[Planar Chaos] Extirpate

[GrandpaBelcher]

FoW sucks against fish anyways

Exactly.  So the problem isn't that Fish was running or using Extirpate, it's that the Fish player was using Extirpate incorrectly.  I wouldn't Extirpate for Forces unless I had something that absolutely had to go through that turn.  I feel that if you're playing Extirpate against Gifts and you're not targeting a win condition (EtW, Tendrils or Big Man), your priorities are Seas, Volcanoes, Brainstorms, and Gifts.

If Gifts wants to 2-for-1 themselves by Forcing a Meddling Mage or whatever, let them.

[yespuhyren]

Lands are a great great target.  Waste sea with fetches in play.  Ok.  Extirpate sea?  WEEE

[Implacable]

Lands are a great great target.  Waste sea with fetches in play.  Ok.  Extirpate sea?  WEEE

Or you could Waste Volcanics against Slaver.

Or you could Waste Tundra against Fish.

Or you could Waste, err, Taigas against FeinsteinBeats.dec?

The thing that makes Extirpate isn't absolute, overwhelming power, but the fact that it shears out a portion of somebody's deck in whatever way would hurt them most.  That's an insane effect in a format where huge consideration goes into each card in a deck.

[yespuhyren]

Exactly.  While I still think this card is amazing, I think it benefits the good players and hurts the weaker players.  The good players will know what to go for in every matchup to best help their win percentage.  The bad players will be the ones who go on sites like TMD/SCG read up on the hype, stick 4 into any deck they play whether or not they belong, and then will extirpate ridiculous things and lose games because of it.

I have done quite a bit of testing and am still really liking the card, though we will see if it continues to benefit me enough to remain in the list.

[Dark4Ever]

Will we see U/B decks with Glimpse the Unthinkable followed by take your pick extirpate? You either get one of the ten or a counter. I'm new so don't be too hard on me if I don't know what I'm talking about. 

[brianpk80]

Either the entire TMD community has gone insane, or posters are downplaying this card until they get thier foil playset but seriously ... OMG.

Unless...

Harlequin,

Your entire post is a spot-on and eloquent statement about what makes Extirpate so versatile and effective.  I agree throughout.  Very well done.

   
There has been alot of talk about what card is most like extripate.  I would venture a guess to say that extripate is most like an unstoppable, unkillable, instant, 1 mana, Meddling Mage.  Here's why.  The first Meddling Mage you drop (esp game one) is typically a shot in the dark.  The card you choose to name is influenced by what you've seen your opponent do so far in the game (note: most of the early game cards that are played end up in the GY).  Meddling Mage is certainly more powerful when it comes to pre-emptively attacking a card that has not been played (like Gifts Ungiven).  But lets face it, Meddling mage is not instant, not unstopable, and has a double mulit-colored casting cost... so he's definately not 'strictly' better.   The corellation even carries over to meddling mage #2, usually played in the late game to amplify the effects of mage #1 (either by protecting it if its a good name, or nameing something based on new information).  I would say that Meddling Mage #2 is strictly worse than Extripate #2 in a vaccume because:  You still are not 100% sure if Meddling Mage #1 was good or not.  Extripate #1 lets you assess your (future) choices based on ALL the cards in that player's deck.

This in particular is an excellent point.  Meddling Mage is an unreliable form of disruption and I would even go as far as to say that it's heavily overrated (and I say this having run 4x copies in Fish for almost a year).  Extirpate is irreversible (outside of Wishes) while Mage often reads "bounce me for the win."  While the 2/2 body is strong, the pure functional advantage of the former is clear. 

They can still target tinker with the recoup...no? You can then remove the tinker, and they can recoup the will next turn. (Time walk, you know)... Also, you don't HAVE to use that setup...i've often gone for Tolarian academy, lotus, mox, mana crypt and then tutored for will...easy to do.

I'm well aware that Gifts piles come in many different flavors, but it's difficult to assess this situation in a vacuum.  If I had Extirpate online, naturally I would segregate the Gifts pile in whatever way gives me the lowest chance of losing the game, based on whatever else the game state carries (Chalice, how much mana is available, other cards in my hand, etc.)  In the above scenario, if Gifts pays 1R to Recoup and have Will removed and then 1U for a Time Walk, then the following turn Gifts would need an inconvenient 5RU to Flashback Tinker; my opponent might as well hardcast Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind at that price.  If Gifts is 100% locked into the Tinker plan (which is less and less common these days, per EtW), then the game is won with a resolved StP, Chain, Hurkyl's, Wipe Away, Maze of Ith, Gilded Drake, Bouncer, Stormscape, Azorious, etc.  Of course Extirpate alone can't answer this.  But by removing the threat of Yawgmoth's Will for the Win and imposing a huge tempo loss with a fizzled Recoup, I think Extirpate has more than done its job here. 

The argument that it can be Duressed or Chaliced @ 1 is silly; if that were defining criteria, no one would be running Ancestral Recall or Sol Ring in Vintage.

It's not silly at all. Sol Ring and Ancestral are bombs that you play if your mana can support them regardless of the existence of cards that could theoretically stop them.

You are saying that the existence of countermeasures should somehow serve as a stronger deterrent to disruption pieces than they should for "bombs" like Ancestral Recall and Sol Ring.  I'm not sure how or why this would necessarily be true.  When deckbuilding, the threat of Chalice/Duress is no more suffocating for disruption pieces like Stifle, Pyroblast, and Duress itself than Mana Vault or Ancestral Recall.  In other words, I don't think "This can be Chaliced so maybe I shouldn't run it" is any more realistically a decisive deterrent against disruption pieces than it is against 1 casting cost "bombs." 

And at any rate, given Extirpate is immune to that the most prevalent countermeasures, counterspells, the argument you raise would seem to militate in its favor over Duress or Stifle.   

