[Discussion] Melting Pot For Thoughts On Extirpate

[Peter_Rotten]

Opponent (2 FoW in hand).
You: Chant.
Opp: FoW
You: Extirpate FoW
Opp reveals hand so you get rid of their 2nd FoW and combo around soft counters (Dark Ritual instead of Cabal Ritual first if you've got 2 mana open so it doesn't get Dazed, bait Spell Snare, etc).

Are you planning to go off on the turn you Chant them? I assume so, so I'm unsure as to why Extirpate was good here. It seems like a non-cantripping peek in this situation. And if Extirpate was a Therapy in this situation, you could have lead with it naming FoW and then Chanted them.

If you were NOT planning to go off this turn, why bother Chanting them? Is this just a tricky plan to remove their FoWs from the game? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be better to simply win that turn.

If the combo deck has Chant and Therapy in hand, AND the control deck can handle both of those cards in one turn, there's a very good chance that you won't be winning anyway.

Notice that a second Chant/Duress/Therapy would not have done the trick here, because they can just FoW both your disruption, and still have mana open for soft counters, and often, one misstep on the storm player's part will mean GG.

But the control player will be left with THREE cards in hand. And if those three cards are Stifle, Daze, and Spell Snare, you're screwed whether you Extirpated that 2nd FoW or Therapied it.

Also, NOT playing your spells because you know they can counter them is just as good as them countering your spells. To be specific, knowing you can't cast your Infernal Tutor is as good to them as countering it. It has allowed them time to rebuild.

Here is another situation where I've lost a couple of games to:

Opp (1 FoW in hand, the other FoW in top 3 of library due to Brainstorm in response to Duress 1 or 2 turns ago, top on board).
You: Chant
Opp: FoW from hand
Now I've got no cards in FT that deals with the hidden FoW, I can only try baiting, which is not that effective if my opponent is a good player.

May I ask why you have Chanted this turn?

Second, how does the opponent have a FoW in hand when you Duressed him a turn or two ago? Did he have a Brainstorm that hid two FoWs?

Extirpate gives a good out in this situation, since it strips their 2nd FoW (that they've got access to with the top, so it's effectively in their hand anyway) from their library. Duress/Therapy/Thoughtseize can't touch the hidden FoW (I actually loathe to advocate this as a strategy, because I play storm mostly, but Landstill etc should really look into hiding their FoWs on the top 3 of their library with top when fighting FT).

So Extirpate is good when the opponent has drawn two FoWs, hidden them with Brainstorm (or not drawn the 2nd with Top but keeps it hidden), has Top on the table, has the mana to use it, AND you have whiffed with Duress a turn or two earlier? Do you see the lengths we must go to have Extirpate be good?

Also, it seems like you need an answer to Top in this situation - NOT FoW.

It's also a great card in combo mirrors, since it's mostly all about the Chant wars. You Chant and Extirpate them in response of their Chant is so backbreaking, since it allows you to Mystical/Ponder/Brainstorm/Top into another Chant, which they now have 0 solutions to, and basically, whoever resolves Chant first wins in combo mirrors.

OK, let me flesh this scenario out some more - first when the opponent has a crappy hand and then with a great hand:

He has a crappy hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
You: Extirpate Chant
Your Turn: Sit around to draw the goods? (Which he'll may be doing also)

He has a great hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
You: Extirpate Chant
Your turn: Sit around to draw the goods?
His turn: He goes off with the goods.

Let's look at this with Duress (or Therapy or Cashseize):

He has a crappy hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
Your Turn: Duress him and take a relevant card

When you Extirpate the opponent with a crappy hand, then he has to draw X cards to make his crappy hand playable. When you Duress him, he has to draw X plus 1 cards to make that crappy hand playable.

He has a great hand:
Him: Chants you
You: Chant in response
Your turn: Duress him and take a relevant card
His turn: Hopes to luck sack a top deck to make that great hand playable again.

I see Duress being better in the situations that you have outlined.

[emidln]

About Extirpate never hitting 2x Force of Wills, I did a little math. I checked the numbers with the blue player seeing 20 cards in the game and the blue player seeing 30 cards in the game which is the low to high amount that Dreadstill and Landstill tend to see from testing *still vs FT.

