible, within those words, surrounded by, and I mean this as kindly as possible, your complete rape, metaphorically speaking of course, of comma use.

Thank you, kind sir, for your words of wisdom, and your trouncing of the debate.

URABAHN

10-06-2008, 04:44 PM

It's Tunnel Vision and you are too fucking lazy to take a look by yourself. It's not difficult to klick on the "1342 Extirpate" and browse for non-European tournaments.

I also don't know what you are trying to accomplish with the SIDEBOARD-card argument. I never wanted to argue for maindecking it. This duscussion is about whether Extirpate is good or not.

From what I have counted yet, you have been 17 times wrong. Tendency rising.

Adan, you're being incredibly rude and you need to read my post a little closer before you come off with "fucking lazy". I think it's obvious you're nearsighted if you don't see the correlation between how good Extirpate is and why it's not a more played card everywhere in the world and the maindeck.

These are facts, they are absolutely indisputable

Have you bothered to count the number of Americans, Asians, and other non-European tournament players running Extirpate? It's all right there for you on Deckcheck.net, it's just one click away! Here are the steps I took to find out which players and which decks are playing Extirpate in the Maindeck

1. Click "Advanced" Search
2. Select "Legacy" from the pulldown menu
3. Type "Extirpate" in the Maindeck field
4. Click "Search"

Are you seeing the same 70 decks I am? Would you like to tell me how many of those 70 decks came from Europe?

Now, do the same, except in Step 3 Type "Extirpate" in the Sideboard field

Are you seeing the same 469 decks I am? Would you like to tell me how many of those 469 decks came from Europe?

Your statement is completely retarded. I don't see people maindecking Tormod's Crypt. Why is that?

Let's talk about being retarded, Hanni. Let's talk about the following statement you made in the ITF thread which I think was just plain dumb.

Against control, even if you lose -1 card from hand and it doesn't change the board state or do anything with the opponent's hand, who cares. You now know there hand, which in itself is almost worth it. Now, the opponent has no more of that win condition left.

You think losing a card, not changing the board state, not changing your opponent's hand, but looking at their hand is almost worth playing? That's just silly. But I want people to focus on the bold part of what you said. If you could have a card that removes a win condition from your opponent's deck as a Split Second Instant,

Why wouldn't you run it in the maindeck?

For those of you still doing things like Extirpating dredgers instead of Bridges, Ichorids or Narcomoebas (with the trigger on the stack), in that order, you're are playing the card incorrectly against Ichorid. What good is dredging your deck if the explosive cards have already been removed from the deck?

Furthermore, in the 4C Threshold mirror, Extirpating Swords to Plowshares, or Nimble Mongoose (or SDT if you're lucky enough to Seize it on turn 1) is a beating even if you give up a card to do it. Leaving the opponent without answers to your Goyfs and Enforcers is brutal. Extirpating Goyf? Kinda meh here.

In the control mirror, Extirpating threats like Decree of Justice, Misrha's Factory, or Eternal Dragon (with it's cost paid and the activation on the stack) typically leave you with more Trump left in the deck than the opponent. In such long games, the usefulness of the card is far more likely to be fully realized.

Less strong argument:

As an aggro or aggro control deck against a control deck, you go for Brainstorms or Swords as it takes away their tempo plays that help keep them in the game early (if you don't draw a lot of threats and they draw Wrath they still need to draw mana to cast it).

Extirpate is extremely useful in control decks against Loam decks, especially control decks which don't also have Counterbalance or Chalice.

Phyrexian Dreadnought is rather hard to deal with. Ripping one out early with discard and Extirpating it saves you from having to scramble to deal with it later. Big Game Hunter is hard to recycle, and most artifact removal critters are too slow.
Target Bridges against Ichorid, and that will hopefully stall enough to drop Plagues on Horror and Illusion.

You use Extirpate specifically against cards that have no replacements. If you Extirpate Tarmogoyf, that's good, but you can still lose to their other creatures. But if you Extirpate Back to Basics, your mana base is forever safe vs. MUC. If you Extirpate Life from the Loam, and the opponent doesn't run Burning Wish, his deck turns to a bunch of utility lands that would otherwise have never made the cut.

Beyond the obvious Wasteland + Extirpate, Thoughtseize + Extirpate, etc. to give immediate board advantage (or the even cooler Thoughtseize + Wasteland + Extirpate), Extirpate has real long term effects on the game.

Against Landstill you can basically win off of the card by Extirpating their wincons, with no possible response from them.

According to these and other advocates of Extirpate, it's good against Bridge, Ichorid, Narcomoeba, Decree of Justice, Life from the Loam, Nimble Mongoose, Back to Basics, Brainstorm, Tropical Island, Swords, Force of Will, Mishra's Factory, Phyrexian Dreadnaught, Eternal Dragon, and not Tarmogoyf.

Force, Tropical Island, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Mishra's Factory, and Tarmogoyf are 6 of the Top 30 Most Played Cards in the format according to Deckcheck.net (Adan, click "Legacy" and click "View the Top 30" on the right-hand side of the page). If Extirpate is that good, why isn't it an auto-include or something you should run in the maindeck?

I understand the wide swing of opinion that we've all had on Extirpate. It's really not a good maindeck card, even in a deck playing a fair amount of discard. However the same can be said for any number of cards that currently hold tenuous main deck slots in Legacy, and Krosan Grip is the primary example of that class of cards in my opinion.

Krosan Grip won't stop a single one of the Top 30, much less the 5 mentioned above. Extirpate can, so why not run it maindeck?

Extirpate: I'm the biggest fan of this card on the Source, and even I would basically never maindeck it. The card is good in three instances: as an answer to graveyard combo; when you're trying to win a game of attrition (by taking away an opponent's long-term trump engine, like Ringleader or Loam); and when you cut an opponent off a splash colour entirely.
Now, if the first situation is so common that you want to maindeck Extirpate, I suggest you maindeck Yixlid Jailer instead, which at least beats for two. The second one clearly doesn't apply to this deck, which just wants to beat face against a opponent whose hand has been heavily disrupted. The third only applies against a few decks (Threshold, 3/4C Landstill) and only if they drop only one land of the critical colour and if you destroy it and Extirpate it before they can drop/fetch another one. Oh, and
if they don't play a basic Forest (Thresh) or a Scrubland (Landstill). So yeah, pretty low odds overall. Wouldn't it just be better to devote those (now three) slots to more disruption and threats?

Nihil, I'm a little confused. According to this, you would almost never maindeck Extirpate, but the first situation (an answer to graveyard combo) is so common you'd maindeck Jailer instead? Wouldn't Extirpate be better because you can remove any one of the previously mentioned cards?

I'm not a fan of Extirpate, my record is clear on that, but I'm willing to hear out the supporters and allow them to sway my opinion. So far I haven't read anything convincing about why I should run the card. What I'm basically reading from supporters of Extirpate is the following

Extirpate is good against [insert one of many cards here], but I wouldn't run it in the maindeck, and I don't know why it's not more popular outside of Europe.

To me that means it's really good, but not that good. Opponents of the card have clearly laid out the pros and cons in this thread and the older [Spoiled Card Discussion] thread. I haven't seen one bit of that from the supporters except these nebulous "Well, you see, it's kinda situational. I mean, I wouldn't run it in every deck, and most people aren't using it right." Maybe we need a primer on how to use Extirpate. I volunteer Adan since he seems to know what he's talking about.

frogboy

10-06-2008, 06:24 PM

Tormod's Crypt is a lot more awesome than Extirpate in fighting Loam decks, and it's not particularly close. The single exception would be if you were aiming at Seismic Assault.

Saying that a lot of people play Extirpate doesn't make it good. A lot of people are positively garbage at Magic.

Nihil Credo

10-06-2008, 06:31 PM

First of all, two big reasons why the vast majority of Extirpates you find on DeckCheck are in Europe:

1) Because the majority of lists are from Europe. Duh.

2) Because the Loam archetype isn't played much outside of Europe, removing the matchup where Extirpate has the biggest advantages compared to Leyline/Crypt/etc (EDIT: Frogboy posted while I was writing this. I strongly disagree with him.)
Why? Now that's a question I'd like to know the answer to. Aggro Loam is second only to Threshold in Top 8s, and a force to be reckoned with in the majority of metagames.

You know what, I'm actually going to make a thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=282147#post282147) for it.

Nihil, I'm a little confused. According to this, you would almost never maindeck Extirpate, but the first situation (an answer to graveyard combo) is so common you'd maindeck Jailer instead? Wouldn't Extirpate be better because you can remove any one of the previously mentioned cards?

I was listing possible reasons given for maindecking Extirpate, and showing them to be fairly weak. The first one I listed was "My metagame is full of graveyard-based decks so I want MD anti-graveyard hate". To that, my answer was "Among graveyard hate options, Jailer is the one that is most fit for maindeck use, since when you don't meet graveyard decks you'll have a 2/1 body, rather than a tool that only helps in long-game struggles (Extirpate) or a complete blank (Crypt, Leyline, etc.)".
BTW, I think today Offalsnout would be better than Jailer at that role.

Illissius

10-06-2008, 06:46 PM

Or, you know, Relic of Progenitus.

Nihil Credo

10-06-2008, 06:57 PM

Or, you know, Relic of Progenitus.
Illissius has nitpicked Nihil Credo with the New Card Cannon!
Illissius's score is now 1,271.
Nihil Credo has respawned.

The Rack

10-06-2008, 09:34 PM

I think that people are really missing that Extirpate is really good against combo too. If they try to IGG loop not only do you extirpate the combo but then they burn with no cards in hand. Same goes for Belcher, if you counter the belcher and Extirpate, game over. ANT, if you hit all the tendrils then they can't do anything. The combo matchup becomes a lot better when you have Extirpate over Leyline which does nothing against a combo that doesn't use the grave. I think that this point has been overlooked for quite some time in this thread.

Forbiddian

10-07-2008, 03:01 AM

Usually if you counter the belcher, it's GG anyway. They need 10 mana to try and go off again. Vs control, they try to dig out a Warrens win.

It's probably a better idea (because of Warrens Win) to try to Extirpate some of their mana production earlier in the turn (like cabal ritual on the stack, extirpate dark ritual, lolol) to try to get lucky and shut them off (you'll hit a second ritual like 30% of the time). Even if you don't, you see their hand and know what their options are. If you see Warrens or a tutor, you'll know you need to counter their fuel. If you just see a belcher, you can sit back a few turns (hope they don't draw into Warrens before you get a second Counterspell or Counterbalance lock on them).

herbig

10-07-2008, 03:29 AM

It's probably a better idea (because of Warrens Win) to try to Extirpate some of their mana production earlier in the turn (like cabal ritual on the stack, extirpate dark ritual, lolol) to try to get lucky and shut them off (you'll hit a second ritual like 30% of the time).