Disruption, on the other hand, has to be carefully chosen based on both what your deck is trying to accomplish and what the opposing decks can do to stop you if the disruption is particularly threatening. The fact that Extirpate, for instance, is Duressable or can be stopped by cards like Xantid Swarm is a *very* major deal against certain archetypes when compared to permanent based graveyard hate like Crypt or Leyline. The fact that trying to create synergy by combining Duress and Extirpate leads to increased vulnerability to CotV for 1 is also a fairly significant consideration.

I think it's well known that anyone's gameplan, especially when playing a "hate" deck, should consider escape valves and answers an opponent might have in store for attempts to disrupt.  However, when discussing the raw strength of a card as we're doing in this thread, arguments like "but that card can be countered" or "that card can be Chaliced out" don't go very far because those arguments apply to every card in the game.  The mere existence of countermeasures do nothing to detract from the raw power of the card in question.  Mindslaver is not a "bad card" because of Null Rod.  Timetwister is not a "bad card" because it can be Forced.  Tangle Wire is not a "bad" card because of Rack and Ruin.  Dread Return is not a "bad card" because of Leyline.  Likewise, Extirpate is not a weak card simply because of the existence of Chalice of the Void and Duress. 

The point is that it will have a variety of effects from game to game; will good players play with a card that is so unpredictable?

A "variety of effects" from game to game calls to mind Balance, Chalice of the Void itself (randomly great/randomly useless), Fire/Ice, Crucible of Worlds, and so forth.  Variety and flexibility are card strengths in my opinion.  Also, the idea that Exirpate's strength varies in direct proportion to the caster's knowledge of how to best penetrate an opponent's deck and how to maximize its timing highly favors skillful and well-learned players.  That's a good thing for Vintage.  I know I can think of much stronger roles for the card than "Huzzah! Extirpate on Brainstorm! or Mana Drain!"   

-BPK

[dicemanx]

You are saying that the existence of countermeasures should somehow serve as a stronger deterrent to disruption pieces than they should for "bombs" like Ancestral Recall and Sol Ring.  I'm not sure how or why this would necessarily be true.  When deckbuilding, the threat of Chalice/Duress is no more suffocating for disruption pieces like Stifle, Pyroblast, and Duress itself than Mana Vault or Ancestral Recall.  In other words, I don't think "This can be Chaliced so maybe I shouldn't run it" is any more realistically a decisive deterrent against disruption pieces than it is against 1 casting cost "bombs."

You made a statement that the idea of a deterrent factoring into what disruption one played was "silly", because if that were the case then people wouldn't play their 1cc bombs. I thought your logic was flawed, because bombs are beyond the considerations of deterrents, while non bombs are not. You challenge by offering, yet again, your exact same opinion. I understood the first time, no need to repeat yourself.

I think it's well known that anyone's gameplan, especially when playing a "hate" deck, should consider escape valves and answers an opponent might have in store for attempts to disrupt.  However, when discussing the raw strength of a card as we're doing in this thread, arguments like "but that card can be countered" or "that card can be Chaliced out" don't go very far because those arguments apply to every card in the game.

No they don't. FoW might apply to almost every card, but CotV at 1 certainly doesn't. Same with vulnerabilities to Xantids or Duress.

And at any rate, given Extirpate is immune to that the most prevalent countermeasures, counterspells, the argument you raise would seem to militate in its favor over Duress or Stifle.   

Except it doesn't. That argument is the product of your illogical thinking so please refrain from attributing it to what I said. If a card is susceptible to certain specific countermeasures it might be not considered for play. That doesn't mean that any disruption card that doesn't have vulnerabilities to those countermeasures is automatically worthy of consideration. Hopefully you see that this doesn't automatically follow.

Likewise, Extirpate is not a weak card simply because of the existence of Chalice of the Void and Duress. 

We cannot fixate on just one issue - there are a number of factors to consider. Extirpate has a lot of downsides that we are hoping will be made up by its positives - certain opportunity costs, the frequent lack of the ability to generate any virtual card advanatge, and the fact that there are other cards that have similar effects that do the job better than Extirpate (which also overlap with opportunity cost). For instance, do you believe that Extirpate is better than certain other graveyard removal cards vs decks like WGD or Ichorid?

The vulnerability to certain "countermeasures" adds to its weakness - its not the sole contributor.

A "variety of effects" from game to game calls to mind Balance, Chalice of the Void itself (randomly great/randomly useless), Fire/Ice, Crucible of Worlds, and so forth.

Good players generally avoid cards that are too random or unpredictable - they make your deck less consistent. Every card has some degree of randomness associated with it - I just think that Extirpate crosses some arbitrary threshhold that makes it "not good enough".The cards you listed are furthermore not only able to either maintain parity or generate card advantage, but are not as "random" in the right archetypes that aim to exploit their effectiveness based on tourney play. Extirpate is part of a strategy that, even if successfull, might actually not accomplish anything all at the cost of a card. If your contention is that Extirpate will be accomplishing something meaningful more often than not then I can respect that, because its an unchallengeable opinion at this point and we need evidence. I just think the opposite is the case here. Time will tell.

[brianpk80]

You made a statement that the idea of a deterrent factoring into what disruption one played was "silly", because if that were the case then people wouldn't play their 1cc bombs. I thought your logic was flawed, because bombs are beyond the considerations of deterrents, while non bombs are not. You challenge by offering, yet again, your exact same opinion. I understood the first time, no need to repeat yourself.

