Printable View
um, no. Granted, it's more likely that the other guy will get to his Chain of Vapor before you get to a counterspell, but if your deck can't beat two 1/1s in eleven turns you weren't going to win anyway.Quote:
probably get thrashed by hardcast Narcomoebas before you can back up your Leyline.
The hyperbole wasn't obvious enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by frogboy
But you're making this out like it's a really bad thing. (Obviously 6 other cards and Leyline is MUCH better than 4 other cards and Leyline). But mulliganing to your hosers (depending on how much you need them and how effective they are) is not that bad of a plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbiddian
I guess I'm not sure what we're debating here. Are you saying that it's bad to mulligan to hosers? It seems like you're arguing that taking a mulligan is always a bad thing.
Being a -1 cards does not automatically mean you are at a disadvantage compared to your opponent. You could easily mulligan to great cards - even better ones than the opponents. We've all done it before and seen it before. Sometimes you beat an opponent after mulliganing while he did not.
Specifically for the Ichorid match and looking for Leyline, let's keep in mind that first Ichorid mulligans aggresively already, and second, that Ichorid will likely want to mulligan to Chain of Vapor if he suspects Leyline is coming in.
4 cards as graveyard hate is either going to draw the hate or not. If you have hate that requires a mulligan if it's not in the opening, as Leyline of the Void often seems to, you do need to factor that into how effective that hate is going to be.
If you're playing in a meta in which a lot of people really abuse the graveyard then you probably want to have a few main deck answers to the graveyard and also some in the sideboard for when you need to double-down against something that's really aggressive and wins out of the graveyard in the first few turns.
Extirpate is one of the few cards out there that doubles as graveyard hate and also a generic weakener for the opposing gameplan due to it's ability to take a key card and remove it from the matchup. In a meta that involves a lot of graveyard manipulation and in a deck that plays black Extirpate is probably not a bad maindeck card as a 2-of or 3-of. Throw in 4 Leyline of the Void from the sideboard when you run into one of the really heavy themes and you probably make your overall matchup against that deck quite favorable. Sideboard out the Extirpates for something more appropriate when you don't see graveyard manipulation.
If you get a graveyard hoser, your card advantage over Ichorid is = Their entire fucking deck and every card that they can conceivably draw, in essence. So I think that argument's a little superfluous.
What are they going to do? Putrid Imp beatdown? They have the answer or they're fucked. They probably don't have the answer, statistically, especially if they don't know which form of graveyard hate you're bringing in (and Crypt is much more common).
I think I got to page six and my eyes sort of glazed over, so I appologize in advance if this is a redundent comment (many of the posts' gists on this thread are agonizingly redundent though anyway):
Extirpate requires support if you are planning on using it as graveyard hate, this is extremely true, Extirpate is not that good of graveyard hate and generally should be avoided if slots are at a premium, however what the fuck is wrong with running extirpate to curb a deck like landstill's inevitability factor if you are planning on pressuring them and don't want to see another of said card?
I am going to be very honest and say that I do not play any decks that run discard right now and none that run extirpate, in fact I play white stax primarily right now and I am happy that I don't see decks that pack discard that is coupled with sideboard extirpates because that would be a profound pain in my ass. What does a white stax deck do when it doesn't get a chalice out before a discard connects with a stack or crucible and is followed by an extirpate? It has a piss-poor chance of winning when it was already going to rely on a top decks and lose if it didn't get lucky.
That is, but one silly scenario that I can conjure up, but i see nothing wrong with running a card that can eliminate the chances of X being seen through out the game. It baffles me that the debate is still continuing after sixteen pages and that people are not leaving it at debators at one side saying: "I will never use it because it is fucking terrible" and debators on the other side saying: "I might end up using it if it suits my needs". What is so hard to except or understand there? Did I not read enough of the prior standoffs about this card or read similar rebuttles go back and forth for another eleven fucking pages? I am liable to never, ever, ever run extirpate because I don't feel I will be able to use it properly, but arguing that the ability to not see a card for the rest of the game is good, doesn't matter or is outright bad is absurd to me.
