[Planar Chaos] Extirpate

[brianpk80]

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.

While what you say may be true in part, I don't see any serious statements with that level of audacity in this thread, and certainly not in anything I've contributed.  Stating that Dragon might find problems with an instant that effectively reads (among other things) "remove from the game target Dragon in a graveyard and all other Dragons in hand, graveyard, and library; Split Second" doesn't strike me as a "sweeping [] exaggeration."   

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.

No, what I meant was what I said in several of my above posts, namely that the ability of Extirpate is particularly brutal on Dragon.  I wasn't referring to its Split Second mechanic.  The effect of a resolved Extirpate on Worldgorger Dragon removes every single Dragon from the Dragon player's deck and that is a significant step beyond any playable graveyard hate we've seen up to this point.  Chain of Vapor/StP and such are likewise cruel, removing all permanents from the game, but they're in a different class of anti-strategies than the graveyard removal we've been discussing. 

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.

This is correct.  Should Extirpate prove worthy of its hype and become a popular ingredient in hate strategies, Dragon is able to adapt by modifying its own defense measures.  And as I said before, an involuntary adaptation could serve to either weaken or strengthen Dragon overall.  A mix of Extirpate, Crypt, Leyline, Bounce, Enchantment Removal, etc. spread across the field could make piloting Dragon such an unreliable guessing game that no consistently optimal build emerges.  But if Extirpate is uniformly adopted as the premeire hate, then a Xantid build or alt-win Dragon could prove more resilient than the current prototypes are in today's Tormod's Crypt/Leyline meta.   

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.

Fish is really not that aggressive; it has one of the slowest clocks in Vintage is forced to play the control/defense role against most of the comparatively more aggressive field, like Long, Dragon, Gifts, Ichorid, Bomberman, and Oath.  UW Null Rod Fish is the most aggressive build in the genre (and the only one to routinely use non-utility beaters like Isamaru) but even that is well on the slower side of the metagame.  As for the problem of keeping open, Fish has no trouble keeping the illusion of Stifle online for a good portion of any match and Extirpate is no more significantly demanding on the mana base of a black-based Fish build than Stifle.   

-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.

While what you say may be true in part, I don't see any serious statements with that level of audacity in this thread, and certainly not in anything I've contributed.  Stating that Dragon might find problems with an instant that effectively reads (among other things) "remove from the game target Dragon in a graveyard and all other Dragons in hand, graveyard, and library; Split Second" doesn't strike me as a "sweeping [] exaggeration."   

Well, then you're not looking at the right statements. It's one thing to point out the obvious (when resolved, Extirpate kills WGD the combo, but so do many cards), but its another matter altogether in stating that WGD will die as some have done.

Still, my comment wasn't in reference to this thread in particular; what I've described is quite commonplace.
 

No, what I meant was what I said in several of my above posts, namely that the ability of Extirpate is particularly brutal on Dragon.  I wasn't referring to its Split Second mechanic.  The effect of a resolved Extirpate on Worldgorger Dragon removes every single Dragon from the Dragon player's deck and that is a significant step beyond any playable graveyard hate we've seen up to this point.  Chain of Vapor/StP and such are likewise cruel, removing all permanents from the game, but they're in a different class of anti-strategies than the graveyard removal we've been discussing. 

Well, you're choosing the phrase "particularly brutal". Does it matter that you're removing all of the WGDs instead of "merely" removing their permanents? WGD losing its permanents for the most part signals game over as it is; recovery is possible, but slim. Extirpate doesn't remove permanents, just the WGDs. So long as WGD has some outs (alternate animate targets, or maybe even Research if it wants to address Extirpate in this manner) the game can continue, but probably will have the same rate of success as trying to recover from the removal of all permanents.

I therefore fail to see the significance in labelling Extirpate "particularly brutal", unless by labelling it as such you're attempting to suggest that Extirpate is one of the strongest anti-WGD cards available to date. Otherwise, yes, when Extirpate resolves its...brutal.