Given that you still don't appear to be completely digesting my point, I fear I will have to repeat it one more time.  When assessing a new card on its merits, using existing countermeasures as a determinative basis for dismissing that card is an improper avenue of immediate attack because if that were the primary criterion for gaging a card's strength, even the most empirically powerful cards in the game would be unfairly subject to dismissal.  No card is beyond the threat of countermeasures; we have Shamans, Rods, and Chalices for Moxen/Loti.  Chalice, Duress, Cabal Therapy, Misdirecction, FoW, Mana Drain, Blasts for Ancestral.  All flavors of enchantment removal for Oath of Druids.  However, when assessing the strength of the card, the first step is to determine whether those cards are powerful enough to justify consideration for inclusion in deck design.  This threshold inquiry of "is the card good enough?" naturally precedes the question of whether the existence of opposing countermeasures renders the environment too hostile for its inclusion.  Once you determine that the card's power/efficiency deserves maindeck (or sideboard) consideration, whether it be an engine enabler, a combo piece, a mana source, or a parcel of a unified disruption strategy, then you reach the question of whether an opponent's countermeasures deflate its impact enough that it should be dismissed. 

You submit again that this process must somehow apply more scrutiny to disuption pieces than other types of cards, but you make no case for that conclusion.  You may have a point, but given the lack of reasoning you offer, it cannot be determined what line of logic would carry us there.  I'm inclined to disagree because when playing a hate strategy, I can't imagine anyone reasonably participating in the following line of thought: "Because my Ichorid opponent runs Chalice of the Void, I going to side out my Tormod's Crypts but I am still going to run 5 Moxen." or "Because my Dragon opponent runs Xantid Swarm, I am going to side out my Coffin Purges but I am still going to run Force of Will."  The idea of opposing countermeasures here as a successfully stronger deterrent to pure hate pieces appears senseless. 

So the question for you is, why should opposing countermeasures necessarily serve to deter disruption pieces any more than any other types of cards in the format?     

I think it's well known that anyone's gameplan, especially when playing a "hate" deck, should consider escape valves and answers an opponent might have in store for attempts to disrupt.  However, when discussing the raw strength of a card as we're doing in this thread, arguments like "but that card can be countered" or "that card can be Chaliced out" don't go very far because those arguments apply to every card in the game.

No they don't. FoW might apply to almost every card, but CotV at 1 certainly doesn't. Same with vulnerabilities to Xantids or Duress.

I said "Chaliced out" not "Chaliced out at 1."  Chalice of the Void can be set to any number and hence can counter almost any conceivable card.   It appears you misread what I wrote. 

And at any rate, given Extirpate is immune to that the most prevalent countermeasures, counterspells, the argument you raise would seem to militate in its favor over Duress or Stifle.   

Except it doesn't. That argument is the product of your illogical thinking so please refrain from attributing it to what I said. If a card is susceptible to certain specific countermeasures it might be not considered for play. That doesn't mean that any disruption card that doesn't have vulnerabilities to those countermeasures is automatically worthy of consideration. Hopefully you see that this doesn't automatically follow.

Of course I see that.  Your argument however advanced the notion the resilience of a disruption piece strengthens its overall position as a candidate for consideration.  I would hope you see that as well.  I never implied that resilience was the sole determinative factor and I certainly never suggested it would trump the primary effect of the card itself.   

The vulnerability to certain "countermeasures" adds to its weakness - its not the sole contributor.

I'm in accordance with you on this one. 

We cannot fixate on just one issue - there are a number of factors to consider. Extirpate has a lot of downsides that we are hoping will be made up by its positives - certain opportunity costs, the frequent lack of the ability to generate any virtual card advanatge, and the fact that there are other cards that have similar effects that do the job better than Extirpate (which also overlap with opportunity cost). For instance, do you believe that Extirpate is better than certain other graveyard removal cards vs decks like WGD or Ichorid?

Fair question.  It's important to note however before even reaching the question of how opposing countermeasures affect design decisions that the initial question of "is this card good enough" must have already been answered affirmatively. 

I'll start with WGD.  Once resolved, the effect of Extirpate is much harsher on current non-adapted WGD builds than Tormod's Crypts and even Leyline of the Void.  You know as well as anyone how easy it is to bait a Tormod's Crypt and win shortly afterwards.  Leyline's effect is more constricting on Dragon, because while Dragon can force a Crypt with any of its Animate spells, Leyline must be bounced.  Regardless, having to bounce Leyline is must less constraining than trying to win the game without a single Worldgorger Dragon available, post-Extirpate.  Of course an alt-win like Sliver Queen or 7/10 makes this easier, but from what I know of most current builds, if Extirpate resolves, Dragon's lone hope would be to hit a homerun beating for 20 with Eternal Witness and that is quite implausible. 

As for countermeasures, it's anyone's call.  Leyline is most immune (bounce only) once situated but comes packaged with the innate setback that one must draw/mulligan into it for maximum utility.  It also is most immune to premature kill, in the sense that Dragon can occasionally defeat an opponent before the opponent is afforded a single turn in which to lay a Crypt or black mana source for Extirpate.  Tormod's Crypt is susceptible to Stifle and Pithing Needle, both of which I have seen in Dragon builds over the past year, as well as Chalice of the Void @ 0, preemptive Duress, Trickbind, baiting, bounce, and Force of Will.  Extirpate is susceptible to Duress, Xantid Swarm, and theoretically Chalice @ 1 but notably not countered by Force of Will. 

In the builds I have encountered most, Xantid Swarm is not included maindeck or in the sideboard and I've only very rarely seen Chalice of the Void in Dragon.  Since Extirpate has the most devastating effect on Dragon and can only expect Duress as a roadblock currently, I do think that card is the most optimal choice of the three.  However, if its popularity causes an adaptation in Dragon, time will tell what answer would be best.  And there may be no definite general answer if the archetype becomes fractured in terms of methods of adaptation (some running Xantid, others running alt-wins and CA ingredients, etc.)  It's important to note that the involuntary adaptation itself may effectuate an overall weakening of Dragon as a whole, but it's likewise possible the end product would be strengthened from its growth; right now, I don't think we can speculate. 