In one of the earlier pages I read something about extirpating an eternal dragon being useless or have little effect because it has already been used. This example struck me as a bit off because it is obvious that if a decree gets nailed and you aren't running a deck with duresses or the like and a decree is in the yard, you may be fucked, but saying that because my opponent has just fetched a plains card with his eternal it is pointless to extirpate if you're aiming to make an easier long game for yourself seems like a statement one might make in an overzealous defence of an opinion. Off the top of my head, I can't say whether or not in a landstill mirror it would be at the top of my list for extirpate targets, but if eternal dragon is included in the deck specifically to be cycled once, why don't people just run additional plains or noble templars because they can? The entire landstill mirror scenario just struck me as ridiculous because even though I am not a landstill player, like most 1.5 enthusiasts, I have read up on it plenty and as far as landstill is concerned extirpate seems like a horrible fit for the deck(maybe I need to read more?), when one considers the fact that it was a big time contender before Planar Chaos hit the press.
One of the best and only conceivable fits for extirpate is in a deck that runs numerous cards that cause an opponent to discard. People say that pox doesn't want it and I do not see anything questionable about extirpating my opponent's crucible or loam in a game...at all. Maybe I am just old-fashioned or something, but I have been known to run a card to specifically deal with other specific cards and extirpate strikes me as a one of those cards that I might run to deal with others, nevermind how my opponent's loam deck operates in its entirety, if I am aiming to blow up his lands I do not want to risk him lucksacking a loam or crucible off of the top.
Needless to say, extirpate is a powerful card and I do agree that it is extremely bad in most decks, but lots of the examples and scenarios being given by either side seem pretty far-fetched...I am not affected by peoples' willingness to waste their time trying to convince someone of something they steadfastly disagree with, but I'm still going to have to throw out my two cents that people should just agree to disagree on this one because this thread could go on forever. Right now I think the only home for extirpate is really set up to properly feed it and that is a deck that runs numerous discard effects and goes into the later part of the game more often than not and the only deck I really know of that does that right now is pox. I did see the mention of Haunting Echoes a ways back and it may be better, but I haven't seen any pox decks run it as far as I can remember. I rambled a lot more about this than I thought I would...
In the meantime, as someone that has a huge boner for stax right now, I hope most people go with not running extirpate because I am one of the few people that seem to think that extirpate can totally ruin my day.
Extirpate should never be maindeck material, except in a metagame where half of the opposing decks are Threshold, you're running 4 Sinkhole and 4 Wastelands, and nobody is running Breeding Pool or City of Brass in their manabases. You can't play a completely dead card in most matchups when a cantrip graveyard removal spell in Relic is around.
There are some decks that do not like seeing Extirpate, and I've been in quite a few pickles because of it. However, Extirpate is NOT a good card - it is an "OK" card that IMHO is extremely useful in two situations and is a steaming pile of shit in most others. Extirpate really shouldn't be compared, power-wise, to Counterspell, Nimble Mongoose, or Mishra's Factory, yet alone the plethora of cards just as good or better.
I like extirpate against anything running blue, honestly. I can truthfully say that Extirpate on FoW makes my life easier every time I do it. From Faerie Stompy to MUC to Thresh and landstill. My life is easier.
Decks should be (and for the most part are) based around the idea that every card is good, and the 4-ofs are necessary. When you hit a 4-of that's part of their gameplan, you cripple a list, whether by taking it's protection or disruption, it's win-con or cripple it's mana base, you are in fact changing the game-state and the way their deck is supposed to work.
That's actually a big complaint I have with StP and 'Pate's lack of interaction. I can't StP a goyf and then remove them. This sucks. Fortunately there is Deed//EE, but the fact remains that I use Extirpate a LOT and it helps me out all the time. I would never not run it in either FDDT or 4-c landstill (which is what I play). It straight-up wins me games.
Pce,
--DC
Really. Every time you Extirpate Force of Will your life gets easier. Every time. I think Force could be one of the worst targets to Extirpate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Cynic87
Why? Assuming you do it in the early game, where Force is a factor that can randomly lose you the game by countering critical cards, or *forcing* you to play around that Force, I fail to see why it wouldn't be better to remove it from your opponent completely...Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
Unless your opponent is playing combo, Force of Will is usually one of the worst cards in your deck after the early part of the game. Force's cost (either of them) is incredibly steep for a one-for-one trade, so it is much less efficient than the other answers that come online after you've made a few land-drops.
Extirpating an opponent's Force of Will (presumably, after it has already fulfilled its intended purpose), and thus removing every copy of such a costly card from his or her deck, has a pretty significant chance of flat-out improving their subsequent draws. So yeah, I would say that Force is a horrible Extirpate target.
