[Planar Chaos] Extirpate

[Dralock]

Split second literally breaks the game. The stack is created so people can stack on fast effects in an order that is fair to both players and gives people a chance to do something.

Fix? You speak as though the ability to respond to the opponent were always a part of the game. It wasn't so very many years ago that Red Blast put a creature into the graveyard at instant speed. If I Mana Drained your spell, you couldn't use Ancestral Recall to dig for an answer until 6th edition rules. By this logic, Obliterate ruins the game, playing a Forest breaks the game, casting any Storm spell breaks the game, and using a Morph ability breaks the game.

I played before 6th edition rules. "My gun is faster than your sword" was a concept then, but since has been changed. The rules changed was begrudgingly accepted then, as it is now. Except now, instead of saying "oops, we screwed up with our game until this point" (see sixth edition and the color wheel re-design in 2004) wizard just says "hey check out this shiny new mechanic, aggro is saved!."

Is aggro really saved? Is combo really saved?

Everyone was talking about how split second wasn't going to be that big of a deal as long as they didn't put it on undercosted, extremely powerful cards.

Well...

And yea, this is my opinion, and it was a rant. We are, however, discussing extirpate and I decided it was appropriate and on topic to voice the opinion here.

Cheers.

[AmbivalentDuck]

No one has really come out to say "I have won X games because of Extirpate specifically - here's my rationale/example games" or ""Extirpate had a significant impact in Y number of games - here is my rationale why". Lack of specifics + rationale = pretty useless in terms of discussion on this site.

And your point is? The burden of proof still lies on the would-be Extirpate users to demonstate that the card will have a positive impact on the win column. We can all appreciate that there will be circumstances where Extirpate will win games if played correctly, but anecdotal evidence will not cut it - you need to focus on opportunity costs and the net impact on your success rate.

In other words, its time to stop repeating what Extirpate is capable of doing - we can all read what the card does. If you want to sell your point, then test, present games, give your rationale how Extirpate won you games, and how you considered the opportunity cost when selecting this card for your deck.

And my point was that you'll *never* *ever* prove it.  The card is way too subtle when you aren't using it as an uncounterable Coffin Purge with a forced shuffle.  We all know what Extirpate does to the game state and we can all analyze that effect.  But we're ridiculously poorly equipped to analyze what ripping unrestricted cards out of a library does mostly because the effect is so probablistic.

[Vegeta2711]

Diceman explained my position on the opportunity cost quite well. Basically many of the ways I see Expirate being played will cause a lot of 'well maybe it did something if I think it hard enough.' The problem stems from the fact that many times it doesn't affect my hand or board position in any relevant way, so the odds that I'll even notice the effect is minimal, except when playing a certain classification of decks. Or some uncommon scenario involving mana-screw or multiples comes up.

As for 'misplaying' and MWS, hah, no. I was merely reporting in what I noticed when people were trying to use it against me thus far. I'm not going to play a small sample of games to try and prove anything one way or another. I barely ever use the program outside of playing with friends anyway.

[dicemanx]

And at the risk of stating the obvious, if you're unwilling to consider the applications of this card until you acquire tangible "results," perhaps you should test it yourself?     

At the risk of stating the obvious, maybe you should learn to comprehend very simple points.

First of all, WHERE have I stated that I am unwilling to consider the applications of Extirpate? I am fully aware of the positives that Extirpate brings to the table. However, I'm also aware that there are downsides, and that ultimately it is very difficult to come to any conclusion regarding just how effective Extirpate will prove to be. My contention is that we cannot merely examine and salivate over the potential benefits Extirpate can bring - it's entirely within the realm of reasonable possibilities that Extirpate will not really be all that playable let alone the supposed broken card some initially made it out to be. It might also turn out to be amazing. However, numerous past experiences with this sort of hype have led me down a more cautious path.

And what is your response and the response of others? You offer more theoretical babble restating what "amazing" things Extirpate can do. Give it a rest already.