Ichorid is another story.  Leyline is pretty much the unequivocal winner here, but its narrowness and inherent drawback usually prevent it from having a maindeck home anywhere aside from Ichord itself.  The effect of Extirpate will in some cases be more brutal than Tormod's Crypt but will vary heavily by circumstances.  Ichorid can usually recover from a single Crypting, but sometimes it loses enough steam that the game is flipped.  Likewise for Extirpate I would conjecture.  I can easily see removing all Ichorids as abating their clock enough that I would win before Dread Return could be accomplished, but there may likewise be episodes where Extirpate is topdecked when I'm already at 5 life and Ashen Ghoul or Putrid Imp delivers me a lethal blow.  In terms of countermeasures, Crypt can be Chaliced @ 0, Needled, baited, or Bounced.  Extirpate can be Cabal Therapied, Unmasked, or theoretically Chaliced @ 1 although Ichorid often operates without ever reaching 2 mana, especially versus Fish which I usually play.  A topdeck Extirpate is nearly unanswerable.  Hence overall, Extirpate and Tormod's Crypt strike me as fairly comparable in the Ichord matchup, each having circumstantial weaknesses and susceptibility to different countermeasures.

I'm most impressed with Extirpate's decimation of the Bomberman combo (which is uncharacteristically hard to disrupt with graveyard removal) and its power versus Stax.  Extirpate on Wasteland/Barbarian Ring or Crucible/Tangle Wire after a Welder activation is a pretty weighty shift in position in a protracted Stax game.  I'm likewise impressed with its applicability to Gifts, Long, Slaver, and particularly its role as an information gatherer.  The card does so many things and is so fluid in its purpose that I see it deserving a home in hate strategies both presently as serving as a deterrent to narrow engines (particularly Intuition based) years from now.     

-BPK

[zeus-online]

Whats best? Spending 0 mana on a tormod's crypt which buys you 1-2 turns, or keeping B up the ENTIRE game in order to shut your opponent off?...That's just asking for a duress, you can't expect your opponent to blindly walk into Extirpate!

I think you'll loose too much tempo trying to extirpate the dragon combo, but thats just my opinion.

/Zeus

[yespuhyren]

If you keep B up and your opponent keeps a dragon in their hand the entire game until they win AND you haven't managed to win/stop them EVEN without them getting a dragon in the GY the whole game then fine, yes, you are correct.   

[zeus-online]

If you keep B up and your opponent keeps a dragon in their hand the entire game until they win AND you haven't managed to win/stop them EVEN without them getting a dragon in the GY the whole game then fine, yes, you are correct.   

I only have to wait until i can duress the damn thing
Which should be quite possible, my point is that they would practically have to keep B up the whole game, even if they tap out EOT there's the possibility of dumping the dragon and casting necromancy on it.
Keeping B up is basicly like Sphere of resistance targeting you.

/Zeus

[yespuhyren]

My point is, you are saying your opponent keeps B up you just wait for duress until you can win.  Unless all your opponent does is draw go every turn this works.  For some reason I would have a feeling your opponent might try and kinda win or something lol.  I mean, if they play extirpate, they might be playing Duress, they might play Jotun Grunt, they might play Mana Leak, who knows?  All I'm saying is you can't just wait for a duress and assume you win cause other decks cause still beat you.  If me holding up a B mana makes you wait for duress, then I'll just bluff it every now and then and beat the hell out of you while you wait to duress me to find squat.

[brianpk80]

Whats best? Spending 0 mana on a tormod's crypt which buys you 1-2 turns, or keeping B up the ENTIRE game in order to shut your opponent off?...That's just asking for a duress, you can't expect your opponent to blindly walk into Extirpate!

I think you'll loose too much tempo trying to extirpate the dragon combo, but thats just my opinion.

I think you are magnifying the importance of "tempo" in a Fish v. Dragon match-up.  The point isn't to accumulate miniscule advantages and win a resource war.  The entire focus of the game is making sure you don't get comboed into oblivion.  As long as you prevent that from happening, no matter what it takes, you will ultimately win.  You play by a different set of rules when you play against Dragon.

-BPK

[zeus-online]

Honestly, you guys are missing an important point

If you don't try to kill me, i WILL find a way around your hate cards, even if its extirpate.
I'm saying that sphere of resistance target you is worse then tormod's crypt because the crypt allows you to spend all your mana on the first 3 turns which are the most important, where as extirpate leaves you pretty dry on mana (you have to keep B up).

If you guys are counting on your hate cards to stop me cold, you're playing the match-up wrong. Your disruption is there to buy you time, enough time to kill me, if you don't try to kill me i'll have infinite time to play through any amount of hate.

So the way i see it...wasting 1 mana every turn definetly DOES matter.

/Zeus

[roberts91rom]

Time Walk
1U
Sorcery
Take an extra turn after this one.

ANY LAND THAT PRODUCES BLACK
Land
As long as this is untapped target WGD player doesn't combo off.

I'm sorry but your logic of leaving 1 mana open zeus, is like saying a MDG player that leaves Drain mana up sucks because he isn't using his mana. If sitting back and waiting for Duress is the best option you can think of, good luck. You have officially made basic swamp as broken as Time Walk. There will very rarely be a time when an opponent will completely stop casting spells because he needs to leave one B mana open. I would gladly pay an upkeep cost of B to stop a WGD player from comboing off. I mean you don't even need to run Extirpate in your deck.

At this point people will adapt to Extirpate whether it is run in decks or not. For example, you sit across from an opponent and he leads with Island, Mox Sapphire. Immediately you start playing around the Drain, because it's calling card is UU. Next turn he combos off and you see a Grim Tutor. No Drains, just a threat. Let's say instead your opponent leads with a Fetchland, or a USea, or a Swamp. Playing WGD you can't take the chance of dropping Dragon in the yard, so you play around Extirpate. (Sound familiar?) Whether Extirpate was in the deck or not, you still were forced to play around it, just like the UU in example 1.

I'm saying that sphere of resistance target you is worse then tormod's crypt because the crypt allows you to spend all your mana on the first 3 turns which are the most important, where as extirpate leaves you pretty dry on mana (you have to keep B up).