I'm not sure about that percentage, or I'd be playing Brothers Yamazaki beatdown. And don't you get like, priority or something after a spell? Wouldn't a good player play their second copy immediately off the mana from the first?

The card sucks, in my opinion. Rarely it has an affect on the game that can be directly attributed to a win. So will Gosta Dirk if you play him enough times.

frogboy

10-07-2008, 04:42 AM

(EDIT: Frogboy posted while I was writing this. I strongly disagree with him.)

I'm not particularly impressed with either Extirpate or Crypt against Aggro Loam, but Extirpate is probably better because it also picks off whatever redundant pieces they were sandbagging. I think Crypt is a whole lot better against Loam control decks because they have other graveyard interactions. I might be colored by only playing with Demigod, though.

FoolofaTook

10-07-2008, 11:59 AM

Krosan Grip won't stop a single one of the Top 30, much less the 5 mentioned above. Extirpate can, so why not run it maindeck?

Extirpate maindeck is probably about as justifiable as Krosan Grip maindeck. Which is to say that neither of them is particularly justifiable as a maindeck resource unless you're playing a control archetype that is going to be able to get a handle on the game and then win in the mid to late game.

Decks like Goyf Sligh that run Krosan Grip maindeck probably hurt themselves in the process, because they have no way to dig it up when they need it and don't have it and they have no guarantee that it will even be needed. It does however slow down their bid for rapid tempo gain leading to early wins.

The decks that run Extirpate maindeck generally wind up extirpating something marginally valuable early on and hoping that this prevents the opponent from getting into play the things they need to win.

Once you know what the opponent is playing then the value of Extirpate and Krosan Grip improves, because you can either continue to exclude them from the deck in situations in which they are not relevant or you can bring them in when there are specific targets against which they would be highly effective.

Both of these cards are weaker maindeck than Disenchant in the old meta. They're either highly effective or they're a drag on the hand that can really hurt you. The difference is that games went longer back then and at worst Disenchant could be used to kill a Mox or Sol Ring even if the opponent was not playing other artifacts and enchantments.

Forbiddian

10-07-2008, 02:30 PM

I'm not sure about that percentage, or I'd be playing Brothers Yamazaki beatdown. And don't you get like, priority or something after a spell? Wouldn't a good player play their second copy immediately off the mana from the first?

The card sucks, in my opinion. Rarely it has an affect on the game that can be directly attributed to a win. So will Gosta Dirk if you play him enough times.

See my earlier postings for more precise probabilities. I rounded up like 5% (iirc) because people usually mulligan onto hands that can actually do stuff, like BB accelerants and RR accelerants are much much better than BR accelerants, so they're likely to run hands with sets.

About priority: Often players will play like Dark Ritual, resolve it. Cast Cabal Ritual (or Lotus Petal) and try to resolve that to try to bait countermagic before the countermagic would be prohibitive against the combo (or at least giving out less information). It'd be better to cast DR, DR in terms of facing Extirpate, but how many players are thinking about you Extirpating their Dark Ritual?

At least almost everyone tries to resolve spells one at a time to avoid showing the entire hand before countermagic. I'd be very surprised if someone went: Dark Ritual, Pass. Lion's Eye Diamond, Cabal Ritual, Dark Ritual, pass, because it's a weaker play against a control player who's on the edge about countering an accelerant.

Of course, if they're forced to land grant first, you know exactly where to stick the Extirpate.

If you have Extirpate in the board, of course you bring it in vs. Belcher. I mean, duh. Odds are you're running useless stuff like Swords to Plowshares that can come out.

Extirpate might be useful sometimes.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-07-2008, 02:34 PM

Krosan Grip destroys a card in the most relevant zone, play.

Extirpate destroys a card in the fourth most relevant zone, the graveyard, maybe, maybe one in the third most relevant zone, the hand (#2 is the stack, if you're wondering), and otherwise removes copies of a single card from the second-to-least relevant zone, the library.

The first has a tangible effect on the game state.

The second requires you to wait turns and turns to see an impact on card quality equivalent to a full card such as you've lost, if it even happens.

I don't know how to explain the flaw with Extirpate any clearer than that. At least Jester's Cap can actually hobble a deck by removing key cards, such as DoJ from Landstill, or kill conditions or Doomsdays or whatever from Fetch-Tendrils, before they become an issue.

Illissius

10-07-2008, 02:43 PM

How about this: Use Crypt if your game plan involves overwhelming your opponent with tempo or raw power. Use Extirpate if you plan to grind them down through attrition and inevitability.

(This is fairly obvious, but the value of Extirpate increases if the game ends up going long: they're actually hurt by not drawing any more copies of the card where they otherwise very well might have, while Crypt's value decreases: they get time to recover from it.)

(My affinity for Extirpate might have something to do with the fact that I play in online tournaments exclusively, and like to play slow-ass control decks which would have a much more difficult time in Real Life due to the whole time limits thing.)

Forbiddian

10-07-2008, 02:56 PM

Grats that a 2G spell is better than a B spell?

Silvos, Rogue Elemental is much more powerful than Tarmogoyf, why isn't it played? It affects the most important zone (the board) and affects the most important measurement of amount of hits that the enemy can take before they lose the game (their life total) faster than Tarmogoyf (the second most important measurement is Poison Counters if you're wondering).

He's saying that both Krosan Grip and Extirpate are sideboard cards because there are many decks that simply shrug them off (in response to that one person saying, "If it's so good, why don't you maindeck it?!?!?!"). Krosan Grip isn't maindecked because knifing a Lotus Petal for 2G is not a good tradeoff.

He's not saying that Extirpate is exactly as good as Krosan Grip, but that Extirpate is sideboarded for the same reasons that KG is: Both are boarded in against decks where they will ALWAYS be useful regardless of board condition.

Hanni

10-07-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hanni
Your statement is completely retarded. I don't see people maindecking Tormod's Crypt. Why is that?

Let's talk about being retarded, Hanni. Let's talk about the following statement you made in the ITF thread which I think was just plain dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Against control, even if you lose -1 card from hand and it doesn't change the board state or do anything with the opponent's hand, who cares. You now know there hand, which in itself is almost worth it. Now, the opponent has no more of that win condition left.

You think losing a card, not changing the board state, not changing your opponent's hand, but looking at their hand is almost worth playing? That's just silly. But I want people to focus on the bold part of what you said. If you could have a card that removes a win condition from your opponent's deck as a Split Second Instant,

Why wouldn't you run it in the maindeck?

It's funny how everytime I say something, you go and quote something from another thread either completely out of context, or completely outdated. In this specific example, you clearly missed the intentions of the point that I was making (including additional text that you decided not to quote). Not that I'm going to spend time arguing with you about it, though.

But why would I run a card maindeck that is specifically only good against a few decks? It basically comes down to the same as running Tormod's Crypt or something similar in narrowness, maindeck. Which again brings me back to what I said earlier; your statement was completely retarded.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-07-2008, 03:10 PM

Grats that a 2G spell is better than a B spell?

Silvos, Rogue Elemental is much more powerful than Tarmogoyf, why isn't it played? It affects the most important zone (the board) and affects the most important measurement of amount of hits that the enemy can take before they lose the game (their life total) faster than Tarmogoyf (the second most important measurement is Poison Counters if you're wondering).

But you still run Tarmogoyf because it affects the board, and thus a card much cheaper than Tarmogoyf, like, say, Delif's Cone, if it's effect on the game state is minimal, still isn't worth running; because you're giving up more than just mana, you give up a card.You have to justify the use of a card. It's hard to do that with Extirpate unless you're really optimistic or bad at math.

Forbiddian

10-07-2008, 05:02 PM

But you still run Tarmogoyf because it affects the board, and thus a card much cheaper than Tarmogoyf, like, say, Delif's Cone, if it's effect on the game state is minimal, still isn't worth running; because you're giving up more than just mana, you give up a card.

Other than your ridiculous use of a semicolon, way to counter my sarcasm with the exact same sarcasm. *Claps* In case you were just being stupid, I'm pointing out that comparing a card that costs 1's power to a card that costs 3's is a big waste of everyone's time. They fill different niches in the mana curve. I wasn't inviting you to think of the worst 0 mana cost card you could and point out how great Tarmogoyf is. Sorry for the confusion, though.

You have to justify the use of a card. It's hard to do that with Extirpate unless you're really optimistic or bad at math.

I'm the only person who actually gave useful statistics in this thread. Please give me some hard numbers instead of just vague ordinal priority such as "their hand, the stack, the board, the graveyard." I gave data about how often you knife a second card and how often the person would have drawn a second copy. I also gave data on mulliganning to oblivion looking for a futile Leyline.

You're really contributing nothing to the discussion. Recently you've just been parroting back "it doesn't affect board position." Yawn.

I can think of a hundred cards that don't affect board position but are still considered extremely powerful, starting with Ancestral Recall (omg, it only affects the third most important zone... whatever the fuck that means, I think that the Madness zone and sometimes the face up RFG zone are more relevant than the hand anyway) and ending with Survival of the Fittest or Hymn to Tourach.

Obviously, there's other stuff, like "There's better graveyard removal" and "I'd rather have a sideboard of 3-4 absolute bombs that are each good against one deck only (but they wreck that deck) than a sideboard of 1-2 bombs and 1-2 cards that are sometimes weak bombs but are played in more matchups."

Those things would actually be an interesting place to take this debate.

EDIT: To kick this one off: People have touched on this, but there are a number of decks that Extirpate comes in against that Crypt or Leyline would not. Maybe Crypt is stronger in the 3-4 matchups that it comes in on, but I'd never bring Crypt in against Landstill (unless you were bagging some extremely dead weight like Wrath of God) and Extirpate definitely comes in against Landstill.

I'd also like to see people justify the claim that Extirpate is "situationally good." It seems that a lot of people believe this, but I think Extirpate is far more versatile than cards that would replace it (like Tormod's Crypt) in terms of number of MUs that I'd play it in AND in terms of it being solid in more situations within those matches (even if not as powerful all the time).

frogboy

10-07-2008, 05:34 PM

Extirpate definitely comes in against Landstill.

Your deck or your sideboard probably sucks if you can board out that many cards against a board control deck.

URABAHN

10-07-2008, 06:36 PM

It's funny how everytime I say something, you go and quote something from another thread either completely out of context, or completely outdated. In this specific example, you clearly missed the intentions of the point that I was making (including additional text that you decided not to quote). Not that I'm going to spend time arguing with you about it, though.