Fish is really not that aggressive; it has one of the slowest clocks in Vintage is forced to play the control/defense role against most of the comparatively more aggressive field, like Long, Dragon, Gifts, Ichorid, Bomberman, and Oath.

While this characterization is true, it doesn't take away from the idea that when given the opportunity you want to be able to put on as much pressure as possible to limit the opponent's chances. Electing to play instant speed removal (over more permanent based removal OR playing disruption that actually can impact board position apart from stopping the WGD combo, like Stifle, CotV, or Null rod which aim at resource denial) simply limits that option.

[Harlequin]

I think people are offering the wrong arguement against why extripate is (to use diceman's terminology) "one of the strongest anti-WGD cards available to date."

I can't think of any card that turns Wasteland into a win condition.  If you have bazaar up, and ... I'll even give you WGD and Necromancy - with 3 mana open.  If I lay down a wasteland, then your in 'alternate win' land.  If you do not drop the WGD in response to wasteland, then I extripate the Bazaar, and now you have no way to mill your deck.  If you do drop WGD, then extripate wins the game.

What it comes down to is that when extripate resolves on WDG or Bazaar the game is more or less over.  If you Duress me once before going off... IF I only have extriapte in hand, THEN the game is over.  If I have 2 answers in hand, then you better have 2 duress.  You make it seem like Duress is "win target game"  But if I keep one Underground sea untapped and I have chain of vapor + extripate in hand, then you need to answer with double duress, and you need to do so before a bazaar or WGD goes into the yard.  No other cards to date have that power.  Swords, Stifle, Vapor, Coffin Purge... All only disrupt the combo durring or right before you combo off.  Extripate pre-emptively win the game if it can push a Bazaar into the yard.

[Hydra]

I think people are offering the wrong arguement against why extripate is (to use diceman's terminology) "one of the strongest anti-WGD cards available to date."

I can't think of any card that turns Wasteland into a win condition.  If you have bazaar up, and ... I'll even give you WGD and Necromancy - with 3 mana open.  If I lay down a wasteland, then your in 'alternate win' land.  If you do not drop the WGD in response to wasteland, then I extripate the Bazaar, and now you have no way to mill your deck.  If you do drop WGD, then extripate wins the game.

What it comes down to is that when extripate resolves on WDG or Bazaar the game is more or less over.  If you Duress me once before going off... IF I only have extriapte in hand, THEN the game is over.  If I have 2 answers in hand, then you better have 2 duress.  You make it seem like Duress is "win target game"  But if I keep one Underground sea untapped and I have chain of vapor + extripate in hand, then you need to answer with double duress, and you need to do so before a bazaar or WGD goes into the yard.  No other cards to date have that power.  Swords, Stifle, Vapor, Coffin Purge... All only disrupt the combo durring or right before you combo off.  Extripate pre-emptively win the game if it can push a Bazaar into the yard.

I think you're severely overestimating the necessity for Bazaar in modern Dragon builds.  Cards like Intuition, Entomb and Read the Runes allow you to combo out just fine without Bazaar, and in fact in a lot of matchups if Bazaar drew out the Waste the Dragon player is happy because that means their Underground Seas were left alone.  While it is true that Extirpate on Bazaar might theoretically "slow down" the Dragon goldfish, you've just wasted the card you planned on using to win thegame on a card that most modern Dragon builds have been designed to minimize the necessity of, AND chances are the matchup has sent the Dragon player down the "slow" path anyways, so finding another method amongst any of the 8 others left is quite possible.  I've won countless games without playing a Bazaar, as I'm sure Peter has as well.  The number of potential ways for Dragon to "mill" through its deck to find a win condition (which it doesn't need to even do at this point since the win condition of choice is Cunning Wish) means that Bazaar is quite nice when working, but certainly doesn't "kill" Dragon to have it hit.  I think if you're trying to go THAT route, you'd be better served in hitting Duress.

[dicemanx]

People have played WGD builds in the past that were heavily reliant on Bazaar; however, most of the good WGD players make sure that they have a number of options when it comes to getting a WGD into the graveyard, and the recent build continues that trend. Removing all of the Bazaars is hardly "game over", but it no doubt limits the options a little.