If you guys are counting on your hate cards to stop me cold, you're playing the match-up wrong. Your disruption is there to buy you time, enough time to kill me, if you don't try to kill me i'll have infinite time to play through any amount of hate.
/Zeus

Any deck that can't drop more disruption or a kill condition while a WGD player sits back waiting for Duress deserves to lose.

Edit: Sorry if I seem rude but I find it mind-boggling that you would say turning Swamp into Time walk is bad.

[diopter]

I'm sorry but your logic of leaving 1 mana open zeus, is like saying a MDG player that leaves Drain mana up sucks because he isn't using his mana.

Smmenen once said that his playstyle with MDG often causes him to pitch Mana Drain to FoW/MisD. Many people, including Randy Buehler, have been quoted as saying that Mana Drain is the weakest card in Gifts, specifically because it doesn't let them use their mana.

Which leads to my point:

Zeus is right. Extirpate will cost you tempo, and that tempo loss is steep enough that you may well lose the game.

Think about it. Dragon is a turn 2/3 combo deck, which means you have to have Extirpate mana up by turn 2 at the latest. Not only that, but you have to keep it up at all times, otherwise Dragon has a good chance of pulling off Necromancy->Dragon while you're tapped out - there goes your Extirpate tech. So, you are essentially anti-Moxing yourself on Turn 2 or earlier - no, worse, you are Strip Mining yourself, because you are losing a precious colored source.

Think about that for a second.

You are Strip Mining yourself on Turn 2.

Meanwhile, your Dragon opponent is Bazaaring Deep Analyses into his yard and outdrawing the hell out of you.

...

So, while you're "Time Walking" your opponent, he's Time Walking you back, and twice as hard to boot.

The flaw in your analysis, robert, is that you think Dragon will sit back because he fears your Extirpate. Dragon has been facing graveyard hate for years, and Dragon will do what it always does - abuse its draw engine, find an answer, and combo out 2 turns later. At least with Tormod's Crypt, you can maximize your mana in that two-turn window and seriously damage your Dragon opponent.

[InfinityCircuit]

You are looking at Extirpate too one-dimensionally.  In the situation you just mentioned Extirpate should be cast on Deep Analysis to destroy Dragon's draw engine.

[diopter]

You are looking at Extirpate too one-dimensionally.  In the situation you just mentioned Extirpate should be cast on Deep Analysis to destroy Dragon's draw engine.

The Dragon player can cast at least one Deep Analysis by not passing priority. If the Dragon player discarded two DA's, and the Extirpate player managed to hit the second one, then the board looks something like this:

Dragon: Active Bazaar, drew 4 and pitched 3 between Bazaar and DA, most likely ready to combo out.
Extirpate player: Development stunted due to Extirpate tying up mana, Extirpate is used up.

If the Extirpate player has a second Extirpate *and* if Dragon doesn't have Duress already *and* if Dragon can't find Duress in another 1 or 2 Bazaar activations *and* if Dragon doesn't have a secondary draw engine like Read the Runes - then Dragon has lost. That's a lot of ifs though - and don't forget, a second Extirpate ties up mana just as much as the first Extirpate.

[InfinityCircuit]

Your logic seems to suggest that Dragon is unbeatable.  I would say that Extirpate does a better job of holding it in check than Swords, Stifle, etc.

[diopter]

Your logic seems to suggest that Dragon is unbeatable.  I would say that Extirpate does a better job of holding it in check than Swords, Stifle, etc.

But not as good a job as Tormod's Crypt.

I basically entered this argument after reading comments like "Extirpate makes all your Swamps Time Walks" and "if you have B up then Dragon can't combo off". Extirpate isn't impotent against Dragon, but I think that people are really over-estimating its effect in the Dragon matchup.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm probably going to regret jumping in the middle of this mess, but the problem with a lot of this discussion is that it's overly theoretical and doesn't make reference to much actual playtesting with the card.  The consequence of this is that it assumes the players in your example have a lot more information than they actually would have, which misrepresents the potential power of the card.

The best way to get past what seems to me to be a limited discussion is to take more of a strategic approach to potential card interactions and then see if they hold in playtesting.  For example, has anyone here spent real time seeing if dragon's engine allows them to slow roll fish before they're beaten down by the likes of (further disrupting) mages and grunts?  Or instead, if extirpate should then be used to attack the draw engine instead of the win condition?  Additionally, do we want to try to characterize the power of this card by picking out a rather minor metagame pairing (dragon vs. fish)?

A much more interesting discussion could be, 'can this card be leveraged in matchups where both decks are hyper-aggressive, such as ritual gifts vs pitchlong, and which can it abuse it more readily?'  If so, which deck's alternative wins (e.g. desire, tinker) or disruption package (duress vs. misd) allow it to win the next tactical branch, etc...and then have arguments about who's found which to actually happen in games.

[brianpk80]

Honestly, you guys are missing an important point

If you don't try to kill me, i WILL find a way around your hate cards, even if its extirpate.
I'm saying that sphere of resistance target you is worse then tormod's crypt because the crypt allows you to spend all your mana on the first 3 turns which are the most important, where as extirpate leaves you pretty dry on mana (you have to keep B up).

Leaving open isn't that much of a problem at all in a Vial-based Fish build.  And even without Vials, given the choice of "target opponent lays a Sphere or Resistance on you" and "target opponent wins the game immediately" I think the answer is clear. 

If you guys are counting on your hate cards to stop me cold, you're playing the match-up wrong. Your disruption is there to buy you time, enough time to kill me, if you don't try to kill me i'll have infinite time to play through any amount of hate.

That might be somewhat more true for UW Fish which is the most aggressive member of the genre.  But Fish overall is the most controlling popular archetype in existence outside of Slaver and Stax.  If you play Fish as a beatdown deck against Gifts or Dragon, both of which are much more aggressive, you're inviting a game loss. 