No, Hanni, I think this is great and I'm not going to let you get away that easy. On 9/7/2008, you made this post in the ITF thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=271172&postcount=410). In it you mention a few things about Extirpate, like the previously mentioned ridiculous comment about how losing a card, not changing the board state, but seeing your opponent's hand has some value. Here are some of your thoughts from that post

5h) I think Extirpate is very strong in this format.

5HA1) I think Extirpate is strong against Ichorid.

5HA2) I think bringing it in against control is huge.

5HA3) Extirpate is good.

How is that out of context? How are your comments made September 9th outdated? Go ahead, set the record straight!

Do you think Glasses of Urza (http://magiccards.info/4e/en/339.html) are better?

But why would I run a card maindeck that is specifically only good against a few decks? It basically comes down to the same as running Tormod's Crypt or something similar in narrowness, maindeck. Which again brings me back to what I said earlier; your statement was completely retarded.

Wait, I thought you said Extirpate was good, I thought you said it was very strong in this format, I thought you said it could remove one of your opponent's win conditions?

If it's so good, Hanni, why not run it maindeck?

What's retarded is how you charge that Extirpate is very strong in this format, but now you're telling everyone it's actually very narrow. How can it be both, Hanni? That's like being a little pregnant, you're either are or you aren't! Hanni, from what I have counted yet, you have been 13.647 times wrong. Tendency rising. But maybe I've taken you out of context.

Everyone involved take a deep breath, please. - Nihil Credo

Citrus-God

10-07-2008, 06:37 PM

Your deck or your sideboard probably sucks if you can board out that many cards against a board control deck.

This is what we call the Landstill mirror...

frogboy

10-07-2008, 06:47 PM

I'm pretty sure Haunting Echoes is a million times better than Extirpate in the Landstill mirror, but I'll bite. What are your targets?

Omega

10-07-2008, 07:39 PM

Wow. Haunting echoes is better?

If haunting echoes actually have a decent casting cost, it would be good. But it doesn't. It costs 5cc. Except FOW, i don't know 5cc cards that are actually played and good in Legacy.
As a wish target though, it can be decent

Why arent extirpate MD : Extirpate are poor against aggro decks. Because they have tons of creatures

Against aggro/control (ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh) the win conds are less higher. Extirpate actually does damage to opponent

Against control, the ability to shut down completly their wins is quite interesting. Or you can just remove their powerful removal (deed, EE) And from there, you secure yourself a path to victory.

edit : Now that im thinking about it, Extirpate is good tool against ITF. They only have 5 win conditions or so.

Robert.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-07-2008, 08:25 PM

Control hinges on expensive cards, usually. DoJ, Eternal Dragon, Deed, Akroma's Vengeance, Wrath of God, Fact or Fiction, Gigapede, Mindslaver, and yes, Haunting Echoes. Control slows the game down so that it can cast these late game bombs, and give itself an advantage over other decks that are only prepared for the early game. If you take a late game view, which is the only way to justify Extirpate at all, Haunting Echoes is better because is wrecks the late game instead of providing an incremental advantage that's dead earlier on.

Remember when Forbiddean was amusing, and not just shrill and irritating? Like, for that one post, anyway.

@ Forbiddian: You posted the statistics that, by the late game, there's a reasonable chance that your opponent will draw another card instead of the removed card. I don't feel the need to produce other statistics because anyone else would see your statistics, even if accurate, as a very good case for still not running Extirpate because it's effect is marginable and untangible.

frogboy

10-07-2008, 09:25 PM

I can sort of see wanting Extirpate to remove their counters, but I'm pretty sure I'd rather just have a must counter.

kicks_422

10-07-2008, 09:37 PM

I think Extirpate is more of a 1-of-utility card than a 4-card strategy in the maindeck, which makes it much more appealing in Vintage control where you can just tutor into it when you really need it. In Legacy, sometimes it just clogs up your hand when you run it as a 3 or 4-of, since you probably won't be Extirpating everything that hits the graveyard.

Extirpate becomes stronger as the game progresses. But as the game progresses, you get more lands into play. As you get more lands into play, you get to cast bombs such as Haunting Echoes. In the lategame, I think it's very much obvious that Echoes is much stronger than Extirpate.

I'm not saying it's awesomely bad. I think it has its uses, but it's not something which you could base your whole strategy for a match on.

Citrus-God

10-07-2008, 10:37 PM

I'm pretty sure Haunting Echoes is a million times better than Extirpate in the Landstill mirror, but I'll bite. What are your targets?

Factories, opposing win conditions, Counters, Dragons, Wastelands, and such.

FoolofaTook

10-07-2008, 10:47 PM

I'm pretty sure Haunting Echoes is a million times better than Extirpate in the Landstill mirror, but I'll bite. What are your targets?

How exactly do you propose to resolve Haunting Echoes against Landstill once they know they're in the mirror? It might get through and kill them in one shot but it's more likely to get countered and then that's your shot gone. Extirpate at least has the advantage that it's very unlikely to get countered by Landstill and it can cripple the opponent with one shot and destroy him with three. Having Mishra's Factory Extirpated is often enough to win the game in the mirror.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-07-2008, 11:11 PM

How exactly do you propose to resolve Haunting Echoes against Landstill once they know they're in the mirror? It might get through and kill them in one shot but it's more likely to get countered and then that's your shot gone. Extirpate at least has the advantage that it's very unlikely to get countered by Landstill and it can cripple the opponent with one shot and destroy him with three. Having Mishra's Factory Extirpated is often enough to win the game in the mirror.

Is Tarmogoyf better than Blurred Mongoose?

frogboy

10-07-2008, 11:13 PM

Having Mishra's Factory Extirpated is often enough to win the game in the mirror.

seriously? why? this just seems like poor construction.

FoolofaTook

10-07-2008, 11:56 PM

Is Tarmogoyf better than Blurred Mongoose?

This is beside the point. No Landstill deck can afford 4x (probably not even 3x) Haunting Echoes in the sideboard just to deal with the mirror, and it's not remotely fast enough to deal with other dredge decks.

Extirpate can go 4x (definitely 3x) in the sideboard because it's not a dead card in the first 3 turns if needed and it's exactly what the doctor ordered against Ichorid and some of the other fast dredge decks out there. Now add in the fact that it's also a functional and potentially devastating resource in the mirror and it's a strong SB option.

If your choice was limited to adding Tarmogoyf at GG3 or Blurred Mongoose at G1 and you needed to potentially have the option available on turn 2 or lose you'd pick Blurred Mongoose even if Tarmogoyf was just win it all when it finally landed. People usually pick sideboard options that are easily accessible when added to a deck. Bombs are great but if they're slow bombs then you'll die before you get to them like you did in game one.

Forbiddian

10-08-2008, 12:00 AM

I also posted two other sets of probabilities that were pertinent to raping baseless arguments.

As for why I'm "shrill and irritating," we just happened to be on the same side of fighting idiocy a few times before. Now that the line is thinner between r-tard and right, you've joined the group of 2/2 zombies that I try to stave off with my Engineered Intellect @ 0.

FoolofaTook

10-08-2008, 12:04 AM

seriously? why? this just seems like poor construction.

Because Extirpating the opponent's Mishra's frees yours up a lot earlier than they might otherwise be able to attack. Having Extirpate be uncounterable means you don't have to blow a counter defending the assault on the opponent's man-lands, meaning that you are still well equipped for the counter battle over their StP's.

Landstill standoffs with Mishra's staring at each other and the first person to make a move giving up some advantage in the process while both people wait to draw a waste or another factory unnecessarily prolong many games.

This doesn't mean that Extirpating 4/7's of your opponent's win conditions is any guarantee but it sure helps.

Citrus-God

10-08-2008, 12:44 AM

Because Extirpating the opponent's Mishra's frees yours up a lot earlier than they might otherwise be able to attack. Having Extirpate be uncounterable means you don't have to blow a counter defending the assault on the opponent's man-lands, meaning that you are still well equipped for the counter battle over their StP's.

Landstill standoffs with Mishra's staring at each other and the first person to make a move giving up some advantage in the process while both people wait to draw a waste or another factory unnecessarily prolong many games.

This doesn't mean that Extirpating 4/7's of your opponent's win conditions is any guarantee but it sure helps.

Well, not to mention it gives you a much better game under Standstill. When under a Standstill, it's better to have Factories because of those stupid EEs sitting there as well as opposing DoJs.

Besides that, I dont see trading soldier tokens for Factories to be a very good deal to begin with... especially when you have a ton of lands out yourself in which you use to destroy their tokens with your own the next turn.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 12:56 AM

Having Extirpate be uncounterable means you don't have to blow a counter defending the assault on the opponent's man-lands, meaning that you are still well equipped for the counter battle over their StP's.

Landstill standoffs with Mishra's staring at each other and the first person to make a move giving up some advantage in the process while both people wait to draw a waste or another factory unnecessarily prolong many games.

The gist of this seems to be "my control deck can't beat a 2/2."

What the hell?

The Rack

10-08-2008, 01:05 AM

FoolofaTook

10-08-2008, 01:09 AM

The gist of this seems to be "my control deck can't beat a 2/2."

What the hell?

Without your own 2/2's it becomes an issue. Landstill minus the man-lands is kind of a slow very clunky control deck that has trouble playing it's signature card and responding when it's opponent does so.

What's your solution as a Landstill player, playing another Landstill player, when your wincons are 2x Eternal Dragon, 1x Decree of Justice or putting EE back on top with Academy Ruins until the opponent decks? Particularly if you face the prospect of having another Extirpate show up in the near term?

frogboy

10-08-2008, 01:37 AM

Well, like I said, poor deck construction.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-08-2008, 01:55 AM

Extirpating Tendrils of Agony.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

I also posted two other sets of probabilities that were pertinent to raping baseless arguments.

And how they did so is a matter that you'll reveal as soon as national security allows, but we should rely on your word, dammit.

Deep6er

10-08-2008, 02:07 AM

I really don't see any combo players running Cabal Ritual out there before Dark Ritual. Generally, if it's TES, they're going to use a protection spell. If it's Belcher, they will generally just run headlong into Force because that's how the deck approaches those match ups.

When I was playing Extirpate against both Belcher and TES, I found it pretty awful. I'd always use it like you said, but it was generally terrible. It makes pretty awful combo hate because it's so unreliable. Thoughtseize is way better, while also allowing you to pursue other strategies that don't rely on you keeping mana open all the time. Even for decks without Force (and ways to find it, like Brainstorm), that's important.

Every single one of your arguments has come up while I was playing the card. My experiences have told me otherwise. I can only ask what deck you've been playing Extirpate in, and what you've been playing against. My testing and playing experiences have taught me, time and time again that Extirpate is bad. What is different for you? Is it that I'm terrible? Do you think that's it? Or are you just mind-numbingly superior? I'm legitimately curious Forbiddian.

thefreakaccident

10-08-2008, 10:23 AM

Well, like I said, poor deck construction.