You make it seem like Duress is "win target game" 

To be fair, you in turn make it seem like running a deck with lots of instant speed WGD hate (to be able to get 2 in your hand with some consistency) is viable in t1. One of WGD's most effective ways to deal with heavy hate builds is to stay in the X-0 bracket of a tourney. Failing that, Duress isn't the only answer if you read some other posts relating to WGD options vs Extirpate.

The reality of the situation is that WGD has to contend with very little WGD hate in the format - it's a restriction imposed by the format itself, which tends to select against decks loaded up with hate against certain archetypes. Even Fish archetypes don't run very many instant speed or permanent based hate - 4 is probably the average total number of Stifle/Bounce/StP/Crypt you might find, which hardly makes it that threatening.

[brianpk80]

Well, then you're not looking at the right statements. It's one thing to point out the obvious (when resolved, Extirpate kills WGD the combo, but so do many cards), but its another matter altogether in stating that WGD will die as some have done.

I haven't seen any pronouncements that WGD is dead, although there have been reactions stating that "WGD is not dead."  At any rate, the thread is 7 pages long at this point and anyone can glean the most extreme elements to construct a case that it's been outrageous.  However, I find overall that the majority of input has been a prudent well-reasoned assessment of Extirpate itself and then Extirpate as applied to Dragon.  If you choose to adopt an alternate viewpoint, that is your prerogative. 

Still, my comment wasn't in reference to this thread in particular; what I've described is quite commonplace.

Fair enough.  The Mana Drain is home to both appropriate analyses and unfounded bold claims.  Attempts to distinguish the two tend to reflect a cautious reluctance that is often justified but occasionally is unreasonably dismissive.  I think we've had this discussion before.   

Well, you're choosing the phrase "particularly brutal". Does it matter that you're removing all of the WGDs instead of "merely" removing their permanents? WGD losing its permanents for the most part signals game over as it is; recovery is possible, but slim. Extirpate doesn't remove permanents, just the WGDs. So long as WGD has some outs (alternate animate targets, or maybe even Research if it wants to address Extirpate in this manner) the game can continue, but probably will have the same rate of success as trying to recover from the removal of all permanents.

You asked: "For instance, do you believe that Extirpate is better than certain other graveyard removal cards vs decks like WGD or Ichorid?" (emphasis added)

After I answered that (without response), I added to another poster: "Extirpate is an unusually potent defensive measure against graveyard-driven spectacular kills like Dragon and Bomberman." (emphasis added) 

You're now making an unfair comparison between the effect of Extirpate and the effect of non-graveyard oriented mid-combo disruption that removes all of the Dragon player's permanents from the game.  As I said above, "Chain of Vapor/StP and such are likewise cruel, removing all permanents from the game, but they're in a different class of anti-strategies than the graveyard removal we've been discussing." 

If we're going to now compare the effect of a resolved Extirpate (which is uncounterable) on Worldgorger Dragon to the same of a resolved bounce/Stifle/removal, then I have no disagreement with what you say above.  The chance of recovery is slim in both instances.     

I therefore fail to see the significance in labelling Extirpate "particularly brutal", unless by labelling it as such you're attempting to suggest that Extirpate is one of the strongest anti-WGD cards available to date. Otherwise, yes, when Extirpate resolves its...brutal.

In comparison to the other graveyard removal available, by removing each copy of the Dragon from library, hand, and graveyard, Extirpate is a "particularly brutal" form of disruption, yes. 

Fish is really not that aggressive; it has one of the slowest clocks in Vintage is forced to play the control/defense role against most of the comparatively more aggressive field, like Long, Dragon, Gifts, Ichorid, Bomberman, and Oath.

While this characterization is true, it doesn't take away from the idea that when given the opportunity you want to be able to put on as much pressure as possible to limit the opponent's chances.