20 Cards Seen
# of Force of Wills --- Probability as a Percent
0 --- 18.7%
1 --- 40.5%
2 --- 30.4%
3 --- 09.4%
4 --- 01.0%

30 Cards Seen
# of Force of Wills --- Probability as a Percent
0 --- 05.6%
1 --- 25.0%
2 --- 38.8%
3 --- 25.0%
4 --- 05.6%

Here's the library I used:

#!/usr/pkg/bin/python2.5
# simple factorials
def factorial(n):
	if n <= 1:
		return 1
	return float(n * factorial(n-1))

# n good choices
# m bad choices
# N chances
# i good results out of N chances
def hgd(n,m,N,i):
	sone = factorial(m)*factorial(n)*factorial(N)
	top = sone * factorial(m+n-N)
	bottom = factorial(i)*factorial(n-i)*factorial(m+i-N)*factorial(N-i)*factorial(m+n)
	return top / bottom

# Return a tuple containing the total probability from j to k and a
# list of individual probabilities.
# j - lowest i
# k - highest i
def hgds(n,m,N,j,k):
	t = 0
	p = []
	for x in range(j,k+1):
		v = hgd(n,m,N,x)
		p.append(v)
		t = t + v
	return (t,p)

[Peter_Rotten]

So if the opponent draws 30 cards, he as a pretty good chance of seeing 2 FoWs (I am HORRIBLE with math, but your numbers seem a little funky to me. Maybe another math guy can check 'em.) But was does this tell us about Extirpate? Really nothing.

Let's say the opponent has 2 FoWs and you have two pieces of disruption (of course we should note that the example NEEDS two pieces of disruption since we can't use this example with JUST Extirpate - I know, I know, dead horse). When is Extirpate going to be any better than any sort of combination of the following:

On one turn:
Chant, Duress (or other discard like Therapy and Thoughtseize)
Duress, Duress
Duress, Chant

Over two turns:
Chant to steal an early FoW, Duress to steal a latter FoW
Duress to steal an early FoW, Duress to steal a latter FoW
Duress to steal an early FoW, Chant to steal a latter Fow

[Jaiminho]

So if the opponent draws 30 cards, he as a pretty good chance of seeing 2 FoWs (I am HORRIBLE with math, but your numbers seem a little funky to me. Maybe another math guy can check 'em.)

Those numbers tell the chance of having that exact number of FOWs. This means that, after seeing 30 cards, the chances of seeing at least N FOWs is given by this little table:

At least 0 --- 100%
At least 1 --- 94.4%
At least 2 --- 69.4%
At least 3 --- 30.6%
At least 4 --- 05.6%

So his argument is that, if you get bitten by a single FOW and then use Extirpate on that one, you will get rid of a 2nd FOW 69.4% of the time and will get rid of a 2nd and a 3rd FOW 30.6% of the time. Whether or not he's taking those FOWs out of the opponent's hand depends on whether the opponent kept those FOWs in hand or he somehow saw it but didn't want to keep it in hand, such as Brainstorming back into library or shuffling after seeing it with Top.

On a deeper analysis of those numbers (the 30 cards case), it means Extirpate is better (2 for 1) than Duress 30.6% of the time, worse (0 for 1) 5.6% of the time and equal (1 for 1) 60.4% of the time.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

A deeper analysis of the numbers yet reveals that getting to turn 20 is still a fundamentally terrible gameplan for reasons I've outlined above, that I above all human beings alive should be intimately familiar with, that most decks have cards other than Force of Will to deal with, and the good, nay, the fantastic thing about Duress is that Duress is just as good as Duress for the nineteen preceding turns! Meaning you can take a Counterbalance or Chalice before it comes down, perhaps, or a Haunting Echoes. Or if it's a Thoughtseize or Cabal Therapy, you can take the Tarmogoyf or Meddling Mage or even Decree of Justice that's not going to let you see turn 20. You know. Proactive discard?

What the Hell decks do you people test against? '96 Keeper?

[citanul]

I just started browsing through some articles which are being linked here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609

One of those articles "Is this your card?" by The Ferret which can be found here http://www.starcitygames.com/php/new...p?Article=3350 illustrates exactly what the people voting for Extirpate are doing. I advice you read it, think about it and then ask yourself, is Extirpate any good?

[emidln]

A deeper analysis of the numbers yet reveals that getting to turn 20 is still a fundamentally terrible gameplan for reasons I've outlined above, that I above all human beings alive should be intimately familiar with, that most decks have cards other than Force of Will to deal with, and the good, nay, the fantastic thing about Duress is that Duress is just as good as Duress for the nineteen preceding turns! Meaning you can take a Counterbalance or Chalice before it comes down, perhaps, or a Haunting Echoes. Or if it's a Thoughtseize or Cabal Therapy, you can take the Tarmogoyf or Meddling Mage or even Decree of Justice that's not going to let you see turn 20. You know. Proactive discard?