You obviously don't play enough storm combo. Most decks with countermagic-based control packages don't run a whole lot of hard counters. Without hard counters, opponents have no way of stopping Orim's Chant. If Orim's chant resolves, any soft or conditional counters (Spell Snare, Stifle, Trickbind, etc) as well as useful effects (Extirpate, Lightning Bolt, Krosan Grip, etc) become irrelevant. By taking Force of Will (which is never done early game btw, it is almost universally done the turn before you go off as it can (and usually does) reduce the opponent's hand size) you leave the opponent with fewer (Counterspell in the case of some Thresh builds and Landstill) or no (most Thresh builds and Dreadstill) way of dealing with Orim's Chant. When Chant resolves, the storm combo player's life really does become very easy. Extirpating Force of Will makes this a much more certain proposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
If your intention is to get FoW out of the way, isn't Thoughtseize (or Duress if lifeloss is a problem) way better? That card doesn't actually require you to first get a spell countered and can also snag out Stifle if you don't have Orim's Chant in hand. If you play that card because it doubles as gy removal I still think it's a pretty terrible choice because it does little to stop Ichorid or Aggro Loam as others have talked about already.
We already play Duress in storm combo. Duress doesn't deal with multiple Force of Wills, Brainstorm, or Sensei's Divining Tops (a key strategy for FT at least is to wait until the last possible moment to combo off against blue, which generally also gives the control player time to find multiple Force of Wills to stop you; extirpate makes this strategy effective). Unfortunately, most blue decks playing Force of Will are also tricky enough to play ways to hide it. Extirpate on Force of Will also serves the duty of adding knowledge about an opponent's remaining counters (hard and soft). Further, Duress must be played on your main phase which further hurts your ability to play around soft counters like Daze and lands with which to play Dark Ritual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantis
Do I really have to point out the absurd unlikelihood of Extirpate dealing with multiple FoWs, given that it relies on them having drawn at least 3 out of 4 Forces in the first several turns of the game?
Whereas, you know, Cabal Therapy would do the same thing but wouldn't require them to have already cast FoW.
Man, this debate is still going on?
I agree with emidln on the use of Extirpate in storm decks. I don't have experiences with it in other decks (and from what I'm hearing, it sucks alot), but it is very useful in FT.
Getting rid of FoW is exactly what I use it for, considering FoW/Brainstorm/Top are played so extensively in legacy. You Chant, they FoW it. You Extirpate their FoW, take it all away, and they can't do anything about it. You also get to Peek at their hand so you can navigate around soft counters (play rituals in different order, see whether you need to get an additional disruption into your Doomsday pile, or hold off pulling the trigger). It is also very relevant when you need the extra storm and need to go the IGG route. I don't need to resolve chant in this case if I've extirpated their FoW, since a recursed Spell Snare/Daze just isn't as scary as a recursed FoW.
Also, FoW gets hid by Brainstorm alot in response to sorcery disruption, and a quick tap of the Top can get it right back into their hand. I've lost a couple of games due to this. 2 FoWs are a bitch to play against with FT if they've got the Brainstorm/Top thing (You Duress/Thoughtseize/Therapy takes first one, and then they FoW your Chant, and still have mana open for counters against your combo, without you having seen their hand. Or you Chant them, they FoW your Chant, now your Duress/TS/Therapy is useless and they still have 2nd FoW from top to counter your Doomsday).
So Extirpate is very useful for one particular deck, but it's not the anti-graveyard Jesus in most decks.
This is a bizarre tangent that the desperate pro Extirpate party is using.
1) They have Force of Will, so you Extirpate it.
You know what? Whatever. Cabal Therapy does this as well. If they have double Brainstorm (to hide, and then re-draw the cards), that's their only out. However, on the plus side, Cabal Therapy is a good card that doesn't require you running one of your best cards in that match up into a Force for it to be good.
2) Isn't the only popular blue deck not running Counterbalance/Top, Landstill?
Isn't it completely fucking irrelevant that you have Extirpate in that match up anyway? You don't really have a problem beating Landstill. The fact that it takes quite a while for them to win (with the exception of Landstill builds with Tarmogoyf, but some of those have Counterbalance in them) should be the nail in the coffin for them. You have so long to build up the right cards, you can probably just storm them out.