Furthermore, as far as my call for proof: I'm not claiming that it would be easy. However, ANY sort of analysis of actual games, and an attempt to at least try and identify what impact Extirpate has would let the discussion progress forward. And the response? Ambivalent Duck decided to take it upon himself to explain how difficult the process is. And? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try. Also, citing how rarely it is done doesn't take away from the fact that ideally it SHOULD be done for the sake of progressing the discussions on threads like these. Theoretical discussion can only get you so far. 

And my point was that you'll *never* *ever* prove it.  The card is way too subtle when you aren't using it as an uncounterable Coffin Purge with a forced shuffle.  We all know what Extirpate does to the game state and we can all analyze that effect.  But we're ridiculously poorly equipped to analyze what ripping unrestricted cards out of a library does.

Perhaps it is YOU who is "ridiculously poorly equipped" because you're unaware of how to at least make a decent attempt at measuring Extirpate's effectiveness or impact in individual games. Instead of pointing out the apparent hopelessness of the process, maybe it would be in your best interest to ASK how one might try to do it? I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but there are plenty of talented people on this site that have fairly rigorous, informative testing processes and they produce results because of them. Why don't you ask them then?

Maybe this is what's lacking on this site - a discussion of possible testing prcedures and types of analyses that could be conducted to maximize the amount of information you could generate. It would certainly make for an interesting article at the very least.

[AmbivalentDuck]

As for 'misplaying' and MWS, hah, no. I was merely reporting in what I noticed when people were trying to use it against me thus far. I'm not going to play a small sample of games to try and prove anything one way or another. I barely ever use the program outside of playing with friends anyway.

5 games would be more than enough to see the difference between "You took my Deltas, thanks for thinning my deck for me" and "Damn it!  You took 1/4 of my mana base!"  Since you've been one of the more vocal critics, I have to assume you haven't seen that difference in actual play.  I also have to assume that you haven't seen how subtle it is and how much planning it takes to snowball an advantage like that.  Just because you haven't seen the card properly leveraged doesn't mean it can't be.  Hint: I've chosen a strategy to *maximize* Extirpate's ability to induce resource screw AND keep the choice of which resource flexible.

I'm willing to demonstrate it primarily because the debate hasn't been going anywhere and I feel that my current test deck is well-equipped to exploit the card.  I think I have enough experience with that deck to play it right about 1/3 of the time.  This is an open offer to anyone willing to pilot against me, btw.  Results with other TMDers names on it might help keep this under 10 pages.

@Dicemanx
I've yet to see a solid metric and I don't believe one *can* exist.  Once upon a time I used the Vampiric vs. Imperial Seal example: clearly Vampiric is better, good luck proving it numerically.  It'd take about a few hundred games.  That's just one slot.  1 freaking slot.  Even Grey Ogre in the slot would take 40-50 games to show its crappiness numerically.  If you want something nearly impossible to analyze, a lone maindeck Extract in 5C Stax.

I strongly agree that a discussion on testing procedures will be interesting and useful.  I don't expect anything amazing to come of it, though.

[ELD]

Once upon a time I used the Vampiric vs. Imperial Seal example: clearly Vampiric is better, good luck proving it numerically.  It'd take about a few hundred games.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here.  The instant speed comes up all the time.  Vamping during your upkeep is a fairly routine play.  Imperial Seal doesn't let that happen.  Another example is when you open with a fetch land and are playing vs a deck that may be running wastes.  Having to crack the fetch on your turn puts you at a disadvantage as you don't know if they have the first turn waste or not.  Even vamping in response to a Memory Jar activation.  Even just having to cast Seal on your turn and passing is so much worse, as you end up tutoring with less information.  It seems to me that every time you're playing a game and Seal shows itself worse than Vamp is plenty of proof. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

That's what makes it a good example. It's obvious that Vampiric is hugely better and we all know why.  But, the difference in win percentage for the whole deck depending on Tutor vs. Seal will be very close.  If it's within a percentage point (almost certain), then it will take a few hundred games for that to show up numerically.  I'd welcome a better metric.