Although this sounds plausible in the abstract, it doesn't translate so smoothly over to the practical reality of a Fish v. Dragon game.  Fish is not likely to see as much success with a comprehensive mana denial strategy against Dragon as it may versus other aggressive decks like Gifts.  There is not much "pressure" Fish can dish out against Dragon that would supersede the importance of warding off the combo-loop.  For instance, the need for an early Kataki, War's Wage, Meddling Mage (on DA/Intuition or maybe Duress now), or vanilla beater is very much outweighed by the need to stay in the game by stopping the looming combo-kill that threatens throughout.  Aside from creatures, Duress, and Null Rod (which is less harsh on Dragon than other combo decks), a big package of Fish disruption is reactive (Stifle) or free (FoW, Daze) and isn't severely impacted by the need to keep open.  With each successive turn as the mana base grows, that constraint is even less of a concern.  A Vial build makes this even less of a problem.   

In sum, the very slim deterrent of requiring a lone Underground, Jet, Petal, Lotus or fetchland open in the early game doesn't go very far to outweigh the benefit of Extirpate or to diminish Fish's "pressure" to any considerable degree. 

Electing to play instant speed removal (over more permanent based removal OR playing disruption that actually can impact board position apart from stopping the WGD combo, like Stifle, CotV, or Null rod which aim at resource denial) simply limits that option.

Of those three, only Stifle seems a competing concern for keeping mana open, but Stifle has the exact same converted mana cost as Extirpate.  I don't find Null Rod or Chalice of the Void (@ 0?) very effective at suffocating the Dragon combo, especially if Dragon has won the die roll and lain its Moxen. 

-BPK

[Vegeta2711]

However, I find overall that the majority of input has been a prudent well-reasoned assessment of Extirpate itself

If this card will come that way it will singlehandily change the face of Vintage

This card is absolutely ridiculous. 

The card is amazing for its cost. With Split Second it's nuts. If this card is true, I don't see how it can't be restricted in Vintage.

It looks like control decks might have to splash green for ground seal.

This is insane.

I think ETW Gifts is going to become so popular right now thanks to Andy's win (congrats on that as well Andy) we NEED this to combat it.

this card eviscerates the entire type 1 metagame.  I can't think of an archetype that isn't destroyed by this card and you can't even respond to it.  that's insane.

Yeah, tons of well-reasoned and tested opinions here. 

This whole thread reminds me of the Isochron Scepter, Crucible and Chalice threads when they came out.

[brianpk80]

As I said above,

"At any rate, the thread is 7 pages long at this point and anyone can glean the most extreme elements to construct a case that it's been outrageous."

Case in point?

-BPK

[Vegeta2711]

You said majority, when I can gleam all that wealth from the first 2 pages, not to mention this whole dragon aside which is an exercise in futility for the two Dragon players involved, the majority = shit.

[brianpk80]

You said majority, when I can gleam all that wealth from the first 2 pages, not to mention this whole dragon aside which is an exercise in futility for the two Dragon players involved, the majority = shit.

I'm not sure this debate on whether the Extirpate thread is quality or not is going anywhere.  Feel free to private message me if there's something more on the topic you think needs to be said. 

[o uncola o]

However, I find overall that the majority of input has been a prudent well-reasoned assessment of Extirpate itself

If this card will come that way it will singlehandily change the face of Vintage

This card is absolutely ridiculous. 

The card is amazing for its cost. With Split Second it's nuts. If this card is true, I don't see how it can't be restricted in Vintage.

It looks like control decks might have to splash green for ground seal.

This is insane.

I think ETW Gifts is going to become so popular right now thanks to Andy's win (congrats on that as well Andy) we NEED this to combat it.

this card eviscerates the entire type 1 metagame.  I can't think of an archetype that isn't destroyed by this card and you can't even respond to it.  that's insane.

Yeah, tons of well-reasoned and tested opinions here. 

This whole thread reminds me of the Isochron Scepter, Crucible and Chalice threads when they came out.