What the Hell decks do you people test against? '96 Keeper?

Do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of math AND english? Seeing 20 cards is not equivilent to waiting until turn 20. Seeing 20 cards means my opponent has drawn/had access to 20 cards between his initial hand, cards he's drawn since with draw per turn, brainstorm/ponder/standstill/etc, and an additional three cards from top. We're talking about turn 7-11 for seeing 20 cards depending exactly upon whether you're playing a slower thresh list, dreadstill, or landstill and how their game has been going.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

On a deeper analysis of those numbers (the 30 cards case),

onoes maths

Although it's extremely questionable if this plan becomes any less terrible relying on seeing turn 7-11 against Threshold or Dreadstill. To be honest, even against Landstill turn 11 is kind of optimistic. What do you imagine these decks are doing during this time period?

I just started browsing through some articles which are being linked here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609

One of those articles "Is this your card?" by The Ferret which can be found here http://www.starcitygames.com/php/new...p?Article=3350 illustrates exactly what the people voting for Extirpate are doing. I advice you read it, think about it and then ask yourself, is Extirpate any good?

Good catch. This is exactly what is going on.

Look, I don't have to argue that Extirpate is a terrible card. This is how terrible the card is; it is so bad that the onus is on you simply to prove that it will do anything at all in a likely situation.

Because the simple fact is that Extirpate doesn't do anything most of the time.

In the average situation that is likely to exist at any given point in time, there is not a card in the graveyard that is important to you that is also in your opponent's hand.

This situation simply doesn't occur very often.

To make matters worse, you usually don't know when it does happen and Extirpate doesn't search the stack.

This is how terrible Extirpate is;

So far from arguing over whether or not the effect is groundbreaking, the argument about it's use centers around whether the card actually does anything at all.

Think about that.

Think about it. You're not thinking yet. Go back and think some more.

[emidln]

onoes maths

Although it's extremely questionable if this plan becomes any less terrible relying on seeing turn 7-11 against Threshold or Dreadstill. To be honest, even against Landstill turn 11 is kind of optimistic. What do you imagine these decks are doing during this time period?

Beating me to about 2 life. That's the exact gameplan actually. The matchup against Standstill decks generally goes about like this for FT:

FT Turn 1: Land + Duress and/or Top and/or Cantrip
SS Turn 1: Land + Duress/Brainstorm/Top/Attempt Stifle (rarely happens against FT if the FT pilot knows they're playing against a Stifle deck (which if they boarded in Extirpate they should) unless there is no other choice)
FT Turn 2: If FT is the on the play, attempt Top/Duress/Cantrip. Otherwise, if the SS deck played a SS, they do nothing (potentially optimize cards in hand with top, but most DS/LS players aren't stupid enough to play a SS down with FT's Top in play). The rest of FT's turns follow this exact same patten until half a turn before the combo turn where extra cards like Extirpate, Mystical Tutor, and Wipe Away might be played. (The single exception is KGrip/Ancient Grudge vs Dreadstill's CB or Dreadnought.)
SS Turn 2: This is where Landstill/Dreadstill start making plays and wondering why FT is doing nothing. The except is when they drop Standstill on a clear board assuming Mishra's Factories carry them the way. That exact scenario is where I derive my 8-11 turn figure from. If they drop a turn 2 standstill with some sort of island + factory I now have 14-16 life, or 8-10 turns to win the game. (I need to be at a minimum of 2 to win with Doomsday.) If they don't have a factory in play yet I get more turns. If they don't put a threat down and play a SS later (perhaps after digging for it) I get more turns. I usually do get these turns because very few opponents are suicidal enough to attempt a Dreadnought against FT knowing it is a 2 for 1 (FT plays 3-4 Krosan Grip, Wipe Away, and potentialy even Shattering Sprees/Ancient Grudges).