My point was that I can tell you that Extirpate is solid in my experience, but we don't have any good way of comparing its effect to anything else out there.  Deck win percentage is a horrible way of going about it, as it trying to pin games where you win based on a resource screw that involve Extirpate on Extirpate.

I don't think there's a good metric for the card, and there's no benchmark to compare it to.  I'm trying to invalidate win percentages (and wins in general) as a metric.

[Hydra]

I don't think there's a good metric for the card, and there's no benchmark to compare it to.  I'm trying to invalidate win percentages (and wins in general) as a metric.

If you throw out that metric than what metric is left?  That's basically declaring that not only you don't think there's a good metric, but that you don't wish to find one either.  If there's no card to compare it to and you throw out win percentages (the only true "concrete" evidence left without anything else to compare it to) then you're keeping the card's viability entirely in the abstract, and cards don't make decks based on abstract concepts, they make decks based on concrete evidence.

Without anything concrete, it becomes "he said, she said" nonsense, and there's no way to sway opinions in such a manner.  You say it's good, we disagree.  It's just a cycle, and not being able to "prove" your argument is a sign of a poor argument to begin with, as you cannot offer any sort of proof to your claim.  Inability to offer proof that it's good is strength to claims that it's not good, because you've been unable to concretely prove otherwise.  In Vintage, cards are unplayable until proven otherwise, and no one's been able to show that Extirpate is playable, "theoretical" arguments aside.  What's said on paper doesn't usually reflect the truth in actual games.

[Vegeta2711]

5 games would be more than enough to see the difference between "You took my Deltas, thanks for thinning my deck for me" and "Damn it!  You took 1/4 of my mana base!"

...Are you serious? Who the hell would take fetches? Even bad players could figure out to aim it at an actual dual land.

I also have to assume that you haven't seen how subtle it is and how much planning it takes to snowball an advantage like that.  Just because you haven't seen the card properly leveraged doesn't mean it can't be.

You can assume whatever you feel like. Doesn't make any of it true, but whatever.

[AmbivalentDuck]

 

...Are you serious? Who the hell would take fetches? Even bad players could figure out to aim it at an actual dual land.

That betrays so much ignorance of the card.  Resource screw is *amazing*.  If I Stifle your first fetch and then Extirpate the rest, you have a good chance of being dead in the water.  The "actual" duals are a better target, true, but also infinitely harder to get at before you have a chance to prevent the impending resource screw.

Extirpate is about turning minor resource screw into game losses, that's why it's so hard to come up with a metric.  Even if you end up winning, I might still have gotten a free turn or two while you struggled to topdeck land.  Or none because I was unlucky and you topdecked like a pro.

If you throw out that metric than what metric is left?  That's basically declaring that not only you don't think there's a good metric, but that you don't wish to find one either...

not being able to "prove" your argument is a sign of a poor argument to begin with

I want to find one, but I'm very realistically assuming that one doesn't exist.  I'll be overjoyed if I'm turn out to be wrong on that.

The other part of your argument is just stupid.  You can't prove anything in Magic.  You can support things, but if your goal is proof you won't find it.

[brianpk80]

This game is broken.

We have heard it time and time again from everyone (even paragons, if you remember who those people are) that the game is spiraling downward in to a place that it will never be able to come back from. While that statement is very general, the truth is the mechanic of split second is proof that the overall idea is not far from the truth.

Dralock, although Extirpate exemplifies the type of card that in your opinion abuses the Split Second mechanic, the points you raise have a much broader application to the game at large.  Whether or not everyone agrees with your case, I think the community would benefit from a macro-discussion of the state of Vintage today.  There are some arguments in your post that have a lot of merit.  You should start a thread on the topic you've brought up and recommend some changes for the format.  It would be a worthwhile read.  

I strongly agree that a discussion on testing procedures will be interesting and useful.  I don't expect anything amazing to come of it, though.