Could not have put it better myself.  Though, if you look at the cards you have quoted, Crucible and Chalice have both had a fairly significant impact on the format (limited impact for Scepter).  I think that extripate will have a similar impact.  Although I have not had the opportunity to test the card to any length myself, I believe that it will find its place in many denial decks perhaps not as a four of or even main deck, but certainly as a prominent and important side board card.  It is good against dragon, ichorid, etc. as already pointed out.  It is also quality if you happen to hit a drain in the 'yard.  What doesn't the card do?  It is not the auto-win, format-crushing, monster that people make it out to be.  It will be good.  Hell, it may even find a use where I would consider the card to be great.  But, it will not destroy the format or anything close to it.  Vintage has the biggest card pool available to any format.  It has the most solutions to any problems.  More than that, if the problem were, theoretically, to prove problematic, the options still exist to restrict or, as unlikely as it would be, ban the card.  I do not think that any of these options would or should be exercised.  The format is and will remain stable.

[netherspirit]

I've been testing Extirpate quite a lot myself and although it doesn't warrant four copies, it is definitely quite powerful. The main use I've found for it is to take out the opposing disruption cards such as Duress and Force of Will. I don't think this will have as much impact on the format as Chalice and Crucible did, but it'll definitely leave its mark.

[JustABee]

I want to preface this by saying I haven't tested with Experiate at all, however I have played a few games against it.
I was playing Drain TPS. While I can say this card was an annoyance, I was still able to win through him removing all of my Aks, Drains, and FoWs. Now I am sure that the decks I played against were not optimal, but I don't think this is a 4x at all  and is probably better in the board or for a silver bullet strategy.

I have to say that it isn't as busted or even that impressive after I played against it.

just my 2 cents

[Draven]

I want to preface this by saying I haven't tested with Experiate at all, however I have played a few games against it.
I was playing Drain TPS. While I can say this card was an annoyance, I was still able to win through him removing all of my Aks, Drains, and FoWs. Now I am sure that the decks I played against were not optimal, but I don't think this is a 4x at all  and is probably better in the board or for a silver bullet strategy.

I have to say that it isn't as busted or even that impressive after I played against it.

just my 2 cents

Can I ask what type of decks you were playing against? I think the biggest mis-understanding with this card is most people are assuming that whoever is playing this card is playing 4 Extirpate/56 Swamp.dec and that just isn't going to be the case. If Extirpate is combined with a good disruption package as well as some reasonable pressure, the card will be good.

[Dxfiler]

I've stayed out of this thread on purpose because the card isn't legal yet, but I guess I'll give my opinion on admitedly limited testing with the card-

It seems overrated.  It will be played, but certainly not as a four of.  You don't want multiples of these opening hand.  Come to think of it, you really don't want any opening hand if you can avoid it.

Seems best in fish.  Particularly UBW or UB packing a full complement of Duress.  The most common response to duress is to brainstorm.  Now you have a great follow-up to the duress.  This card will most commonly pluck FOW's and Brainstorms.  While that won't singlehandedly win the game, it will certainly fit the disruption plan of fish.  The main reason why I see the card shining in fish above all other decks is that fish has a clock.  If you extirpate and just sit there, the opponent has chances to stabalize.  In fish, extirpate is an additional disruptor that plays well fishy type cards like duress or...

Stifle- You probably run the full complement of them if playing with Extirpate.  Extirpate hits non-basics... nuff said.

Extirpate seems best in a tutor based design.  Being able to bring it up at will is a huge benefit since people usually don't counter tutors.  Less extirpates means more room for other silver bullets that want to play with extirpate, like trickbind or echoing truth.

Those are my initial thoughts on extirpate.  I like it best in a eba/ss style fish build.  I'm working on a couple right now and I believe they have potential.  I really want to try it out in tournaments but that's gonna be a while.  My guess is the card will certainly have an impact, but I don't think it will be earth shattering.

- Dave Feinstein

[RThomas]

Another extremely beneficial idea that must not be overlooked, though has not been mentioned yet, is the INVALUABLE information that can be gotten from seeing the hand of an opponent.  The ability to see their hand can on its own influence the way you play out your entire game, as you know their threats and how to play around it, and what to bluff with etc.

Does not Duress serve you the same function?  At the same cost, you get the same information, except that Duress plays a different role because you may hinder a developing gameplan with it.  When playing this card, you have allowed the deck to develop to some extent.  The opponent should be better prepared to deal with your threat. 