3) Extirpate does not deal with Counterbalance.
Not only do you have to get rid of their Counterbalances. But you also have to do it in such a way that it doesn't get hit by the Brainstorms and Forces that you're talking about now. After all, if that card hits, you're in deep shit.
This is fucking mind boggling. Sure, against control you can afford to throw a card in the bin for no effect. But that's only because your match up against them is already pretty stellar. Counterbalance is the card that you should be worried about. Not Force of Will. Plus, you shouldn't be trying to answer it with the shittiest card available.
I've never argued for Extirpate in any deck other than storm combo. In storm combo, it is better at dealing with classes of threats better than anything short of Meddling Mage and Cranial Extraction. The argument is simply that Extirpate is not terrible all around because it has a very specific use in tendrils combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deep6er
They don't need double Brainstorm. They need 1x Sensei's Divining Top and to think through the matchup better than Deep6er.Quote:
1) They have Force of Will, so you Extirpate it.
You know what? Whatever. Cabal Therapy does this as well. If they have double Brainstorm (to hide, and then re-draw the cards), that's their only out. However, on the plus side, Cabal Therapy is a good card that doesn't require you running one of your best cards in that match up into a Force for it to be good.
The matchup against Landstill is amazing because they have 8 hard counters and I have 4 Mystical Tutor, 1-2 Extirpate, and 4 Orim's Chants with an alternate win in Helm/Grapeshot that is able to circumvent their Mages and Runed Halos. Extirpate is the nail that lets the deck resolve Orim's Chant after them seeing 25 cards and having 10 cards in hand on their end step due to Extirpate/Mystical Tutor/Brainstorm breaking their Standstill. I move to my turn guaranteed that my protection will resolve into a win.Quote:
2) Isn't the only popular blue deck not running Counterbalance/Top, Landstill?
Isn't it completely fucking irrelevant that you have Extirpate in that match up anyway? You don't really have a problem beating Landstill. The fact that it takes quite a while for them to win (with the exception of Landstill builds with Tarmogoyf, but some of those have Counterbalance in them) should be the nail in the coffin for them. You have so long to build up the right cards, you can probably just storm them out.
Extirpate does help deal with CB, especially in my latest builds packing 4 Duress and 4 Pyroblast. I've already dealt with Counterbalance once and would much rather not deal with it again. In this scenario, Extirpate moves my Duresses and Pyroblasts from preventing Counterbalance to preventing hard counters on my Orim's Chants and Doomsdays which is exactly where I want to be.Quote:
3) Extirpate does not deal with Counterbalance.
Not only do you have to get rid of their Counterbalances. But you also have to do it in such a way that it doesn't get hit by the Brainstorms and Forces that you're talking about now. After all, if that card hits, you're in deep shit.
This is fucking mind boggling. Sure, against control you can afford to throw a card in the bin for no effect. But that's only because your match up against them is already pretty stellar. Counterbalance is the card that you should be worried about. Not Force of Will. Plus, you shouldn't be trying to answer it with the shittiest card available.
Yes you do. In fact, you should try playing the matchup a few times before attempting to comment. Even easier, run a few numbers. 7 cards in an opening hand, 2 cards for the first two turns, 3 cards from standstill, 2 cards from fetchlands, and 8 cards from draws per turn gives us 22 cards that Standstill will see with their average Standstill hand assuming they start beating me down with a factory immediately after playing Standstill. I wonder what the likelihood of an opponent seeing two of a four of is when seeing 20 (lower end) to 30 (higher end, not a turn 2 standstill) cards in their deck? The exact reason why FT could manhandle control is the ability to wait a very long time before comboing out. The exact plan was to break a Standstill on the opponent's end step, Extirpate/Mystical Tutor for Extirpate to hit a Force of Will/Counterpsell if possible, and then untap with 6 cards in hand + a card draw per turn with a guaranteed win. Since neither Doomsday nor Ill-Gotten Gains particularly care about high life totals (2 life or 1 life is necessary) the decks take as much time as possible before comboing out. This assures the deck of seeing a maximum amount of disruption for a successful combo turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBA
By the way, a really neat fact is that with Sensei's Divining Tops and Duresses as 4-ofs in storm decks with extirpate, the chances of an opponent having already placed a Force of Will or Counterspell in the graveyard are actually pretty good. BTW, it's interesting to note tht I add counterspell to this list. Extirpate is good at removing hard counters after all. After all, storm combo really wants to resolve Orim's Chant so it can resolve its storm engine. To do this, all I really need to do is make my opponent go from 7 potential hard counters to 4 potential hard counters (my hand can contain 4 protection with dark ritual, led, doomsday and an opponent would require 5 hard counters to stop doomsday).