Against Threshold, I don't usually go that long. They usually can muster some sort of creature attack + burn and the turn I have to combo off usually becomes somewhere between 6 and 8. Extirpate is still good here because Threshold's cantrips give them the potential to have seen as many cards as Dreadstill did, but in a much shorter period of time. With Pyroblasts, Duresses, and KGrip all taking Counterbalance, I lose part of Extirpate's effectiveness (that it can take actual Counterspell instead of Force of Will but doing roughly the same thing vs a SS deck) but it can be somewhat made up for the fact that by taking Counterbalance I eliminate 3 out of their 6-7 remaining relevant cards against me. Extirpate is amazing against traditional Thrash (lacking CSpells) because Force of Will is their ONLY way to stop Orim's Chant and it functions the same as it does vs CB Thresh/Landstill/Dreadstill when they play Counterspell over Fire/Ice.

@ IBA directly

My argument all along is that Extirpate has done EXACTLY what I thought it would do when I hypothesized that it would be good in storm combo and started testing it. In the situations I wanted it for (against hard counters and against Orim's Chant) it does exactly as advertised and that's what I need. That a turn 2 Extirpate on a Pyroblasted Counterbalance doesn't produce card advantage is an irrelevant argument because (a) FT loses if at any time CB hits the table and I can't KGrip it (which is really hard) and (b) FT cares about card quality more than card advantage. Extirpate isn't played because it generates card advantage. It can and that's helpful. It categorically denies an opponent a certain aspect of their gameplan. Whether that is Orim's Chant in the combo mirror or Force of Will/Counterbalance/Counterspell in the blue matchup, the card I extirpate can't stop me. For a deck that largely wins when it resolves Orim's Chant, that' a pretty big deal. I've actually tested and explored other cards that do similar things to Extirpate in regards to denying my opponent access to cards. Meddling Mage and Cranial Extraction are cards that I've tried. I've even played Meddling Mage in tournaments because it turned out to be pretty good in some matchups.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The list you played in the MTGSal tournament ran 1 Krosan Grip. Of course, it also ran 4x Duress and no maindeck Extirpate.

Regardless, I'm not going to fall into ToadiTog syndrome. I'm not going to argue against phantom lists that can play any number of variable answers and don't have to actually budget card slots. What I am going to object to is the notion that your manabase wants to see Thrash running Wasteland and Stifle, or that testing against players who are too terrified to drop a Counterbalance or Jrednot for fear of Grip is relevant.

But maybe I'm wrong. Out of curiosity, what does this FT list look like?

[emidln]

The list you played in the MTGSal tournament ran 1 Krosan Grip. Of course, it also ran 4x Duress and no maindeck Extirpate.

Regardless, I'm not going to fall into ToadiTog syndrome. I'm not going to argue against phantom lists that can play any number of variable answers and don't have to actually budget card slots. What I am going to object to is the notion that your manabase wants to see Thrash running Wasteland and Stifle, or that testing against players who are too terrified to drop a Counterbalance or Jrednot for fear of Grip is relevant.

But maybe I'm wrong. Out of curiosity, what does this FT list look like?

The list I ran at the MTGSal tourney also played 1 Wipe Away and 2 Ancient Grudge as Dreadnought removal. The list that I adapted because I got sick of losing to CB (and because I talk to Roodmistah way too much ) looks like this (pulled straight out of my PM outbox here actually):

// Doomsday Fetchland Tendrils
4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
2 Bloodstained Mire
2 Volcanic Island
1 Badlands
1 Bayou
1 Tropical Island
1 Scrubland
1 Tundra
1 Underground Sea
1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Lotus Petal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
1 Cabal Ritual
4 Pyroblast
4 Duress
2 Orim's Chant
1 Krosan Grip
4 Brainstorm
3 Ponder
4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Mystical Tutor
4 Doomsday
1 Meditate
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
1 Tendrils of Agony

SB: 1 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 1 Orim's Chant
SB: 1 Extirpate
SB: 1 Krosan Grip
SB: 1 Pyroclasm
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
SB: 1 Wipe Away
SB: 1 Echoing Truth
SB: 1 Rushing River
SB: 1 Mountain
SB: 1 Helm of Awakening
SB: 1 Grapeshot
SB: 1 Infernal Tutor
SB: 1 Ill-Gotten Gains

The manabase is 17 lands game 1 with the potential for another mountain G2. Krosan Grip was reduced to 2 copies overall (3 split-second removal total) due to the presence of 4-5 red blasts dealing with Counterbalance fairly often now. A third was tested and discarded due to the relatively few targets left (outside of The Might Quinn and Enchantress). A Dreadstill player still doesn't likely risk their Dreadnought into 2 Krosan Grip + 2 Ancient Grudge. We're still talking about a phantom matchup because you don't know the boarding plan so I'll post that too:

-3 Ponder
-1 Cabal RItual
-1 Mystical Tutor
-1 Lotus Petal

+1 Mountain
+1 Extirpate
+1 Red Elemental Blast
+2 Ancient Grudge
+1 Krosan Grip

Ancient Grudge isn't actually meant for Dreadnought. It kills Dreadnought dead (to steal an expression), but it is brought in against Pithing Needle.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Oh, you've been discussing games 2-3.