The reason this card does not work as well as Duress (comparing the two in a vacuum) is because the decision tree has less paths when Duress is played.  When Extirpate is played, you will have developed your deck enough to be prepared if the deck removes a path to win.  I felt this comparison needed to be made because you parallelled the two cards' roles.

[erictehfatz0r]

Does not Duress serve you the same function?  At the same cost, you get the same information, except that Duress plays a different role because you may hinder a developing gameplan with it.  When playing this card, you have allowed the deck to develop to some extent.  The opponent should be better prepared to deal with your threat. 

The reason this card does not work as well as Duress (comparing the two in a vacuum) is because the decision tree has less paths when Duress is played.  When Extirpate is played, you will have developed your deck enough to be prepared if the deck removes a path to win.  I felt this comparison needed to be made because you parallelled the two cards' roles.

The difference between this and Duress is that Extirpate searches the opponent's deck as well, exposing any special metagame calls your opponent may have chosen, and any weaknesses that you can figure out from the deck. Being able to discern, by removing Brainstorm, whether you're playing against Gifts, Slaver, or Long greatly changes your decision-making processes, especially when in the Early game. I believe this was the idea behind the selected quote.

As to my opinion, I agree that Taking out Engine cards and landswill be my ultimate use for Extirpate. Removing Seas or Volcanics against Slaver or Gifts hinders their gameplan significantly, narrowing their options of winning and puts me more in a position of control than simply sitting on Counters.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I know I'm ignoring about seven pages of discussion, but I'd like to contribute some test data in the hopes that it may be helpful:

I've played about 40-50 MWS games with variants of TMWA and SS maindecking 4 Extirpate.  The most effective targets I've found are creatures (against Fish), Brainstorm, Dark Ritual, fetch lands, and dual lands.

Most decks actually have a fairly weak manabase.  A well-placed Wasteland, Stifle, or Hymn taking a fetch or dual, followed by Extirpate is *brutal.* Not only have you mana-screwed them now, you've also hurt their ability to fix the situation.

Brainstorm and Dark Ritual were both pretty obvious, though taking Brainstorm is sometimes weaker than it sounds.

I want to take a moment to discuss Extirpate in the fish mirror.  Creatures are both your primary answers and threats.  It doesn't seem obvious, but even removing a set of Grizzly bears from a deck has a huge impact on ability to deal with combat attrition.  Extirpate is often game breaking in that situation.

[Implacable]

I know I'm ignoring about seven pages of discussion, but I'd like to contribute some test data in the hopes that it may be helpful:

I've played about 40-50 MWS games with variants of TMWA and SS maindecking 4 Extirpate.  The most effective targets I've found are creatures (against Fish), Brainstorm, Dark Ritual, fetch lands, and dual lands.

Most decks actually have a fairly weak manabase.  A well-placed Wasteland, Stifle, or Hymn taking a fetch or dual, followed by Extirpate is *brutal.* Not only have you mana-screwed them now, you've also hurt their ability to fix the situation.

Brainstorm and Dark Ritual were both pretty obvious, though taking Brainstorm is sometimes weaker than it sounds.

I want to take a moment to discuss Extirpate in the fish mirror.  Creatures are both your primary answers and threats.  It doesn't seem obvious, but even removing a set of Grizzly bears from a deck has a huge impact on ability to deal with combat attrition.  Extirpate is often game breaking in that situation.

That is the best thing about Extirpate.  I really don't care if it randomly screws Dragon, or even Ichorid; maybe 5% of the metagame is made up of those two decks, and probably even less.  What matters is that casting Extirpate gives you a permanent advantage for the rest of the game, an advantage that may prove insurmountable.  You'll have more dudes; you'll cut one of their colors; you'll remove half of their B-acceleration.  That is absolutely amazing in this format.

[brianpk80]

That is the best thing about Extirpate.  I really don't care if it randomly screws Dragon, or even Ichorid; maybe 5% of the metagame is made up of those two decks, and probably even less.  What matters is that casting Extirpate gives you a permanent advantage for the rest of the game, an advantage that may prove insurmountable.  You'll have more dudes; you'll cut one of their colors; you'll remove half of their B-acceleration.  That is absolutely amazing in this format.