Agreed likewise.  Quantifying Magic yields diminishing returns.  The mammoth effort required to boil the game and each component part into pure numerics would never be justified by the ends.  Good luck telling your boss or professor(s) that you're taking a three month sabbatical to quantitatively analyze the potency of Smokestack, Stifle, Extract, or Extirpate in any given deck and versus each conceivable archetype in all their card-by-card permutations.  "Approximate but well-reasoned" is the best it gets in Magic.  

At the risk of stating the obvious, maybe you should learn to comprehend very simple points.

Very sassy, Peter, but you're capable of better.

I am fully aware of the positives that Extirpate brings to the table. However, I'm also aware that there are downsides, and that ultimately it is very difficult to come to any conclusion regarding just how effective Extirpate will prove to be. My contention is that we cannot merely examine and salivate over the potential benefits Extirpate can bring - it's entirely within the realm of reasonable possibilities that Extirpate will not really be all that playable let alone the supposed broken card some initially made it out to be. It might also turn out to be amazing. However, numerous past experiences with this sort of hype have led me down a more cautious path.

Let's compare the above to some relevant language I've posted here:

"The Mana Drain is home to both appropriate analyses and unfounded bold claims."

"For the record, I don't see Extirpate as a 'format crushing monster' that some have (supposedly) made it out to be, but what it constitutes is a very flexibile piece of hatred/disruption..."

"Some claims may be overstated, but (assuming its reported text/cost remain the same) I think the card is strong enough to warrant most of the attention it's received."

"Whether or not it has any immediate uses that mandate several maindeck or sideboard slots in today's meta is a separate question altogether."

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

"The card may not singlehandedly spin Type One over on its head but it has potential."

It seems we're mostly on the same page.

While I have no doubt cited many potential uses of the card in specific detail, my over-arching conclusions have been modest and restrained (and much more similar than dissimilar to your own).  Because they appeared in conjunction with some more "salivat[ing]" (as you call them) posts here, I can understand that you may have confused my words with others' and wrongly misgaged my enthusiasm for the card. Hopefully, a more careful reading on your part can help to minimize knee-jerk reactions as the following:

And what is your response and the response of others? You offer more theoretical babble restating what "amazing" things Extirpate can do. Give it a rest already.

As for the quantum of proof needed to substantiate a claim here... we have a fundamental disagreement over what type of evidence supports a given viewpoint in favor or against a specific card or strategy that is complicating the discussion here.  Your assessments are exclusively results-based while I encompass both results and the specific functionalities and theories behind those results.  I'm not going to criticize your approach more in the abstract because I have already explained to you where I stand on the evidentiary issue and why.  That issue aside, it seems there isn't much disagreement between us on Extirpate's viability, potential, weaknesses, and the need for time for its niche to develop or disappear.        

Furthermore, as far as my call for proof: I'm not claiming that it would be easy. However, ANY sort of analysis of actual games, and an attempt to at least try and identify what impact Extirpate has would let the discussion progress forward. And the response? Ambivalent Duck decided to take it upon himself to explain how difficult the process is. And? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try. Also, citing how rarely it is done doesn't take away from the fact that ideally it SHOULD be done for the sake of progressing the discussions on threads like these. Theoretical discussion can only get you so far. 

Fair point, and as with most  of what you write, I agree. 
So we need someone reliable to invest in the experimenting and research necessary to identify the impact of Extirpate.  What disqualifies you as a candidate?  I'm in the process, FWIW.

-BPK

[someone_unimportan]

I want to find one, but I'm very realistically assuming that one doesn't exist.  I'll be overjoyed if I'm turn out to be wrong on that.

No, you aren't assuming one doesn't exist. You recognize one exists (win percentages) and then say that it would take too long to compile enough win percentages. Just because the metric would take a long time to use doesn't mean it isn't a valid metric. We just need someone REALLY devoted to proving whether Extirpate is good/bad to do a billion testing games for us.

[Vegeta2711]

That betrays so much ignorance of the card.  Resource screw is *amazing*.