And FWIW, graveyard removal isn't always my favorite angle of attack; the comparison here was limited to Extirpate, Tormod's, and Leyline.  My favorite Dragon hoser is Kami of Ancient Law, which beats down, stalls, or flat out wins the game with Vial @ 2.   

-BPK

[Zarathustra]

Smmenen once said that his playstyle with MDG often causes him to pitch Mana Drain to FoW/MisD. Many people, including Randy Buehler, have been quoted as saying that Mana Drain is the weakest card in Gifts, specifically because it doesn't let them use their mana.

I've heard this before.  I believe it too.  But a good MDG player can't think this way all of the time.  Mana Drain is still a threat and as so, must still be utilized when it can be.

The flaw in your analysis, robert, is that you think Dragon will sit back because he fears your Extirpate. Dragon has been facing graveyard hate for years, and Dragon will do what it always does - abuse its draw engine, find an answer, and combo out 2 turns later. At least with Tormod's Crypt, you can maximize your mana in that two-turn window and seriously damage your Dragon opponent.

Extirpate or not.  If you see B open and you dump your key combo piece into the graveyard without clearing the way... you better have a back up plan.  The psychology of Extirpate will make B open as powerful as UU was for the longest time.  Even as powerful as Force Spike was in some formats.  Dragon has to adapt and it has to be aware of the fact: dumping Dragon early isn't such a good idea.  

Comparing Extirpate to Crypt doesn't even pan out.  You could still dump Dragons, be Crypted and have some left over.  Even a timely Crypt activation could be overcome by Necromancy.  Stifle, Swords, and even Blue Elemental Blast could be battled by Dance and Necromancy.

Extirpate on Dragon itself renders the combo dead.  I have no idea how you expect to combo out after you have ALL of your Dragons removed.  Extirpate can even be used to hurt the engine of the deck, which may be worse in the end.

-DShell

[roberts91rom]

My original 1-page post was lost in a computer error just 20 minutes ago, so I'll sum it up. I don't need Extirpate in my deck to abuse it. Any good player will have heard of the card, and will think I am holding B up for Extirpate. The printing of this card makes a Basic Swamp into Time Walks. Should I be running Extirpate, I will not be running 56 Swamps and 4 Extirpate. I can run anywhere from Trinisphere, SoR and Tangle Wire, to FoW, MisD and Drain, to Duress, Therapy and Unmask.

I'm sorry but your logic of leaving 1 mana open zeus, is like saying a MDG player that leaves Drain mana up sucks because he isn't using his mana.

Smmenen once said that his playstyle with MDG often causes him to pitch Mana Drain to FoW/MisD. Many people, including Randy Buehler, have been quoted as saying that Mana Drain is the weakest card in Gifts, specifically because it doesn't let them use their mana.

Which leads to my point:

Zeus is right. Extirpate will cost you tempo, and that tempo loss is steep enough that you may well lose the game.

Think about it. Dragon is a turn 2/3 combo deck, which means you have to have Extirpate mana up by turn 2 at the latest. Not only that, but you have to keep it up at all times, otherwise Dragon has a good chance of pulling off Necromancy->Dragon while you're tapped out - there goes your Extirpate tech. So, you are essentially anti-Moxing yourself on Turn 2 or earlier - no, worse, you are Strip Mining yourself, because you are losing a precious colored source.

Think about that for a second.

You are Strip Mining yourself on Turn 2.

Meanwhile, your Dragon opponent is Bazaaring Deep Analyses into his yard and outdrawing the hell out of you.

...

So, while you're "Time Walking" your opponent, he's Time Walking you back, and twice as hard to boot.

The flaw in your analysis, robert, is that you think Dragon will sit back because he fears your Extirpate. Dragon has been facing graveyard hate for years, and Dragon will do what it always does - abuse its draw engine, find an answer, and combo out 2 turns later. At least with Tormod's Crypt, you can maximize your mana in that two-turn window and seriously damage your Dragon opponent.

You said it yourself TWO TURNS for leaving a Swamp untapped. That comes out to BB for 2 Time Walks, as long as I have 1 card in hand. I will not use those 2 turns to sit back and let you set yourself up perfectly. I will drop more disruption. Meanwhile you are ripping your own hand apart with bazaar. Let me explain something. Every Bazaar activation is -1CA. If thats not enough every WGD you draw is another -1CA until one of us wins. Which means that every turn you lose a card from bazaar, then you play a land. Assuming you don't hit a WGD that is -1CA every turn. If you stop using bazaar, then you can't dig. If you stop playing lands, you are Strip Mining yourself, and if you discard WGD Extirpate and you lose. You will not draw 1 Deep Anal every 2 turns to offset bazaar every single game.

Extirpate is not a useless card, and it will kill every WGD player that has not adapted to face it. You can't assume that you opponent will drop a swamp and just sit there all game discarding cards and waiting for the Dragon. Strip Mine is not a bomb in Dragon, or else Dragon would be running 5 of them. If you can't play through 1 Strip Mine then your deck is horrible and you should go play T2. Dragon has to adapt, and will adapt. It will not just sit back and pray the opponent is playing 56 Swamps and 4 Extirpate.

For the record I do not think Extirpate is the best answer to Dragon, but it is certainly a very powerful one. I would rather kill the Dragon and remove all their permanents as it leaves them with no way to rebound, as opposed to removing WGD from the deck. I will probably run a few in my deck as it is worth bringing in as the "Lightning Bolt" of my sideboard because it slows down a lot of decks. If you underestimate Extirpate, you will lose its that simple.

In addition to this Extirpate has 2 answers, Duress and Xantid Swarm. Every other hate against Dragon has about 8 ways to counter it. Duress can be countered/Duressed. Xantid Swarm can be killed, bounced, countered, etc. Have fun losing to Extirpate.

[brianpk80]

But not as good a job as Tormod's Crypt.