Well said.  I think this touches upon an aspect that is Extirpate's greatest strength: its versatility.

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 that has some startling and unusually piercing applications to more than a few popular decks out there.  The fact that you scour your opponent's hand and library alone will give skillful players the ability to maximize their position by minimizing risks with there being so few unknowns following its resolution.  You should be able to predict how and when you need to sequence your plays to eschew defenses; if you see two online counters and bluff an important spell, having just seen your opponent's hand, your audacity alone may just be enough to get that spell through.  Then for the hell of it, Extirpate also reads "Undo target Vampiric Tutor or any of its kin if you're so inclined."  Messing around with mana bases or culling critical engine pieces or disrupting graveyard supported kills (Bomberman, Ichorid, Dragon, Gifts Ungiven) or Welder activations or any of its peripheral uses and all of the information yielded, uncounterably, cheaply, and at instant speed... well, you're looking at a good package here. 

Whether or not it has any immediate uses that mandate several maindeck or sideboard slots in today's meta is a separate question altogether.  However, from a pure efficiency and adaptability perspective, this card was clearly designed as a bargain.

Another consideration: The problem with most disruption is that while it may shine in one or several matches, it's often clumsy dead weight others.  Tormod's Crypt v. Fish.  True Believer v. Oath/Stax.  Duress v. Ichorid.  Seal of Cleansing v. Pitch Long.  Null Rod v. UW Fish/Birdshit.  Children of Korlis v. (non-Burning) Slaver.  Pithing Needle v. Gifts.  The list goes on.  A hate deck performs optimally when its individual pieces are as malleable as possible towards as many matches as they can be stretched.  Meddling Mage and Stifle are classic examples.  Because there's almost always at least some use for Extirpate, even in its less stellar matches, this may help solidify it as a sound inclusion in hate-strategy decks.

Finally, as I tried to mention before, the existence of this card should impact deck designers for years to come.  If or when the format undulates back to a less explosive metagame (if Storm is abated either by B/R update or super-hosers), decks predicated on popular engines like Life from the Loam, Squee, Goblin Nabob, Intuition, or other enablers are at serious risk of extinction.  The same goes for any deck based around an effective graveyard oriented 4-of that is released in a future set.  Extirpate may very well be the one card from the Time Spiral block that we shouldn't let escape our consciousness.  That's all.

-BPK   

[Vegeta2711]

I am loving this card. People are now gleefully wasting 2 cards and 2 mana on an effect that's worse than a straight up Duress or Peek. As Anus put it, people are now "living the dream" when they can Wasteland a non-basic and cast Extirpate on it. Sure it doesn't actually impact me in any relevant way, but that just gives them a new reason behind why they lose and I technically don't have access to red or black mana except via artifacts (whoops, heh).

Seriously, anyone putting this into an aggro deck needs to look long and hard at the shell around it and why they want to add it. Because a lot of these people are coming up disappointed when they realize a mini-cranial extraction isn't that good.

[AmbivalentDuck]

People are now gleefully wasting 2 cards and 2 mana on an effect that's worse than a straight up Duress or Peek.

Perhaps you can explain how Duress > Duress + Extirpate?

That kind of assumes that Extirpate < 0.  It's not like you have to cast them both at the same time.  Or even Extirpate the same thing you Duress.  You can still Duress out their Ancestral, and then Extirpate a something in their graveyard, taking a copy of it out of their hand.  Duress, Stifle, Wasteland, Mana Drain, FoW and company are good on their own.  Extirpates combos with putting cards into your opponent's graveyard and/or knowing what's in their hand. It's hard to really *get* the value of Extirpate without playing with it because it never does the same thing in the same way twice.  You should always choose the resource that your opponent needs most (mana fixing, card selection, blockers, disruption against your strategy) and cripple their ability to get it. 

Extirpate punishes graveyard dependency without being dead against Fish.  Honestly, what more do you want out of a card?