The excepted base for winconditions in landstill usually is:

2-3 decree of justice
3-4 mishra's factory
1 eternal dragon

One extirpate can go a long way here... especially if you have other ways to deal w/ their other winconditions...

I have actually lost games where my opponent had two extirpates leaving me w/ my single dragon to try and fly over...

And good luck if you already have your humility out... then you will have to jump through hoops to try and win this game.

Obfuscate Freely

10-08-2008, 10:34 AM

thefreakaccident

10-08-2008, 10:41 AM

Attacking a control deck's win conditions represents a misassignment of role, unless for some reason they have to be the beatdown. This is basic theory.

If we're talking about a Landstill mirror match, in which Extirpating Factories could reactive your Standstills, then it isn't misassignment of role, but it's still bad. You're really going to leave Standstills in your deck in the hopes that you can combo them with Extirpate targeting Factory? How do you know how many Decrees the opponent has? Monasteries?

For black based control decks, hitting your winconditions is their only priority... then they can try to win the game.

In a landstill mirror, you can hit their win-conditions... I was just pointing out to him that it does not symbolize bad deck design for extirpate to affect your win-base.

Personally, I usually hit draw with extirpates in the landstill mirror... b/c if you have more cards to work with than your opponent you will generally win the match.

IDK

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 10:51 AM

Personally, I usually hit draw with extirpates in the landstill mirror... b/c if you have more cards to work with than your opponent you will generally win the match.

IDK

Then why wouldn't you just run more draw in that slot? Maybe you're finding that they're outdrawing you because you're using a card disadvantage engine like Extirpate to try and create card advantage?

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 10:55 AM

Does anyone else realize that extirpate is combo hate too? Crypt is not, they can respond to that, they can't, however, respond to an Extirpated TEndrils or Dark Ritual. With all the tutoring and drawing this becomes much more apparent that drawing or searching multiples is not uncommon. Extirpate can totally fuck with their calculations too. If they leave 7 floating and you Pate the LED after IGG resolves you win. It's great against combo too. Am I alone in seeing this?

If you put Crypt on the table, they no longer have the option of trying to go IGG, which means that you get to win anyway.

Haven't we at least made it clear that as GY hate, Extirpate sucks? I mean, I guess I can see where the coolness of its effect can trick you into thinking its good against control, but seriously, as yard hate, it's a bad Cremate.

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 10:56 AM

Then why wouldn't you just run more draw in that slot?
Because card drawing doesn't do double-duty as graveyard hate.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 11:00 AM

Because card drawing doesn't do double-duty as graveyard hate.

Neither does Extirpate.

Adan

10-08-2008, 11:48 AM

There are 2 threads contradicting each other.

On one side, there's AggroLoam. A lot of Americans realized that it's actually a good deck because it has got a huge card-drawing engine which is able to protect itself from Tormod's Crypts or the likes. If you try to remove Life, they simply dredge it in response.

Extirpates prevents that via Split Second and additionally removes every other copy of Life from the Loam. The draw-engine which makes the deck so good is then shut off. So isn't sutting off a draw-engine not in a way cardadvantage? (By the way, 1 Extirpate disposes 4 Life from the Loam, that's CA, too, is it not?).

Extirpate must not be understood as pure graveyardhate but as a versatile sideboard card that is able to fulfill a similar role like Pithing Needle or Meddling Mage.

As pure graveyardhate, Tormod's Crypt is indeed superior to Extirpate, but that is not the main point of the debate.

morgan_coke

10-08-2008, 11:56 AM

I think Extirpate is best in two situations which it is almost never used for:

#1) to take advantage of badly built decks and/or decks that try to stretch for a bridge too far. ITF is a great example of the second type. It's low wincondition count makes it extremely vulnerable to Extirpate on 'Goyf. Many other decks with highly limited but recursive win conditions/lock pieces are equally vulnerable to this strategy.

#2) as a secondary piece of graveyard hate. Extirpate is crap as a main plan vs. mass graveyard strategies like Loam and Ichorid. But it's very good if it's your SECOND piece of hate in supplement to Crypt or Leyline. It's also very good as a way to deal with low-level but highly problematic GY recursion like Genesis or Eternal Dragon or singleton Loams.

For purpose #1, Cranial Extraction is actually better at that job, but costing 4 makes it a significantly worse card.

Extirpate can also work as part of an overall "empty your library of relevant cards" strategy if used in conjunction with things like Hide/Seek and Cranial Extraction. The problem with a strategy like that is that it is highly vulnerable to decks that do things which affect the board.

I still believe Extirpate was printed SOLELY as a counter to Life from the Loam, if it wasn't for so many loam decks also running Burning Wish, Extirpate would be highly valued in that role imho.

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 12:07 PM

Neither does Extirpate.
Yes, it does. Extirpate disables the graveyard engine it targets for the rest of the game (with Burning Wish as the lone exception). That, in my book, is graveyard hate.

Moving a step forward, it is also a graveyard hate effect that many decks want - as a rule of thumb, those that take more than two or three turns to win from a tabula rasa position (which are also the most well-equipped to occasionally take advantage of its secondary pseudo-Cranial Extraction side). For example, I am currently running it in Landstill variants, Rock variants, CounterTop black decks, and some controllish Survival builds.

Maybe your deck and your metagame may get more mileage out of the 0cc Moment's Peace effect of Tormod's Crypt, or the 40%-auto-win effect of Leyline of the Void. Whether that is the case or not, it does not remove Extirpate from the current lineup of top-notch graveyard hate options.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 12:09 PM

So isn't sutting off a draw-engine not in a way cardadvantage? (By the way, 1 Extirpate disposes 4 Life from the Loam, that's CA, too, is it not?).No, it's not. For the same reason that Traumatize isn't card advantage. It seems like it should be, but it isn't, in practice. This is the same reason Dredging LftL is good, regardless of the top three cards of your library. You can't calculate the value of a card based on the hidden top card of your library.

Extirpate must not be understood as pure graveyardhate but as a versatile sideboard card that is able to fulfill a similar role like Pithing Needle or Meddling Mage.Both of these are proactive, and deal with a threat before it has been used. Extirpate deals with future copies once they have already been dealt with, or used by their owner. See the difference?

As pure graveyardhate, Tormod's Crypt is indeed superior to Extirpate, but that is not the main point of the debate.It absolutely is. The people arguing that Extirpate is bad are trying to force you into seeing that in essence, yard hate is really all Extirpate is - outside of niche cases where it's situationally good. We're also trying to tell you that had you played other cards in its stead, you could probably have solved those situations anyway.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 12:31 PM

Yes, it does. Extirpate disables the graveyard engine it targets for the rest of the game (with Burning Wish as the lone exception). That, in my book, is graveyard hate. How many times do Ichorid players need to tell you that Extirpate is a speed bump before you people listen?

Maybe your deck and your metagame may get more mileage out of the 0cc Moment's Peace effect of Tormod's Crypt, or the 40%-auto-win effect of Leyline of the Void. Whether that is the case or not, it does not remove Extirpate from the current lineup of top-notch graveyard hate options.Maybe your habit of downplaying the effect of better yard hate cards will make me reconsider my choices. Probably not though.

Look, I've played with the card, even against the decks you're telling me you really want them against. I've Stripped the Loams out of aggro-loam, and been trounced by Terravores making use of my own fetchlands. I've been beaten up by Crushers that shut off the mana development, but don't shut down their owners hand. I've nuked Landstill's Factories, only to die to Ajani, or Decree, or both. And I've blown up Survival's Survivals and Goyfs, and lost to random 2/x beats. I'm not here trying to tell you guys not to play the card, because honestly I don't care what you're playing, but as far as the card doing what you want it to, in game situations, more times than not your opponent will be like, "whatever." and keep winning. It's not going to get you ahead from behind. It's not going to make a losing game a victory. It will trick you though, into thinking that the card is the reason you won, when in fact, you were probably headed toward a win without it, or with a different grave hate card in its place.

quicksilver

10-08-2008, 12:33 PM

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Look, I've played with the card, even against the decks you're telling me you really want them against. I've Stripped the Loams out of aggro-loam, and been trounced by Terravores making use of my own fetchlands. I've been beaten up by Crushers that shut off the mana development, but don't shut down their owners hand. I've nuked Landstill's Factories, only to die to Ajani, or Decree, or both. And I've blown up Survival's Survivals and Goyfs, and lost to random 2/x beats.

But what other cards do you suggest would have been better in those specific matches? Leyline, if deployed in time, would have made the big guys smaller, but you mention losing to your own fetchlands pumping 'Vore and Crusher's hand-fixing ability, neither of which is affected by Leyline; Crypt would not have done even that. Against Survival or Landstill, both would have been even less helpful.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 01:29 PM

But what other cards do you suggest would have been better in those specific matches? Leyline, if deployed in time, would have made the big guys smaller, but you mention losing to your own fetchlands pumping 'Vore and Crusher's hand-fixing ability, neither of which is affected by Leyline; Crypt would not have done even that. Against Survival or Landstill, both would have been even less helpful.

Welcome to my point. Extirpate is not going to get you out of a losing situation. In those examples, grave hate wasn't really going to do much at all. Which is what Extirpate is.

Omega

10-08-2008, 01:32 PM

But in a neutral position or in a good position, Extirpate can come in handy by neutering a specific card.

Robert

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 01:40 PM

No, it doesn't. For FSM's sake, I don't know any other way to say it...

Extirpate does not actively remove another card from the picture, unless it is present in your opponents' hand. It can ONLY be as good as Cabal therapy against a non-Ichorid deck, because there is no way to calculate its usefulness based on a random topdeck.

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 01:41 PM

Welcome to my point. Extirpate is not going to get you out of a losing situation. In those examples, grave hate wasn't really going to do much at all. Which is what Extirpate is.
Uh, that's closer to the backwards version. "In such and such instances where Extirpate didn't save me, no other hate card would have done so" is most definitely not a point against picking Extirpate for your GY hate.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 01:50 PM

Uh, that's closer to the backwards version. "In such and such instances where Extirpate didn't save me, no other hate card would have done so" is most definitely not a point against picking Extirpate for your GY hate.

Alright, fine. If you're really interested, Engineered Explosives would have been WAY better in every instance, because it actually effects the board, rather than doing almost nothing. Of course, most decks have more than one path to victory (and I say most, because unfortunately not all decks do), so its possible that I would have lost anyway, or lost to the cards I Extirpated. All I know is, it was never as good in practice as it seemed on paper. And since this game is not played on paper by comparing decklists, I'd rather have a card that can actually do something relevant.

freakish777

10-08-2008, 02:20 PM

No, it's not. For the same reason that Traumatize isn't card advantage. It seems like it should be, but it isn't, in practice.