Yes, I'm terribly ignorant because I think using the card on fetchlands is a waste of time. My god, you've reduced the odds of me drawing another land by a few percentage points! My issue with 'resource' screw is your not actively reducing my currently usable resources. Your attempting to limit future ones (and badly at that) by thinning. Nearly at the same rate the fetches themselves apply when used.

[Moxlotus]

That betrays so much ignorance of the card.  Resource screw is *amazing*.

Yes, I'm terribly ignorant because I think using the card on fetchlands is a waste of time. My god, you've reduced the odds of me drawing another land by a few percentage points! My issue with 'resource' screw is your not actively reducing my currently usable resources. Your attempting to limit future ones (and badly at that) by thinning. Nearly at the same rate the fetches themselves apply when used.

So Gifts/whatever wants to cast something that costs 4 mana.
You take out a forth of their landbase
Chalice/Rod help neutralize another 40% of their manabase
Wastelands help you further reduce the number of mana they have
Daze makes them need more mana to resolve their spells.

Extirpate is pretty damn good at assisting in stopping the opponent from casting their gamebreaking spells by limiting their outs when combined with other commonly played disruption spells.  Meanwhile, you are beating with a guy or 2 for a clock.

[Klep]

That betrays so much ignorance of the card.  Resource screw is *amazing*.  If I Stifle your first fetch and then Extirpate the rest, you have a good chance of being dead in the water.  The "actual" duals are a better target, true, but also infinitely harder to get at before you have a chance to prevent the impending resource screw.

You might, repeat might have a point here (though I doubt it) if the unspoken assumption you are making was true, but it isn't.  Your assumption is that people will be running 4 of the same fetch.  That's never the case unless a person is running more than 6 (also rare) or is building suboptimally.  If you're lucky, you might be able to take out 2 unused fetchlands, leaving your opponent with 2 more (most decks run 5 total).  If you're even more lucky, this might cause your opponent problems the Stifle didn't already cause.  If you're not, it won't.  Basically, while the Stifle I would find annoying, the follow-up Extirpate on my fetch is not something I'm ever going to cry about.

[Elric]

That's what makes it a good example. It's obvious that Vampiric is hugely better and we all know why.  But, the difference in win percentage for the whole deck depending on Tutor vs. Seal will be very close.  If it's within a percentage point (almost certain), then it will take a few hundred games for that to show up numerically.  I'd welcome a better metric.

Your example is being overly kind to the "win percentage" metric.  Imagine that you play some set number of games to compare the two decks.  One logical question is: How many games do I have to play such that the deck with Vampiric Tutor (which I know is the better deck) has a higher win percentage at the end of these games than the deck with Imperial Seal 95% of the time.  The answer to this obviously depends on how much Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage.

If Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage by 1% in each game, then it will take thousands of games (using the Central Limit Theorem, my estimate is around 13000 games) for this difference to show up 95% of the time.  If Vampiric Tutor improves the deck's win percentage by 5% in each game (what you might think is a very noticeable difference), then it still takes around 500 games for the difference to show up 95% of the time.  So in short, you shouldn't place great trust in playtesting results because of statistical margin of error.  See my related post: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=20129.msg323388#msg323388

[CranialX]

I just wish that this card get restricted or ban in other formats.
It destroy alot of deck.
What if in gifts. They able to duress your tinker, TOA, and Empty the Warrens.
Then they'll extirpate it.
Now the player have a serious problem.
I suggest if... It hasn't get restrict or ban, We should just have to add more winning condition to our deck.
my 2 cents...

[RaleighNCTourneys]

If there is a duress that takes Tinker, ToA and Empty the warrnes with a flavor text that reads "P.S. you can't hard cast colossus" AND you have THREE extirpate then yes, it's bad for the gifts player you mentioned.

[Implacable]

If there is a duress that takes Tinker, ToA and Empty the warrnes with a flavor text that reads "P.S. you can't hard cast colossus" AND you have THREE extirpate then yes, it's bad for the gifts player you mentioned.