There's... there's multiple problems, there, chief.
Like, first of all? Fetchlands don't let you see another card. Already you're throwing your logistical credentials out the window.
Secondly, I asked about the likelihood of drawing 3 out of the 4 copies of a spell. You talked about seeing 2. This distinction is relevant, since your argument was that Extirpate could strip multiple Forces. But this scenario means that one Force has to be in the yard, and two in hand. Conversely, with Therapy, you can strip two Forces simply by their having drawn two Forces.
Further, Therapy would let you pre-emptively answer Halos, Counterbalance, Chalice, etc., etc...
"Do more testing" isn't an argument, because testing itself isn't important; only the information that testing reveals is important. And if you demonstrate a lack of understanding of card interactions or even strategic game concepts, then how can I trust you to have interpreted any testing data you have correctly despite evidence to the contrary?
Finally got to the end!
There seems to be several topics of discussion of this one card. Comparing it to graveyard hate, card advantage/disadvantage and being good in specific situations/match ups. The big difference in these topics are the comparison to graveyard hate so I’ll split my post in two. Not only that but it also seems to depend on what kind of deck you are playing.
Compared to graveyard hate Extirpate is bad. Other cards are just better. Saying that Crypt/Leyline/Jailer can be hated is flawed, Extirpate can also be hated. If Ichorid is able to wait with dredging to find hate for Crypt/Leyline/Jailer it can wait to find a Therapy to hit Extirpate. As for Loam, if you Extirpate Loam it has already been cast once giving the Loam player a card advantage of 3 (maximum). Yes it slows them down but it doesn’t mean you win. Neither does Crypt but just like Extirpate it slows them down. If Loam was a bad matchup before sideboard, neither of the graveyard hate will be likely to win you the other 2.
So in this discussion you ask the question: which graveyard hate is the best? The answer is Leyline of the Void or Crypt. I prefer Crypt but understand that others wish to play Leyline, I just don’t due to Confidants in my deck. Card disadvantage of Extirpate doesn’t matter when comparing with other graveyard hate. Crypt is also card disadvantage of -1 but it does what it’s supposed to do. Leyline and Jailer is parity since they have a continuous effect while being in play.
When Extirpate isn’t compared to other possible graveyard hate the discussion is very different. The card disadvantage here does matter. The card that would have been in that specific spot might’ve been parity or even card advantage. Only when you get lucky Extirpate can be parity and when you get very lucky, card advantage.
Extirpate only deals with copies 2 to 4. You have already dealt with the first copy. I think this is the most used argument from Extirpate haters. I tend to agree with it although I found one reply interesting, where someone said it was used as the 4-6th copy of other sideboard cards. Still, why just not run 4-4-4-3 split instead of cutting one from the 4 and adding 3 Extirpates. Versatility is the answer, since not all of the 4-ofs will be good in those matchups so you basically run 6 hate cards instead of 4. The counterargument is that Extirpate is a dead card without the original hate card, now only played as a 3-of instead of 4.
Extirpate is too situational to be good. Extirpating a Tropical to keep them from green, removing threats so there’s less win conditions from the opponent and any other absurd example people give. Are these situations, bound to so many variables, worth it to waste 3-4 slots? For the rest of the game it will be a dead card.
I once was for Extirpate until I ran it myself. It was just useless or it did nothing than win me the game more. Either I was down in board position and I lost with Extirpate in my hand, casting it before I scooped them up just to look to their deck. Or I was in a winning board position to remove any possible answers they might get if lucky/tutoring.
Extirpate is nothing more than a cool card which can make you lose when being a dead card, win-more when already being ahead or a win in those nice examples we all love and dream of.
Conclusion: Extirpate is inferior as graveyard hate. This means that it has to have other uses, else it wouldn’t be played. The other uses are situational and it’s very unlikely that in those situations Extirpate is game winning. So Extirpate falls back to being a lesser graveyard hate card, where it is trumped by other cards.