So Disenchanting my opponent's Jaydemae Tome isn't card advantage?

I assert that that play (and Extirpating Loam), while not directly card advantage, ultimately will result in card advantage.

The more options you have available to you the more likely you are to be presented with the best play. If your opponents aren't in a position to "Oops I win" you out, and they choose not to take advantage of their card advantage engines, they're awful players. As hard as it is to do, you should be playing as if your opponents aren't going to make mistakes.

General Question

If Extirpate is in your hand (forget for the time being whether or not you want it or Tormod's Crypt), and Life from the Loam is in your opponent's graveyard, do you A) Extirpate it or B) Not Extirpate it (because it isn't card advantage)?

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 02:24 PM

So Disenchanting my opponent's Jaydemae Tome isn't card advantage?No, it isn't. It's card Parity, at the very best. At worst, it's card disadvantage, because you've traded one card for their one, and they've already replaced it with another.

I assert that that play (and Extirpating Loam), while not directly card advantage, ultimately will result in card advantage.1-1=0. Perhaps you should count again.

The more options you have available to you the more likely you are to be presented with the best play. If your opponents aren't in a position to "Oops I win" you out, and they choose not to take advantage of their card advantage engines, they're awful players. As hard as it is to do, you should be playing as if your opponents aren't going to make mistakes. This has nothing to do with this discussion.

General Question

If Extirpate is in your hand (forget for the time being whether or not you want it or Tormod's Crypt), and Life from the Loam is in your opponent's graveyard, do you A) Extirpate it or B) Not Extirpate it (because it isn't card advantage)?I'm not playing Extirpate, so the question is moot.

Adan

10-08-2008, 02:59 PM

It absolutely is. The people arguing that Extirpate is bad are trying to force you into seeing that in essence, yard hate is really all Extirpate is - outside of niche cases where it's situationally good. We're also trying to tell you that had you played other cards in its stead, you could probably have solved those situations anyway.

It is not.

The opening post shows us only 3 statements. 2 statements saying that Extirpate is bad: one of them without any argumentation and 1 with a stupid argumentation i.e. that Extirpate doesn't affect the board state. Neither does T.Crypt. Just by the way.

Extirpate is not a pure graveyardhate but another tool to strip your opponent's solutions or winconditions which was also the reason why I boarded it in against mirrormatches when playing Threshold for example. Or playing against Threshold when playing Landstill. Stealing Goyfs is huge.

When UWb Landstill did not play Vindicate, it was also good to Extirpate StoPs and then drop Gaddock Teeg ftw.

And I still think a lot of people fail at arguing efficiently here.

quicksilver's board-state argument is stupid because none of the GY hate card affect the board situation. Except Primal Command, lol.

IBA is comparing Extirpate to dummy cards like... Unburden, Funeral Charm,

Nightmare is comparing it to Coffin Purge/Cremate. I mean, wtf.

General Question

If Extirpate is in your hand (forget for the time being whether or not you want it or Tormod's Crypt), and Life from the Loam is in your opponent's graveyard, do you A) Extirpate it or B) Not Extirpate it (because it isn't card advantage)?

I'm not playing Extirpate, so the question is moot.

That's why you will lose against those decks because they can save their Life from the Loam with Cyclelands from Tormod's Crypt and therefore you won't be able to cut their resources.

That's actually the terrible thing about the Loam-Engine: It can protect itself from any graveyardhate and recover by itself (via dredging lands back into the GY which they can throw to your head with Seismic Assault).

Deep6er only said "it's fucking awful" without any justification.

Artowis was imho the closest with his compairison to Meddling Mage since Extirpate is supposed to fulfill a similar role.

This role became more important against Threshold for example. I could still rip my head off when people board Tormod's Crypt against Threshold. THAT's actually carddisadvantage in exchange to gain a little speed. It worked in the past where all the creatures were GY-dependant, but nowadays Extirpate is better against them since you can take their resources or to a degree rape their manabase in combination with Wastelands.

Ah, by the way, please explain me why people made such a paranoia of Extirpate, starting to run Shockduals in addition to the original ones to prevent people raping them with a good timed Wasteland-Extirpate.

This thread is so dumb.

It's like "Abortion - yes or no?"

Additionally this debate is drifting away from "Extirpate - Good or Not?" to "Extirpate vs. Tormod's Crypt" to "Cardadvantage - Carddisadvantage".

freakish777

10-08-2008, 03:03 PM

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

Actually this has everything to do with the discussion.

When your opponent plays Stroke of Genius with x = 3 on and you have Force of Will, you Force of Will it. Why? Because by not doing so you are losing the card advantage war against your opponent. Force is -1 CA in vacuum. Your opponent resolving Stroke there is -2 CA in vacuum. Forcing an opponent's Stroke (x=3) is +1 CA (+1 better than the net result if you didn't).

Or do you not Force their Stroke of Genius (likely the optimal play) because you assume they're a scrub for playing with Stroke (and automatically makes the rest of their deck bad)?

Do you "deal" with Loam or do you automatically assume they won't dredge it for card advantage against you because clearly they're horrible at Magic?

Do you Disenchant the Jaydemae Tome or do you naturally assume that they won't activate it, because they're a bad player?

No, it isn't. It's card Parity, at the very best. At worst, it's card disadvantage, because you've traded one card for their one, and they've already replaced it with another.

1-1=0. Perhaps you should count again.

Perhaps you shouldn't look at a cards in vacuum to do the math.

Let's try this again. If you choose not to Disenchant the Jaydemae Tome, you're now (in the long run) guarenteeing card disadvantage. Your options are: Less Card Divadvantage (Disenchanting) or More Card Disadvantage (not Disenchanting). One of those options yields better net card advantage for you.

Under the assumption card X generates n cards over m turns and card Y prevents o (o < n) of that card advantage from X, it is card advantage in comparison to the alternative.

I don't care about a card's utility in vacuum. I care about utility in the scenarios I'm presented with during game play.

I'm not playing Extirpate, so the question is moot.

:rolleyes:

Not answering hypothetical questions can only hurt your own understanding.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:16 PM

First of all, I plan to ignore Adan's post entirely, since he made sure to do the same to me. I'm not going to continue to cover the same ground over and over just to satisfy you.

Actually this has everything to do with the discussion.

When your opponent plays Stroke of Genius with x = 3 on and you have Force of Will, you Force of Will it. Why? Because by not doing so you are losing the card advantage war against your opponent. Force is -1 CA in vacuum. Your opponent resolving Stroke there is -2 CA in vacuum. Forcing an opponent's Stroke (x=3) is +1 CA (+1 better than the net result if you didn't).

Or do you not Force their Stroke of Genius (likely the optimal play) because you assume they're a scrub for playing with Stroke?You've changed the topic. The quote above, which actually wasn't part of the discussion, had nothing to do with card advantage, and can be summed up as follows:
Don't assume your opponent is a scrub.
Thanks for the advice. Moving on.

Perhaps you shouldn't look at a cards in vacuum to do the math.

Let's try this again. If you choose not to Disenchant the Jaydemae Tome, you're now (in the long run) guarenteeing card disadvantage. Your options are: Less Card Divadvantage (Disenchanting) or More Card Disadvantage (not Disenchanting). One of those options yields better net card advantage for you.Emphasis mine. What did I say that was incorrect? Show me a single point that was wrong. You actually agree, but you're arguing semantics, which frankly, I don't give a shit about. Let's talk about how you're concerned about an opponent playing Jayemdae Tome.

Under the assumption card X generates n cards over m turns and card Y preventing your opponent's card advantage, is card advantage in comparison to the alternative.Again, emphasis mine. You can't ask me if Disenchanting a Tome is CA, and then when I say no, suddenly change the question to COMPARATIVE CA. If you were a politician, sure, that's what you would do, but this isn't politics.

I don't care about a card's utility in vacuum. I care about utility in the scenarios I'm presented with during game play.And yet you're on the PRO-Extirpate side? Anyone else confused?

Not answering hypothetical questions can only hurt your own understanding.It's not my understanding that needs challenging.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 03:20 PM

I'm not playing Extirpate, so the question is moot.

Are you suggesting that you know for a fact that Extirpate is unplayable?

Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that there is enough water in the middle of Death Valley doesn't make you correct.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:24 PM

Are you suggesting that you know for a fact that Extirpate is unplayable? Not at all. I've said, even on this page, that I don't really give a shit whether you play Extirpate or not. I am, however, willing to share in my experience, which has lead me to believe that there are very, very few decks that should be running Extirpate as either a MD or SB card, when they could be running other cards that perform better in actual game play. So few, in fact, that I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'd rather not speak in absolutes so pundits can think they've "trapped me" in an argument I can't get out of.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 03:29 PM

Not at all. I've said, even on this page, that I don't really give a shit whether you play Extirpate or not.

I wasn't asking if you cared that we played Extirpate or not.

I am, however, willing to share in my experience, which has lead me to believe that there are very, very few decks that should be running Extirpate as either a MD or SB card, when they could be running other cards that perform better in actual game play.

So you do think it is unplayable?

EX: I have a burn deck. I need four more cards, and the last four slots are to be filled with either Lightning Bolt or Shock.

Shock is obviously unplayable because it is inferior to Lightning Bolt.

So few, in fact, that I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'd rather not speak in absolutes so pundits can think they've "trapped me" in an argument I can't get out of.

What decks WOULD benefit from Extirpate?

nitewolf9

10-08-2008, 03:30 PM

Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that there is enough water in the middle of Death Valley doesn't make you correct.

And I could get a good look at a new york strip by sticking my head up the cow's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:31 PM

So you do think it is unplayable?

What decks WOULD benefit from Extirpate?
Why are you asking me these ridiculous questions?

ParkerLewis

10-08-2008, 03:32 PM

No, it isn't. It's card Parity, at the very best. At worst, it's card disadvantage, because you've traded one card for their one, and they've already replaced it with another.

I'm sorry but this feels very shaky. If t's card disadvantage because you've traded one for one that they already replaced, then it's still CA neutral compared to the situation where it's next turn and you didn't naturalize it.
Or, CA+1 compared to the situation 2 turns later.

I agree there would be no sense in continuing comparing situations that are more turns away from one another than is the case here (well, depends on the matchup), but one or two turns away is still pretty tangible.

It's not absolute CA, but who gives a damn absolute (except for vodka) ? It's like saying that responding to Ancestral Recall with your own Ancestral Recall is bad because it's CA neutral.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 03:32 PM

Why are you asking me these ridiculous questions?