Turn 1 trips Ritual, Twist = 4, trips Extirpate on the draw, obviously.  You have a serious lack of imagination.

In all seriousness, statements like the one two posts above my own only make the poster seem silly.  As I've stated, what makes Extirpate really good is that it strips out 4-of support cards which Vintage decks really need to function.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I played 3 maindeck (UB Fish with 4 maindeck Duress, Wastelands, and Stifles) Extirpates in six simulated matches--three vs. Gifts, three vs. GrimLong.  I'd say it performed well.  I would continue to play them--at least three and maindecked.

I "countered" topdeck tutors three times (twice by removing my only choice, the topdeck tutor itself).  One countered Imperial Seal against GrimLong led to me winning the game.  The others contributed to wins.

I removed 3 Empty the Warrens from Gifts in a sideboarded game for the win.

I Wastelanded and Extirpated Underground Seas to keep Gifts off the Tendrils kill for the win.

I removed Forces against Gifts to get something through... Echoing Truth on goblin tokens maybe?  I don't remember exactly what happened, but it was essential.

Not to mention I hit Brainstorms twice and Polluted Deltas.  These plays were so-so.  The 'Storms and Deltas I got in the same game, but it was sort of lackluster.  Deltas were a two-of (to combat Extirpate), and the Brainstorms could (maybe) have been crippling if he'd had one in hand.  The other Brainstorms, against GrimLong, should probably have been Dark Rituals instead.

Extirpate is certainly not broken and they won't ruin any decks.  My gamewinning Extirpation of Empty the Warrens occurred only because of a sideboard mistake.  But my and my test partner's estimations were that Extirpates are powerful.  I could tell that they were annoying him and that he had, at times, to play around them.

From my end, I would say it's a bit of a skill-tester.  My goal going in was to hit lands, primarily duals, but only a couple of games did I get Wastelands and Extirpates at the same time.  There were s ometimes that I held it, waiting for a jucier target than what was available to me at the time.  Against topdeck tutors they were nuts, but I hadn't even really considered that.  Sometimes (like Brainstorms over Rituals vs. GrimLong) it was a decision on what to take, but only once did I hit a non-restricted one-of, a Hurkyll's Recall against GrimLong (I was trying to stave off the Mox win since his YWill was already gone).  I would be more aggressive about hitting Rituals against combo in the future.

Like I said, I'd play it again.

[forests failed you]

That betrays so much ignorance of the card.  Resource screw is *amazing*.

Yes, I'm terribly ignorant because I think using the card on fetchlands is a waste of time. My god, you've reduced the odds of me drawing another land by a few percentage points! My issue with 'resource' screw is your not actively reducing my currently usable resources. Your attempting to limit future ones (and badly at that) by thinning. Nearly at the same rate the fetches themselves apply when used.

So Gifts/whatever wants to cast something that costs 4 mana.
You take out a forth of their landbase
Chalice/Rod help neutralize another 40% of their manabase
Wastelands help you further reduce the number of mana they have
Daze makes them need more mana to resolve their spells.

Extirpate is pretty damn good at assisting in stopping the opponent from casting their gamebreaking spells by limiting their outs when combined with other commonly played disruption spells.  Meanwhile, you are beating with a guy or 2 for a clock.

The problem with Extripating Fetchlands is that most Mana Drain players are running some combination of Polluted Delta and Flooded Strand.  At most there will only be one (if you are LUCKY) two more of the appropriate type left in their hand or deck.  It doesn't seem like this plan progresses one's game plan unless you already know they have their other Delta or Strand in their hand.  You would be much better off hitting a Mana Drain, Brainstorm, or FOW.  Possibly waiting and taking thier Black Lotus in response to a Yawgmoth's Will.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Right, it's extremely conditional.  And you'd have to know that you had a way to keep them mana screwed.

That's why you wouldn't always/usually do it.  But *sometimes* it's a very good play.  Just like taking Oaths out of an Oath deck is sometimes idiotic.  Extirpate choices are highly dependent on board position.