Emidln, out of curiosity, how often do you play FT in actual tournaments with 50 minute time limits?

One of the reasons that people generally go for the nuclear option in the sideboard, aside from everything else, is that time becomes more of a factor during game 3 when you're trying to avoid that draw that's just barely not a loss. This whole, win 2-3 through attrition tactic just seems really... really... bad for that.

I hope that we agree that you're going to usually lose g1 to most Thresh/Dreadstill lists, yes?

[emidln]

Oh, you've been discussing games 2-3.


Emidln, out of curiosity, how often do you play FT in actual tournaments with 50 minute time limits?

One of the reasons that people generally go for the nuclear option in the sideboard, aside from everything else, is that time becomes more of a factor during game 3 when you're trying to avoid that draw that's just barely not a loss. This whole, win 2-3 through attrition tactic just seems really... really... bad for that.

I hope that we agree that you're going to usually lose g1 to most Thresh/Dreadstill lists, yes?

I get to a fair amount of local tournaments that have 45-50 minute rounds. My local metagame is mostly Burn, Threshold, Dreadstill, and other Tendrils decks. We've had Dragon Stompy and misc other metagame decks in the past, but they leave as the Threshold and Tendrils decks can adapt quickly with Serenity.

Not really. Look at that list. 4 Pyroblast, 4 Duress, 2 Orim's Chant, 1 Krosan Grip. I actually win far more games ones than I lose against Thresh and Dreadstill. You might call this an effect of presideboarding against blue, but I'd call it an effect of blue being the dominate color in Legacy. They actually gain more than I do because if they're intelligent, they figure out that Standstill is a horrible strategy and side it out for Pithing Needles and REBs. Moreover, most people don't instantly recognize Fetchland Tendrils and instead put me on some sort of UBx Aggro-Control deck like thresh/dreadstill and let me take g1 in about 10 minutes.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I see 7 fetches and 2 basics. I also see 29 cards with a cc of 1, which is ridiculous by any standard. I see no way of getting your one of Grip that gets through Balance or Chalice.

Even with Blasts, I'm not seeing a fantastic matchup here.

[emidln]

I see 7 fetches and 2 basics. I also see 29 cards with a cc of 1, which is ridiculous by any standard. I see no way of getting your one of Grip that gets through Balance or Chalice.

Chalice @ 1 is rough. I'm not pretending here and I tend to scoop pretty fast when I see it game 1 unless I have a very specific type of hand. My metagame has a very significant lack of chalices due to the high presence of Tarmogoyfs and Serenity from various threshold and ft lists (I'm one of 4 FT players).

Even with Blasts, I'm not seeing a fantastic matchup here.

4 Pyroblast + 4 Duress + 4 Mystical Tutor in response + 1 KGrip. It's also worth noting that it is possible, however unlikely, that a Pyroblast can kill an in-play CB (for instance, if I draw the Pyroblast the turn after CB resolves without a Top on the table).

[citanul]

Why are you two even discussing that? Even if Extirpate is good in that situation of Standstill against FT/TES/AdN, it still doesn't make Extirpate a good card.

[Apex]

Why are you two even discussing that? Even if Extirpate is good in that situation of Standstill against FT/TES/AdN, it still doesn't make Extirpate a good card.

I don't think any of us storm players ever argued any other way. We said, and voted that Extirpate is good in some specific decks, but apparently alot of people don't believe that either. I think I have about several posts of quotes where I said that I don't believe Extirpate is good as a general graveyard hate tool.

As for Extirpate vs Duress in storm combo mirrors, Extirpate gets rid of ALL Orim's Chants from your opponent. That's pretty much the only card that's relevant in the mirror matchup. You resolve Chant, you win, basically. Chant in response of their Chant, and then Extirpate during your turn gets rid of all Chants. There was a time period with the older FT lists that ran 4x Dark Confidants in the board, and along with the maindecked 4x Streetwraith, that was often the win plan against mirror matches. There was even a tourney report somewhere on thesource that detailed how the matchup went (FT vs TES). You basically beat them with dudes while reacting to Chants with Chants/Abeyances. Since many of the newer FT lists don't play Dark Confidants or Street Wraith anymore, you've got to find another way. Chant/Extirpate happens to be a great combination and only takes 1 slot from the board.