I am, however, willing to share in my experience, which has lead me to believe that there are very, very few decks that should be running Extirpate as either a MD or SB card, when they could be running other cards that perform better in actual game play.

:laugh:

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:37 PM

I'm sorry but this feels very shaky. If t's card disadvantage because you've traded one for one that they already replaced, then it's still CA neutral compared to the situation where it's next turn and you didn't naturalize it.
Or, CA+1 compared to the situation 2 turns later.

I agree there would be no sense in continuing comparing situations that are more turns away from one another than is the case here (well, depends on the matchup), but one or two turns away is still pretty tangible.

It's not absolute CA, but who gives a damn absolute (except for vodka) ? It's like saying that responding to Ancestral Recall with your own Ancestral Recall is bad because it's CA neutral.You're comparing apples to oranges.

Freakish - would you agree that disenchanting a Jayemdae is card advantage?
Me - No, it's card parity at best.
Everyone - WOW YOURE A NOOB. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FUTURE DRAWS?

The answer is - Who cares? You've already nuked the tome. Those future draws aren't going to happen anymore, and you've created parity by killing the tome.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:38 PM

:laugh:
So... since I've already answered your question, mine still stands?? I've made my opinion on the card pretty clear. Why don't you read the thread?

Adan

10-08-2008, 03:38 PM

First of all, I plan to ignore Adan's post entirely, since he made sure to do the same to me. I'm not going to continue to cover the same ground over and over just to satisfy you.

That's fascism aka Nazi-technique (tm), YOU don't have the right to do that.

Well, as lon as I don't see a plausible argumentation why Extirpate is really a bad card I won't care. Me and a lot of users before have given you scenarios where Extirpate makes indeed sense.

And you were replying with "I don't run Extirpate, I don't care". Good point!

Again: Extirpate is there to handle things you could not otherwise. It works - and that's why Artowis was still close - like Meddling Mage. That's why taking opponent's solutions or winconditions indeed makes sense.

By the way, I raped ITF this afternoon with UGb tempo-Thresh by wasting his Tropical Island and then extirpating it. he could not play his Life, his Goyfs, his Witness and Etched Oracle was also diabled from that moment on.

Sure, this is an example where Extirpate is good in combination with other cards, but Tormod's Crypt won't ever be able to do such things.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:41 PM

That's fascism aka Nazi-technique (tm), YOU don't have the right to do that.Godwin's Law. I win.

By the way, I raped ITF this afternoon with UGb tempo-Thresh by wasting his Tropical Island and then extirpating it. he could not play his Life, his Goyfs, his Witness and Etched Oracle was also diabled from that moment on.

Sure, this is an example where Extirpate is good in combination with other cards, but Tormod's Crypt won't ever be able to do such things.
What if he had just not drawn another Trop? Or, more likely, he drew a fetch and you stifled it? Meanwhile, you beat with Goyf or Goose for the win. Would you still have thought Extirpate was the balls in that scenario, or dead weight?

Deep6er

10-08-2008, 03:42 PM

@Adan: Jack (IBA) is making comparisons to those cards to show a point. Simply put, the arguments that people are putting forth about Extirpate are bad, and the reason they are bad is because people don't play cards like the ones he mentioned (which would be better than the argument that he's refuting).

I also went into depth beyond "fucking awful". Had you read my posts that I have made on the matter, you would know the breadth of my dislike for the card, and the reasoning behind it.

Just as a note, saying that people "fail at arguing" and then failing at reading comprehension is generally poor etiquette.

People running Rav duals "as an answer to Extirpate" are generally those who are paranoid about it. You're right about that. However, it's poor to do that. It's a bad idea to run sub par cards in order to defend from a sub par card.

This thread serves a purpose. For those who haven't made a clear cut distinction on what they think of Extirpate, this thread helps them. By offering information on both sides of the argument, you enhance the learning of others. If that's "dumb" to you, then why are you here? A message boards explicit (in the case of the Source) purpose is to improve those who post here. If that is not what you wish, then why are you here?

@Freakish: I would say that the problem with your examples is that not enough information is given. There have been times in the past where I have not countered things like Fact or Fiction/other card advantage spell because of extenuating circumstances. The best example was the fact that I would rarely counter Standstill (except in cases where it was dropped turn 2 and I didn't have any more lands in my hand and needed to find more) when I was playing Solidarity. Standstill is +2 Card Advantage. It absolutely will be (in this scenario). Yet, it was irrelevant to me. Extenuating circumstances happen all the time. That's why comparing things on paper to what happens in testing/tournaments is generally worse. Tournaments and real life scenarios are the basis from which you should draw your conclusions, not untested theory.

On that note, I understand Nightmare's reluctance to answer your hypothetical scenario. If the hypothetical scenario is one that is useless or pointless to the discussion at hand, then I can understand ignoring it. In this scenario, Nightmare has made it clear that he will never play Extirpate and thus the hypothetical scenario is moot. Because it would matter what deck he was playing in order to answer it accurately. Since you gave so little information, the obvious point is that you had an answer prepared for however you thought he was going to answer it. Instead of going in circles with your prepared answers, he ignored it.

I contend that your hypothetical scenario is too undefined to accurately glean any useful information from.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 03:45 PM

So... since I've already answered your question, mine still stands?? I've made my opinion on the card pretty clear. Why don't you read the thread?

You stated that you did think the card was playable, then proceed to post no decks that would use it.

I asked for any decks that would use it, then you answer my question with a question.

So I'll ask the question again: What decks would use Extirpate?

Omega

10-08-2008, 03:46 PM

I think Adan is right. Graveyard hate should not be seen as card advantage. That notion might not explain all magical interraction of the games.

Here are some concepts of Magic...
Cards disadvantage seems to be a broad concept that includes every cards that generate no real advantage (on the Board, hand, graveyard). It is really difficult to place a card under this category. The only card i can think of that is pure disadvantage : 8cc 1/1 when comes into play sacrifice it and remove your hand and graveyard. That's a card that deserves its place in an unglued set. But you can clearly see that this card is pure disadvantage :) I dont believe that there pure disadvantage cards played in Legacy.

Cards advantage is what we can understand as cards that generate advantage in terms of cards. Dark confidant, on the long run, is card advantage in exchange of life. Fact of Fiction is card advantage. Harmonize is card advantage. Cards advantage can win games, but not always. It increases your chances. People usually counter Dark Confidant and Fact or Fiction (not always, but usually), because those cards generate cards advantage and can improve chances of winning.

After cards advantage, we also have cards quality. The best example is Sensei's divining top. When played, it generates 0 card advantage (board and hand). However, on the long run, Sensei's divining top gives huge card quality advantage, and that can help you win game. Card quality is probably > card advantage in some circumstances.

we can also invent the permanent category. Creatures, artifacts, enchantment, etc. Permanents create a mini-card advantage on the board. If you play 1, you have +1 advantage on the board.

Where to put the Graveyard removal?
Is bounce card disadvantage? It is a 1-1 trade. So it is parity. It does have an impact on the board. But Magic isnt only about board. There is Hand, Library AND Graveyard. Leyline of the Void, Tormod's crypt and Extirpate all affect graveyard. They do not win game on their own but they disrupt opponent's gameplan.
Extirpate in my sense, is a limited graveyard removal. It is also a limited "card quality" against opponent. By cutting 1 card of his deck, you are limiting him from getting it. Extirpate also provides some other utility information, such as seeing hand. HOWEVER, it does not affect Board.

I have no idea why i wrote this and i dont even know if it makes any sense or if it is of any use...

all said. Extirpate is not that bad. Magic isnt just about board. Its about hand, graveyard and deck. Traumatize certainly creates no real big advantage. On the long run, though, opponent will be decked earlier. In which case, we can say that Traumatize was card advantage in the sense that it cut the deck into 2

Robert

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 03:47 PM

You stated that you did think the card was playable, then proceed to post no decks that would use it.

I asked for any decks that would use it, then you answer my question with a question.

So I'll ask the question again: What decks would use Extirpate?Read the post again, killer. I said I couldn't think of any decks that should run the card, but wouldn't say none, specifically to avoid this situation. Thanks for putting me in it anyway.

Adan

10-08-2008, 03:57 PM

Godwin's Law. I win.

lol? O.o Funny theory, though.

What if he had just not drawn another Trop? Or, more likely, he drew a fetch and you stifled it? Meanwhile, you beat with Goyf or Goose for the win. Would you still have thought Extirpate was the balls in that scenario, or dead weight?

It is balls bcause he won't be able to play any blockers. and since Counterbalance does not affect the boardposition, I can save my Stifles and my other counters for EE, Deed and Shackles. Extirpate is also useful against recurring EEs or to take his remaining Deeds, Swords or whatever could handle my creatures from the top. Not having to worry about the opponent to topdeck is also a good point about Extirpate.

In this case we might also compare it with thoughtseize: They both can be able to handle Deeds or something like that, but Thoughtseize is dead against topdecks. Extirpate prevents them.

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 03:58 PM

Read the post again, killer. I said I couldn't think of any decks that should run the card, but wouldn't say none, specifically to avoid this situation. Thanks for putting me in it anyway.

This doesn't make any sense.

If you claim to have experience with the card and are willing to share that, but then state after being asked that you won't or can't, then why are you bothering to post? If you wanted to avoid the situation, why in the world would you suggest you wanted to discuss your experiences?

You are contradicting yourself and it's not making any sense. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you: I just wanted to know IF you wanted to discuss any (competitive) decks that would MD or SB Extirpate. Just a simple yes or no.

Nightmare

10-08-2008, 04:03 PM

It is balls bcause he won't be able to play any blockers. and since Counterbalance does not affect the boardposition, I can save my Stifles and my other counters for EE, Deed and Shackles. Extirpate is also useful against recurring EEs or to take his remaining Deeds, Swords or whatever could handle my creatures from the top. Not having to worry about the opponent to topdeck is also a good point about Extirpate.

In this case we might also compare it with thoughtseize: They both can be able to handle Deeds or something like that, but Thoughtseize is dead against topdecks. Extirpate prevents them.

He won't be able to play any blockers because he has no green mana. This has nothing to do with Extirpate, and everything to do with your stifle (in the hypothetical I've given). I'm curious where the Counterbalance comes in - neither of us have mentioned it before now - the same is true of shackles, Deed, EE, etc.

Once again, we're back to the idea of Extirpate preventing topdecks. This is a logical fallacy, and can't actually be taken into account when addressing how well the card performs. I don't know how many more times I have to say that.

nitewolf9

10-08-2008, 04:03 PM

This doesn't make any sense.

If you claim to have experience with the card and are willing to share that, but then state after being asked that you won't or can't, then why are you bothering to post? If you wanted to avoid the situation, why in the world would you suggest you wanted to discuss your experiences?

