[Discussion] Melting Pot For Thoughts On Extirpate

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The situation where you're successfully controlling the board is not one where an argument can be made that you really could sure use some firepower from the sideboard right now.

It's not just a simply lapse, though, I think it clearly demonstrates the mental assumptions being made about this issue. People act like Extirpate is much more flexible than it is.

[The Rack]

I agree that some are seeing it more flexible than what reality tells us. You don't have to be in a controlling position to have a resolved counterspell or thoguhtseize, those are normal parts of most games. I would find it more unreasonable that you wouldn't get to counter/discard/destroy the business card if you are playing in Legacy in general. Most decks have outs to about everything but Extirpate limits that.

If you are controlling the board than I think any SB card would be win more at that point right? That's safe to assume right?

[Jak]

How is removing Bridges or Ichorids bad? It slows them down enough to let you draw Goyfs, Crypts, and Swords.

[The Rack]

How is removing Bridges or Ichorids bad? It slows them down enough to let you draw Goyfs, Crypts, and Swords.

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

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

How is removing Bridges or Ichorids bad? It slows them down enough to let you draw Goyfs, Crypts, and Swords.

How is Extirpate better than more Crypts? How many slots are you dedicating to sideboard hate? The simple fact is that most of the time against Ichorid, Extirpate is strictly worse than Ebony Charm. Ebony Charm's not bad against Ichorid either, it's just that generally, if you're going to run graveyard hate in the board, why not run something more devastating? Yixlid Jailer is another card that's much, much better against Ichorid from the board than Extirpate. Extirpate's sole function, essentially, is to be an anti-LftL.

[Benie Bederios]

Hi,

Extirpate is lousy Graveyard hate, the only thing it does is remove Life from the Loam or other recurring treads like Wastelock or EE with Academy.

It is quite good as a black Meddling Mage though. Removing an important combo piece, like Painter Servant, Aluren or Survival of the Fittest. This does mean you have to have a deck that can deal with the first copy of the card with discard or counters.

So my choice goes to ...only by a very few decks in the sideboard that can take advantage of it.

BB

[Peter_Rotten]

It is quite good as a black Meddling Mage though.

No, no, no. Meddling Mage is one card that says, "opponent must remove me before casting the named spell."

Extirpate says, "after using another card to deal with an opponent's troublesome card, make sure he won't cast it again. Hopefully said opponent's card has not already done too much damage."

These cards, IMO, are very different.

[Jak]

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

As I said early, I would never run Extirpate as my sole way to hate on the GY. I understand that is not as effective against Ichorid as Crypts or Leylines, but it definetly does not suck in the MU. Slowing them down gives you more time to find your 4 Crypts, Swords, or Goyfs.

At IBA
Around 5-6. Most of the time I use 4 Leyline and 2 Extirpate. I don't need to see 4 Extirpate against control so I don't run 4 copies. Six ways to hate on GY based decks is nice too.

[The Rack]

I think everyone realizes that it's not stellar graveyard hate because it only hits one card but I a simple black dusruption spell. If you are worried about a key card in a matchup kill it once and Extirpate it for good. We agree that Leyline and Crypt are better?

[Peter_Rotten]

If you are worried about a key card in a matchup kill it once and Extirpate it for good.

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

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

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

In this very basic, general way, Extirpate is a bad card. I'll allow for the corner cases and rare occasions where the card shines (or maybe "slightly glows" would be a better discription) like against a Loam deck going nutz, but even in that case, the opponent can likely BWish for the Loam back.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

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

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

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

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

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

[Nightmare]

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

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

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

[Obfuscate Freely]

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

Nightmare beat me to it.

[thefreakaccident]

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

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

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


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

1. ichorid
2. loam

Now, lets see...

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

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


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


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

[Nightmare]

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

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

[DragoFireheart]

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

Edit:

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

[Shriekmaw]

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

Edit:

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

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

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

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

[Forbiddian]

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

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

[Peter_Rotten]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------

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

[Forbiddian]

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


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

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

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

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

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