But in a neutral position or in a good position, Extirpate can come in handy by neutering a specific card.
Robert
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.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
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.
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)?
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.I assert that that play (and Extirpating Loam), while not directly card advantage, ultimately will result in card advantage.
This has nothing to do with this discussion.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.
I'm not playing Extirpate, so the question is moot.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)?
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.
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".
Team SPOD
<Der_imaginäre_Freund> props:
Adan for being the NQG God (drawer)
Actually this has everything to do with the discussion.This has nothing to do with this 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?
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.
Not answering hypothetical questions can only hurt your own understanding.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
And yet you're on the PRO-Extirpate side? Anyone else confused?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.
It's not my understanding that needs challenging.Not answering hypothetical questions can only hurt your own understanding.
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.
I wasn't asking if you cared that we played Extirpate or not.
So you do think it is unplayable?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.
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.
What decks WOULD benefit from Extirpate?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.
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.
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.
Team SPOD
<Der_imaginäre_Freund> props:
Adan for being the NQG God (drawer)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)