You are contradicting yourself and it's not making any sense. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you: I just wanted to know IF you wanted to discuss any (competitive) decks that would MD or SB Extirpate. Just a simple yes or no.

He already asserted his position that extirpate is trash. I think that's the reason that he can't think of a deck in which extirpate would be good. The caveat at the end was to avoid any outlandish or obscure usages of the card where it could turn out to be worthwhile, and to avoid seeming simply stubborn.

I see no contradiction, but would like to know if English is your native tongue before going further. It seems that this misunderstanding could be caused by misunderstood linguistic nuances.

freakish777

10-08-2008, 04:06 PM

Again, emphasis mine. You can't ask me if Disenchanting a Tome is CA, and then when I say no, suddenly change the question to COMPARATIVE CA. If you were a politician, sure, that's what you would do, but this isn't politics.

Strict card advantage theory isn't very useful on it's own, where as comparative card advantage actually gets you somewhere (in game play, in deckbuilding, do I make play X or play Y, do I include card c or card d? Numbers/Attributes/Properties without the ability to compare/contrast them may as well all be the same). My original question wasn't worded properly, hence the "Let's try this again." It wasn't my intent to change the question on you.

It's not my understanding that needs challenging.

I think this is incorrect. Everyone's understanding should be challenged on a regular basis, and the only person who can really challenge your understanding of something is yourself. Not doing so is a disservice to yourself.

Adan

10-08-2008, 04:22 PM

He won't be able to play any blockers because he has no green mana. This has nothing to do with Extirpate, and everything to do with your stifle (in the hypothetical I've given). I'm curious where the Counterbalance comes in - neither of us have mentioned it before now - the same is true of shackles, Deed, EE, etc.

It has to do with Extirpate since it took ALL his green manasources. He did not have access to green mana for the rest of the entire game. Therefore, we can neglect Pernicious Deed as well as a possible out against the current board state.
ITF also plays 8 fetchland. I'd have to have 8 Stifles and 4 Wastelands to keep him off his green mana. A single Wasteland and a single Extirpate can be enough.

I mentioned Counterbalance and all the other things to demonstrate you how many cards Extirpate can make redundant.

Once again, we're back to the idea of Extirpate preventing topdecks. This is a logical fallacy, and can't actually be taken into account when addressing how well the card performs. I don't know how many more times I have to say that.

Stifle doesn't prevent him from drawing another fetchland into Tropicals or drawing a Tropical itself. It's not a fallacy at all since this is one of the main character of Extirpate: to reduce the opponent's odds of drawing a certain solution to zero.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 04:24 PM

The best reason to play Breeding Pool has got to be the look on the other bastard's face when he Extirpates you and you show him Pool, Deed, kill your board next turn. Bonus points if you needed the shuffle for Top.

(I haven't actually done this yet, but I'm pretty eager for it to happen)

DragoFireheart

10-08-2008, 04:35 PM

He already asserted his position that extirpate is trash. I think that's the reason that he can't think of a deck in which extirpate would be good. The caveat at the end was to avoid any outlandish or obscure usages of the card where it could turn out to be worthwhile, and to avoid seeming simply stubborn.

I see no contradiction, but would like to know if English is your native tongue before going further. It seems that this misunderstanding could be caused by misunderstood linguistic nuances.

Here is what he said:

I am, however, willing to share in my experience, which has lead me to believe that there are very, very few decks that should be running Extirpate as either a MD or SB card, when they could be running other cards that perform better in actual game play.

The contradiction comes from, according to what you stated, the fact that he stated that the card is trash, yet he then posts that he believes there are very, very few decks that would use it.

Which suggests that there is at least one deck that might use it.

I was curious to know, but then he said he didn't want to get dragged into a debate and/or didn't know any decks. Which doesn't make sense, since he posted that he was willing to share his experience.

I'm sure that Bridge from Below is trash in most Legacy decks. Then again, I think it's safe to assume that it's a core card for Ichorid Combo.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

And yes, English is my native language.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 04:48 PM

The card is fine if you're using it to get some sort of strategic advantage in the long term or if it completely kolds a yard-based strategy. In Standard, it was good in the Teachings mirror for reason a) and decent against Project X for reason b). The point of contention is if it gets a strategic advantage in whatever matchup and if it actually rapes Ichorid.

freakish777

10-08-2008, 04:49 PM

<a lot of stuff>

My point ultimately is for a given metagame there is an optimal 75 cards to be playing. From my experience there are definitely gameplay scenarios where Extirpate is the best or second best card you could hope to draw, and if you have a strong reason to believe that the metagame you play in will yield a sufficiently large amount of those scenarios, then not considering Extirpate is mathematically incorrect (assuming your only goal is to maximize winnings in that metagame).

Clearly we disagree on:

What scenarios are contained within the Set "Scenarios where Extirpate is the best or second best card you could draw (given the contents of your deck/how well does it work with the rest of your deck)."
The exact utility (percentage chance you have of winning due to playing Extirpate, given the rest of your deck) of Extirpate in each of those scenarios.
What exactly is a sufficiently large amount of scenarios.

The entire reason to interject hypothetical questions into the discussion is to get people to agree on the fact that there exists a scenario where Extirpate is the best card you could hope to draw. Once that's done it's a question answering "What other scenarios are in the Set," "How good is it exactly in that scenario," and "How often does that scenario come up."

I'm not particularly concerned about whether or not people agree on those questions, I'm concerned about whether or not people are even capable of getting to those questions, or if they're simply too stubborn to get there.

My stance on Extirpate is and always has been, there currently exist (and there will exist for the foreseeable future) metagames where playing more than zero Extirpates in your 75 cards is mathematically correct to maximize winning. I don't believe this is true for all metagames, I don't believe that playing the optimal list guarentees you the ability to not fuck up your in game choices, I don't believe Extirpate should be played in the main (barring every deck in your metagame except you is Ichorid, in which case you might as well maindeck Entrails Feaster on top of Crypt, Extirpate, Jailer, Leyline, etc), I don't believe any of what I just said is anywhere near provable until there exists a computer program capable of both understanding Magic and doing the math (which won't happen).

frogboy

10-08-2008, 04:55 PM

My point ultimately is for a given metagame there is an optimal 75 cards to be playing.

True for each individual person, but my best 75 is different from someone who's skill level is radically different from mine.

freakish777

10-08-2008, 05:04 PM

True for each individual person, but my best 75 is different from someone who's skill level is radically different from mine.

Sure, and assuming an Optimal Player or Virtual Optimal Player, a distinct 75. Cards like Therapy and Extirpate would actually be much better for a Virtual Optimal Player...

Adan

10-08-2008, 05:13 PM

True for each individual person, but my best 75 is different from someone who's skill level is radically different from mine.

Extirpate still rapes your Intuition Demigod thing.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 05:34 PM

Intuition can get cards other than Demigod of Revenge. True story. It's a little softer to Extirpate than most of the Counterbalance Loam decks, but that's okay because Extirpate is garbage and so are people who play it ldo!

Besides, I don't think that deck is the best deck in the format.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-08-2008, 05:38 PM

So, Adan can't count (Extirpating a card that you might draw is as good as Stifling a fetchland that's in play? Really?) and Nightmare's pretty awesome. Also

For black based control decks, hitting your winconditions is their only priority... then they can try to win the game.

In a landstill mirror, you can hit their win-conditions... I was just pointing out to him that it does not symbolize bad deck design for extirpate to affect your win-base.

Personally, I usually hit draw with extirpates in the landstill mirror... b/c if you have more cards to work with than your opponent you will generally win the match.

IDK

Time limits.

If you say you routinely win game 2's in the Landstill mirror because you Extirpate their win conditions, I'll call you a liar. In fact, siding at all for the Landstill mirror is ridiculous, unless you have some blindingly fast man-plan or combo in the board.

I can concede in so far as Extirpate is somewhat useful against Life from the Loam decks, but as Crypt or Leyline will hit those decks and more, no reason for running Extirpate exists aside from having a meta that's 30% or more Loam. And I mean Loam Loam, not like, ITF running 1 LftL to Intuition for.

Adan

10-08-2008, 06:02 PM

So, Adan can't count (Extirpating a card that you might draw is as good as Stifling a fetchland that's in play? Really?)

In my scenario is it since extirpating his Tropical island will dispose all of his green manasources. Stifle only generates speedadvantage, but won't prevent him to draw further green sources to which we would have to count the remaining Fetchlands because they are also able to get further Tropical Islands into play with which they can cast Goyf, Loam, Deed.

Stifle counters a fetchland and might be able to neuter a landdrop, therefore it's a 1to1 trade with speedadvantage aka. tempo, but Extirpate removes 4 cards from he game which is already a 1 to 4 trade. Now if we consider that the loss of those 4 green manasources result in the inability to cast 9 green cards (Loam, Witness, 4 Goyf, 3 Deed) and making a 10th worse (Etched oracle's Sunburst), it's virtually a 1 to 10 trade.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 06:09 PM

but Extirpate removes 4 cards from he game which is already a 1 to 4 trade.

Elaborate. (hint: see below)

in the inability to cast 9 green cards (Loam, Witness, 4 Goyf, 3 Deed) and making a 10th worse (Etched oracle's Sunburst), it's virtually a 1 to 10 trade.

Suppose none of these green cards get drawn?

Also:

The best reason to play Breeding Pool has got to be the look on the other bastard's face when he Extirpates you and you show him Pool, Deed, kill your board next turn. Bonus points if you needed the shuffle for Top.

(I haven't actually done this yet, but I'm pretty eager for it to happen)

TheInfamousBearAssassin

10-08-2008, 06:10 PM

Yeah, Extirpate is +9 ca. Contract from Below, lookout!

This conversation is a farce.

Forbiddian

10-08-2008, 06:14 PM

@Nightmare: Although I see your point that you don't like Extirpate, why are you posting in the melting pot thread if your response to questions is, "I don't run Extirpate and will never run Extirpate?"

You could at least humor the other posters by answering their hypotheticals. It's not like you lose any face by saying, "I'd play Extirpate in the Landstill mirror" or something.

It's really hard to have a conversation/debate if people only argue semantics or ignore each other's arguments. I do see your point (and it's valid), but in favor of keeping the debate going, just humor us. We're trying to have some fun here.

@Deep6er from a long time ago: I've played Extirpate (and been very happy with it) in: Tog as Wish target, UB Fish as sideboard (although I don't like it too much), Suicide Black as maindeck 2 copies, sideboard 2 copies, and in Landstill sideboard as 3 copies. I'm working on actually getting Survival now, and I'm probably going to run it, if only for financial reasons I don't want to trade for more random sideboard cards.