In all of those scenarios Peter_Rotten listed (on storm vs storm), if you switch the Extirpate to a Duress/Chant, and you assume that your opponent has also 2 pieces of Disruption in hand, just like you (and the 2 Chant combination is what we are worried about the most):

Opp: Chant (signaling going off, or bluffing, but assuming legit)
You: Chant in response
You Upkeep: Extirpate your Chant

Now their 2nd Chant in hand does nothing and you can safely go off this turn. If you had a Duress or Chant in hand instead, it would have went like this:

Opp: Chant
You: Chant in response
You (your turn): Chant/Duress
Opp: Chant in response
Opp goes off in his turn because it's pretty unlikely for triple Chants to happen.

[citanul]

Even though it is correct to say that an Extirpate on their Chants is good, it does not mean you will automaticly win. They still have a 1 card advantage.
Also, Duress/Cabal Therapy is still better in most of those examples. Let's say you have the same hand except he has a Duress where you have an Extirpate. Both can go off with this hand.
If you are the active player the following happens: You chant, he chants, resolves. During his turn you Extirpate his Chants, he still goes off.
If he is the active player you win right? Nope, he still does. Play Duress, you have to chant since else it will be discarded so you do. He allows it, Chants during your upkeep, you are forced to pass the turn, he wins.

The problem is that you are not talking about the rest in his hand being the same except Extirpate. In your example both have Chants yet you have an Extirpate where the opponents seems to have nothing else relevant.

Yes, getting Chants from the opposing deck CAN be good. Yes, nicking all the Force of Wills from a control deck CAN be good. The question you got to ask yourself is: "would I have lost if this Extirpate was card X". The answer usually is no. The second question you got to ask yourself: "Would I have won if this Extirpate was card X". If the times you answered Yes to the second question is greater than the times you answered Yes to the first then Extirpate is worse than card X.

[emidln]

Even though it is correct to say that an Extirpate on their Chants is good, it does not mean you will automaticly win. They still have a 1 card advantage.
Also, Duress/Cabal Therapy is still better in most of those examples. Let's say you have the same hand except he has a Duress where you have an Extirpate. Both can go off with this hand.
If you are the active player the following happens: You chant, he chants, resolves. During his turn you Extirpate his Chants, he still goes off.

This example is assuming you are bad enough to attempt to chant on your own turn. The number one rule of playing legacy storm combo is don't be aggressive with Orim's Chant. The only time that it is okay to play Orim's Chant on your own turn is if you know they have no Orim's Chant effect (Chant/Abeyance/that shitty cycling card that makes them untargetable/etc) from Duress/Extirpate knowledge and that they have no way (via Brainstorm/Top/random cantrip/Intuition/etc) to get a Chant effect. In all other times, you want Chant in hand (or on the top of your deck if you have Top to avoid Duress) so you can play it defensively. You will wait until you draw a Duress/Creature/Extirpate so never run into the sort of situation that you described.
If he is the active player you win right? Nope, he still does. Play Duress, you have to chant since else it will be discarded so you do. He allows it, Chants during your upkeep, you are forced to pass the turn, he wins.

[citanul]

This example is assuming you are bad enough to attempt to chant on your own turn. The number one rule of playing legacy storm combo is don't be aggressive with Orim's Chant.

This is what I replied to:

As for Extirpate vs Duress in storm combo mirrors, Extirpate gets rid of ALL Orim's Chants from your opponent. That's pretty much the only card that's relevant in the mirror matchup. You resolve Chant, you win, basically. Chant in response of their Chant, and then Extirpate during your turn gets rid of all Chants.

As you can see, he clearly states: Chant in response to their chant, meaning he is Chanting during his own turn. Else it would be bad to respond with your own chant on theirs during your turn, it's not like you can combo anyway this turn.

The only possible time that an Extirpate is better than a discard spell is when the feared card is floating in the top3 cards and the opponent has a SDT. With a Discard other means of getting that top card such as brainstorm is irrelevant since you can just grab the brainstorm then. How many times does that happen exactly?

It's not about situations I described, just picture any situation you like and answer those two questions. Yes you will find some where Extirpate IS better than a discard, those situations do exist. But they are less frequent than the situations where a discard trumphs Extirpate.