I basically entered this argument after reading comments like "Extirpate makes all your Swamps Time Walks" and "if you have B up then Dragon can't combo off". Extirpate isn't impotent against Dragon, but I think that people are really over-estimating its effect in the Dragon matchup.

I think it needs to be reminded here exactly what the stakes are:

1. If Dragon resolves an Animate spell and combos out for the win, you lose.
2. If you resolve Extirpate targeting Worldgorger Dragon, you win.

These are much larger concerns than pontificating about tempo boosts and resource optimization.  Obviously, no one is going to be playing 40 Extirpate + 20 Swamp.dec, so the fact that the Extirpate player is running win conditions and additional disruption goes without saying.  "Waiting around for Duress" is a lot easier said than done, especially if someone has more than one Extirpate in hand, or counters, True Believer, is Wasting your Bazaar in the meantime, Confidant online turning over tons of disruption every turn, etc.
   
-BPK

[InfinityCircuit]

Your logic seems to suggest that Dragon is unbeatable.  I would say that Extirpate does a better job of holding it in check than Swords, Stifle, etc.

But not as good a job as Tormod's Crypt.

I completely disagree that Tormod's Crypt does a good job of slowing down Dragon.  Crypt is simple to play around - any combination of 2 animate spells, 2 Dragons, Cunning Wish, etc. is sufficient to play around it.  4 Duress is all you have against Extirpate.

[Hydra]

My question in all of this silliness is simple: what build of Dragon is being discussed here?  Dragon is a deck that has a wide range of builds available to it.  I suppose you could say you're working with the "new" build that was successful at Rochester, but even that build saw changes between days (day 1 had no secondary win condition, day 2 had main deck Sundering Titan).  Saying that Extirpate is a Time Walk, it'll kill Dragon, etcetera is all well and good, but no one's provided any sort of evidence other than pure theory on the subject.

Between Intuition, Read The Runes, Entomb and Bazaar, the Dragon deck has absolutely no obligation to put thatWGD where Extirpate can get to it until it's good and ready to protect it.  It's the exact same concept as playing around Crypt, you can sit there with the card open all you want, but it's not actually going to "do" anything.  As it was mentioned before, Dragon can just get its card drawing going in the mean time.  You can back Extirpate up with some sort of a clock, but Fish has long been ill-equipped to offer up a scary clock (with the exception of Jotun Grunt) against a combo deck, particularly if said Fish deck is intentionally holding back resources to keep itself from being "combo'ed out".  Wastelands only go so far, particularly against a deck that historically is strong against mana denial strategies because of how cheap the actual combo is to cast.

Now, you can use Extirpate to attack the draw engine (hitting Deep Analysis or Intuition), but then you have just wasted a card that's supposed to "break" Dragon for you, without actually hurting the opponent too much.  Assuming that your opponent is not an idiot and doesn't put the Dragon where you can get it, it becomes a question on what's faster: Dragon's ability to gather answers or Fish's clock.  Unless you're willing to start pointing those Extirpates at DAs and the like, I don't see that as being a winning battle, and this is assuming no real main deck changes to Dragon, which is highly unlikely.  Factor in possible cards like Xantid Swarm or alternate win conditions like Sundering Titan into this mess and it becomes even more important for Fish to focus on its own game plan instead of trying to use Extirpate, since sitting on hate keeps you from executing your own plan, much like sitting on STP/Stifle and the like.

Now if your opponent IS an idiot, then props to you, but personally I'm not seeing Extirpate as being the card that will end Dragon as a deck possibility.

As far as hate goes, I'd rather be facing instant hate than permanent hate as a Dragon player.  Almost all playable forms of Instant hate can be countered, and they can all be Swarm'ed/Duress'ed, but things like Leyline of the Void require a Dragon player to dig for its bounce (and possibly have to use up a Cunning Wish) to deal with.  Tormod's Crypt on its own can be gotten around true, but many of the decks that play it can either win in the 1-2 turns it buys (Dragon), or can Crypt you at will and keep recurring the Crypt (CS).

Working theoretically doesn't honestly accomplish a whole hell of a lot when it comes down to it, I personally will be waiting for honest to goodness proof before I declare any deck, let alone one as adaptable as Dragon, dead.

[dicemanx]

Your logic seems to suggest that Dragon is unbeatable.  I would say that Extirpate does a better job of holding it in check than Swords, Stifle, etc.

But not as good a job as Tormod's Crypt.

I completely disagree that Tormod's Crypt does a good job of slowing down Dragon.  Crypt is simple to play around - any combination of 2 animate spells, 2 Dragons, Cunning Wish, etc. is sufficient to play around it.  4 Duress is all you have against Extirpate.

This is perhaps the sort of thought process that limits the success of would-be WGD players. As I mentioned in the Dragon thread in the closed forum, for WGD to remain successful it has to keep constantly changing, adapting, re-inventing itself.

To fight Extirpate WGD doesn't "just" have 4 Duress. As Hydra explained, WGD is designed to address the meta and the crop of popular hate cards. If the format shifts to favor more instant speed hate, then I certainly will entertain the notion of returning to a Xantid + Duress configuration (or 1 Abeyance + 3 LDVault +4 Duress) that were favorite configurations 2-3 years ago. Back then, the incidence of instant speed hate cards was higher, so the disruption base reflected that.

Just as a side point, I almost went with a suite of 3 bounce spells and Duress day 2 at SCG Rochesterin WGD. I saw (and hear talk of) a few decks featuring Leylines, Crypts were ubiquitous as always, and SS with its Planar Voids was also a concern. Apart from graveyard hate, Needles featured in a LOT of archetypes, and I had people play 1st turn blind Needles on *Bazaar* day 1 (in one case I knew they didn't know I was with WGD because Needle #2 named Welder). In the end I felt the build could do just fine on the strength of FoW, Duress and Cunning Wishes, and I only relied on bounce out of the SB; it did, although I'm guessing that bounce would have been stronger than FoW given the decks I faced. I did add a Sundering Titan main deck though, because having an alternate reanimation strategy (or the option to eventually hard cast one) gives you some additional ways to play around hate.