I've toyed around with it in other decks, but I've found that you need Countermagic and Wasteland or Peek Effects+Wasteland to take advantage of it to the point where it's actually a really good card. I liked it in Landstill only because Landstill runs so many cards that are dead against non-creature decks.

The sideboard scheme: It doesn't go in against Aggro, usually goes in against control that I have dead cards against, and almost always goes in against combo, regardless of whether they use the graveyard or not (because against the non-GY ones I have dead cards anyway). This sideboard scheme is pretty constant for all the decks that I just listed, but I can go into more specifics if you'd like.

The four cards that jockeyed for that position were: Extirpate, Crypt, Planar Void, Jailer, and Leyline, probably in that order.

I usually try to devote a healthy 6-8 slots for the Night Shift. This would leave about 4-6 slots for problem matchups and 3-5 slots for utility sideboard (cards which come in to handle a wide range of decks, but usually only trade 1:1 or so).

I found that I liked my sideboards more when I ran about 6 or 7 slots of Graveyard duty when 3 or 4 of those slots were Extirpates and would function double as removing dead cards against other matchups. I would then run about 5 other utility cards like Swords, Krosan Grip, uhm... you know. 1:1 cards. The last 3-4 slots would be dedicated toward real problem matches that the deck faced. This combination means that games 2-3, I never have dead magic. I usually beat Ichorid, even if I lose G1, and the sideboard is really well-rounded to dealing with random decks.

If I wanted to free up more slots, I could drop some Ichorid percentage by running 4 copies of Leyline or 4 copies of Planar Void (so cutting GY hate to 4 cards from 6), but then I would lose effectively 4 utility cards. I decided that although Extirpate is not the bomb I always want out of my sideboard, I run 50% more Ichorid hate than most people.

Anyway, that's why I run it. I usually sideboard to fill holes in my deck instead of to fill holes in problem matchups. I'd rather see 12 dead cards become 12 useful cards than 8 dead cards and 4 bombs. Usually after enough iterations, I come to the same conclusion about my sideboard as other people (or they eventually come to my conclusion), but it seems like two different sideboard philosophies came up with two different answers.

I think that the metagames are varied enough that specific hate is less effective than guaranteeing that you have 60 cards that work together for the back two.

A lot of times I do wish that my Extirpates were Cabal Therapies or that my Extirpates were Leylines or Crypts or (especially often) that my Extirpates were land. I have even played a few games where I wished Extirpate was the card I boarded out for it! On the whole, though, it's won so many games by consistently being able to handle the transformational sideboard or stealing endgame inevitability against a number of decks that rely on specific cards to win the game in the end.

It also is extremely strong against Ichorid, Loam, anything with a graveyard, etc.

Adan

10-08-2008, 06:18 PM

Suppose none of these green cards get drawn?

Even if they get drawn, what are they useful for if you can't cast them...???

If Gearheart or any other ITF player is going to maindeck Breeding Pool because of THIs debate, I will... laugh?

Anyway, my argument is still that Extirpate is not only useful as graveyardhate but also as a useful tool to handle things you usually could not (Loam, Wasteland-lock) and to win resource-battles by taking certain solutions out of your opponent's deck.

frogboy

10-08-2008, 06:26 PM

Even if they get drawn, what are they useful for if you can't cast them...???

what if they don't get drawn?

Adan

10-08-2008, 06:32 PM

what if they don't get drawn?

Then the deck fails at applying any pressure to actually WIN.

URABAHN

10-08-2008, 06:44 PM

Then the deck fails at applying any pressure to actually WIN.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Because your opponent doesn't draw those cards, the deck fails at applying any pressure to win? I get the feeling Extirpate is some kind of pet card for you, Adan. You remember all the great times you've had together, but yet you forget all the bad times. Nightmare hit it on the head, you cannot measure the things you don't have. Just because you've removed X copies of a card, doesn't necessarily mean you've improved your position.

I've got grrreat Extirpate stories, too!

One time at the Fuddrucker's tournament in Annandale, I'm playing against Sean Park and I get one of his 'goyfs in the 'yard. I Extirpate his 'goyf and he's got two more in his hand! WOW! Then I won 20 turns later because I'm playing Landstill.

This other time, at the Running GAGG, I'm playing against A Legend and he's playing Aluren. He tries to go off, but I suspect he has a Force of Will in hand for my Swords to Plowshares. So I Extirpate the Force of Will in his 'yard and get the one in his hand so I can use my StP to stop his combo! WOW! Then I won 20 turns later because I'm playing Landstill.

Deep6er

10-08-2008, 06:55 PM

Adan, you're missing the point that you can't qualify Extirpate's removal of cards in the library as card advantage. That's not how Magic works.

If you seriously subscribe to that belief, then you should play things like Denying Winds or Traumatize. But you don't, because you're not retarded (hopefully).

Read what frogboy's trying to say. Reading comprehension dude. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're definitely missing the point.

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 07:10 PM

WOW! Then I won 20 turns later because I'm playing Landstill.

I'm not sure what that punch-line is supposed to mean.

In related news, this thread has tons of views but comparatively few posters, and most have been resolved supporters either for or against. I'm curious to see if those people who can't be bothered to enter the fray have an opinion about this, and if so, what that is. I added a poll to satisfy that curiosity (and please don't use it as evidence for either side, it would be pointless and unproductive).

In unrelated news, URABAHN, your post gave me a deja-vu of an Asian girl with big tits. No idea why.

FoolofaTook

10-08-2008, 08:05 PM

Nihil Credo

10-08-2008, 09:21 PM

The poll needs to differentiate between sideboard and main deck in my opinion. I don't see very many scenarios where Extirpate would be even a passable main deck card, however I see a bunch where it has value in the sideboard.
I meant anywhere in the 75. Edited for clarity. Should anyone need to change his vote on this, PM me.

Sanguine Voyeur

10-08-2008, 09:24 PM

I remain undecided, however I will say this;

Being able to get four Extripates out of one copy of Extripate is great.

Obfuscate Freely

10-08-2008, 11:00 PM

I'll chime in, but I can really only repeat what has already been said.

Extirpate rarely diminishes your opponent's resources beyond the removal of a single card in his or her graveyard. The cards it takes out of your opponent's deck are usually irrelevant, because cards in the library are not a useful resource, and most well-constructed decks will still function without a given playset of cards.

Corner cases, such as combining Wasteland with Extirpate against a deck with only Tropical Islands to produce green mana, and managing to do so before your opponent fetches two Trops, or plays all of his green spells, or even just wins the game, do little to make up for the fundamental problems with a card that otherwise does nothing to improve the game state in your favor.

So, what we're left with is an argument over whether Extirpate is acceptable as a sideboard card, aimed specifically at graveyard-based decks. In the current metagame, the only major graveyard-based decks are Ichorid and Aggro Loam. Now, while Extirpate is certainly effective against Loam decks (especially if you have some way to stop Burning Wish from resolving), it is considerably weaker than the alternatives against Ichorid. Conversely, several cards that are much better against Ichorid, such as Tormod's Crypt, are still perfectly serviceable against Aggro Loam, and most non-Landstill decks don't want to board graveyard hate against Loam, anyway.

Ultimately, I don't think Extirpate is worth looking at unless you're playing a late-game deck in a metagame full of Aggro Loam.

The Rack

10-08-2008, 11:23 PM

I think that everyone realizes that Extirpate isn't CA. That's established, but that hasn;t stopped us from playing other cards. Extirpate is powerful because it gets rid of one key card forever. It is going to be more relevant than Crypt against a variety of different decks. I would like to never see Life from the Loam because that's a key part of a deck. Same goes for Tarmogoyf, Physchatog, Vedalken Shackles. I don't want to see these cards more than once. I think the "what if" arguments are bullshit because we can all run in rhetorical circles. What if the deck never drew the card that I would want to Extirpate? Does that make Extirpate bad? I don't think so. If they have 12 business spells, now they only have 8, that's better percentages for you of winning the game. Crypt stops Loam but not until they topdeck the next one. Then you're back where you started.

Jak

10-08-2008, 11:30 PM

I play Extirpate to remove a card from the GY and with it, all other cards in my opponent's GY, hand, and library. It also has Split-Second.

Being serious, I use Extirpate because it is such a versatile tool. Taking out recursion engines, hate cards, and things to win the long game (Swords, Humilities, Factories, etc.). This alone gives me the justification to play the card. This isn't even factoring in that it is still good against Ichorid, one of the best decks in the format right now. Using Extirpate in conjunction with Crypt or Leyline is an effective GY hate package.

I don't look at Extirpate as game winning or crippling, but it does help me win the game by doing all of the stuff said above. I don't expect this to be as powerful as Haunting Echoes or Cranial Extraction, but those don't cost one mana.

Obfuscate Freely

10-09-2008, 12:07 AM

Extirpate is powerful because it gets rid of one key card forever. It is going to be more relevant than Crypt against a variety of different decks. I would like to never see Life from the Loam because that's a key part of a deck. Same goes for Tarmogoyf, Physchatog, Vedalken Shackles. I don't want to see these cards more than once. I think the "what if" arguments are bullshit because we can all run in rhetorical circles. What if the deck never drew the card that I would want to Extirpate? Does that make Extirpate bad? I don't think so. If they have 12 business spells, now they only have 8, that's better percentages for you of winning the game. Crypt stops Loam but not until they topdeck the next one. Then you're back where you started.
It is difficult to break this down more fundamentally than it already has been. You are simply wrong. There is little to no value in removing a specific card from your opponent's deck "forever." You have spent a card, which is a measurable, tangible resource, without immediately impacting your opponent's resources. As somebody mentioned earlier, it isn't as if your opponent will magically skip draws later in the game, when they would have drawn a Tarmogoyf; they will instead draw some other threat, and you will have to answer it while still being a card behind.

Being serious, I use Extirpate because it is such a versatile tool. Taking out recursion engines, hate cards, and things to win the long game (Swords, Humilities, Factories, etc.). This alone gives me the justification to play the card. This isn't even factoring in that it is still good against Ichorid, one of the best decks in the format right now. Using Extirpate in conjunction with Crypt or Leyline is an effective GY hate package.

I don't look at Extirpate as game winning or crippling, but it does help me win the game by doing all of the stuff said above. I don't expect this to be as powerful as Haunting Echoes or Cranial Extraction, but those don't cost one mana.
You are making the same mistake as The Rack in evaluating the cards Extirpate removes from your opponent's library, and I suspect you are also overvaluing the card against Ichorid. If you're playing the sort of deck that has to mulligan for hate in that matchup, you can't really keep hands with Extirpate, unless they also have Crypt or Leyline in them. Extirpate just isn't enough on its own.