[Discussion] Melting Pot For Thoughts On Extirpate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adan

That's fascism aka Nazi-technique (tm), YOU don't have the right to do that.

---

Godwin's Law. I win.

Quote:

---

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?

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightmare

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightmare

Godwin's Law. I win.

---

lol? O.o Funny theory, though.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightmare

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightmare

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightmare

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitewolf9

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deep6er

<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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

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.