The bottom line is, once the situation is clarified for WGD as to what the disruption spells of choice are going to be, it makes it easier for WGD to adapt and deal. So long as the hate isn't an annoying mix of instant speed and permanent based hate, it can be handled. WGD cannot die to any single hate card, no matter how good it seems.

[brianpk80]

Agreed: Dragon is not "dead" and it would be incorrect for anyone to conclude that right now.  However...

Saying that Extirpate is a Time Walk, it'll kill Dragon, etcetera is all well and good, but no one's provided any sort of evidence other than pure theory on the subject.

Well, with all respect, I can't imagine what kind of evidence you're looking for given that the card isn't even Vintage legal yet. Preliminary "theorizing" and analysis get a bad reputation here, but in reality such thinking is a necessary prerequisite for any tangible tournament results.  If we all waited around for "someone else" to do the dirty work of assimilating new ideas into the format, the work would never get done.  Most of us are experienced enough in the format that we can make reasonable assessments of how new cards will affect the dynamics among popular decks and strategies and how one should prepare in advance.  I don't see the preliminary nature of the discussion rendering it invalid.  
  

Between Intuition, Read The Runes, Entomb and Bazaar, the Dragon deck has absolutely no obligation to put thatWGD where Extirpate can get to it until it's good and ready to protect it. 

That sounds like an additional inconvenience for Dragon, however major or minor, and does weaken the utility of Bazaar of Baghdad.

You can back Extirpate up with some sort of a clock, but Fish has long been ill-equipped to offer up a scary clock (with the exception of Jotun Grunt) against a combo deck, particularly if said Fish deck is intentionally holding back resources to keep itself from being "combo'ed out". 

It sounds like you are trivializing the idea that Fish does indeed have to watch out for sudden combo kills, or else it will lose.  That's the harsh reality of Fish though.  Fish is an aggro-control deck and in a field where almost every other deck is more aggressive than it, it's assuming the control role more often than not (control being not limited to "permission" but including denial strategies as well).  A Fish game versus Dragon is almost always a binary construct: either Dragon combos out for the win or it doesn't, in which case it loses.  Whether it takes four turns or fifteen turns for a Javelineer or Meddling Mage to deliver the lethal blow is immaterial.  While the introduction of alt-wins may change the calculus, the proper focus for a Fish player faced with Dragon is to prevent the combo loop from initiating or disrupting it when it does.  (This is not to suggest Fish should over-hate Dragon when boarding, but simply that the main focus must be to defend against the loop, be that with Crypt, Kami/Ronom, Bouncer, Swords, Chain, etc.)  If preventing the combo kill is accomplished then the formality of winning should automatically fall into place.      

As far as wasting resources go, keeping open is no more cumbersome than keeping Mana Drain online or for Orim's Chant and given the stakes are so high ("I win" v. "I lose"), it's justified.  

Working theoretically doesn't honestly accomplish a whole hell of a lot when it comes down to it, I personally will be waiting for honest to goodness proof before I declare any deck, let alone one as adaptable as Dragon, dead.

I don't think the archetype is necessarily "dead" either.  I do think that once resolved, Extirpate is particularly brutal on the most typical pre-Planar Chaos builds of WGD that we've been seeing.  Extirpate is an unusually potent defensive measure against graveyard-driven spectacular kills like Dragon and Bomberman.  

-BPK

[dicemanx]

Preliminary "theorizing" and analysis get a bad reputation here

No, it doesn't. What does generate a "bad reputation" are things like sweeping statements, talking in terms of absolutes, or making unnecessary or unsupported exaggerations/embellishments. Hydra is referring to the fact that before we go down such paths, some concrete evidence will be necessary. There is otherwise nothing wrong with having theoretical discussions.

I don't think the archetype is necessarily "dead" either.  I do think that once resolved, Extirpate is particularly brutal on the most typical pre-Planar Chaos builds of WGD that we've been seeing.  Extirpate is an unusually potent defensive measure against graveyard-driven spectacular kills like Dragon and Bomberman. 

Once resolved, Extirpate is brutal? Yes, so are just about any anti-WGD cards once they resolve. I think what you mean is the fact that Extirpate cannot be stopped by certain WGD cards that can otherwise deal with instant-speed hate, such as FoW, or sandbagging another mana source + an Animate spell. This is a necessary "bonus" to offset the weakness of it being instant speed as opposed to being permanent-based (which gives WGD more trouble, not to mention not tying up your mana resources). It doesn't automatically make the card more brutal, it makes it a slightly different challenge in terms of dealing with it. The biggest challenge will probably be the guesswork involved in gauging whether your opponent is playing with Extirpates - in other words, once Planar Chaos will be legal, it won't be the best time to be playing WGD. Once we see whether Extirpate is as good as people think it is, WGD players will have a better handle on how its maindeck should be configured.

As far as wasting resources go, keeping open is no more cumbersome than keeping Mana Drain online or for Orim's Chant and given the stakes are so high ("I win" v. "I lose"), it's justified. 

But Hydra was correct in making that point - keeping mana open in an archetype that is already fairly light on mana sources, and wants to be aggressive in limiting the amount of time that a combo deck has to win, does essentially qualify as a "clash" of resources. You cannot be as aggressive in the early game as you might want to be, which buys WGD more time. Even Drain decks have this occasional problem - it is difficult to stay aggressive and use EOT card drawing for fear of Necromancy unless the Drain deck has built to enough mana to have UU open. Of course, there are plenty of circumstances where this is not a concern if WGD hasn't put itself in a situation where it can threaten a Necromancy, but even with just a Bazaar in play and 3 mana sources on the board there's always the potential. People definitely play more timidly if Necromancy is a possible threat, even though in quite a few circumstances they shouldn't.