@Vegeta: Anyone going after Gifts' mana base is probably an idiot.  I might go after Volcanics against Slaver, but that's a different story.  If Extirpate isn't ripping a key restricted card or a 4x set of something, it's probably being misplayed.  The only time I'd go after nonbasics against Gifts would be if the Jet/Ruby and Lotus were already in the graveyard and I was responding to a fetch.  I'll be happy to demonstate either match-up for you on MWS.

[dicemanx]

People are now gleefully wasting 2 cards and 2 mana on an effect that's worse than a straight up Duress or Peek.

Perhaps you can explain how Duress > Duress + Extirpate?

That kind of assumes that |Extirpate| < 0.

Your logic ignores opportunity cost. The relevant equation here is

Duress + X > Duress + Extirpate

or more simply

X > Extirpate

Where X is a card that Extirpate would otherwise be replacing and that has a more meaningful and immediate impact on the board position/game state.

The arguments are that Extirpate does something "cool", but "cool" doesn't necessarily win games (instead, it could do just the opposite). In fact, you might be fooled into thinking that you're doing something meaningful (like removing lands, BS, FoW, Drain etc), when the reality of the situation is that you could just be wasting a card and maybe lose because of it.

We certainly need more evidence from testing, but so far, from the "testing results" that I've read, all we have received is the reaffirmation that Extirpate does something "cool". 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.

[The Atog Lord]

I remember paying $100 for a full set of Cranial Extractions just before PT:Columbus. I had the set in between my maindeck and sideboard in The Rock. In practice, the effect was too weak against Aggro decks. Something to keep myself alive would have been much better than something to make their deck worse. Against Control, while more powerful, I nonetheless found myself wishing for something a bit more threatening. The fact is that even in Extended modern control decks do not lose to having a single card removed. In fact, the one match where I was happy to see the card was against combo .

However, I'm not quite sure that the same would even be true in Type One. Extirpate seems less than stellar against most combo decks. In modern Type One combo decks, while support cards such as Brainstorm and Dark Ritual came in copies of four, the key cards tend to be singular. Removing Brainstorm and Dark Ritual from the opponent's deck simply makes it more likely that he draw Yawgmoth's Will or Yawgmoth's Bargain. The cards you would most like to remove -- Tendrills or something Yawgmoth-Related -- aren't so easily removed since they aren't played in such large numbers.

Though, I'll admit that Extirpate has me a bit concerned about playing Dragon at the moment.

I've tested the card a decent bit, playing perhaps a dozen games with it. Among all those games, I have so far won a single game on account of having the card in my deck. This was as follows. My opponent, playing Storm Combo, cast an endstep Mystical Tutor for Yawgmoth's Will. After this tutor resolved, I removed something irrelevant with Extirpate. The subsequent shuffle rendered the tutor undone, and my opponent drew into nothing and then lost.

[AmbivalentDuck]

@Dicemanx: That would be impossible.  Unlike any other piece of disruption, Extirpate can hit almost any card in your opponent's deck.  Every Wasteland target you chose, every Duress target, every time you baited a counterspell...everything impacts the Extirpate targets you had.  Then beyond that, you probably have at least 4 distinct targets in the graveyard by turn three, all of them strongly influenced by your early game choices.

Every choice you've made in a given game (and every choice your opponent has made), impacts your choice of targets.

Now, let's say you sagely select card X to Extirpate.  2 copies of card X leave the opponent's deck, 1 copy leaves their hand: a great Extirpate, no card advantage lost and a Duress effect achieved.  Now, how well are you exploiting the loss of card X?  Did you assign yourself the right role? You could suddenly have switched roles as your Oath opponent digs madly for his Lotus to hardcast Akroma.   Did your opponent assign himself the right role?  Did he make intelligent tutoring choices?  Maybe you just switched from aggro to control, or vice versa.  If you'd picked card Y instead, how would that have affected the roles?  Which role do you really want to be in at a particular point in time?

[The Atog Lord]

your Oath opponent digs madly for his Lotus to hardcast Akroma

Herein lies the very point of the card. Extirpate no doubt would be very potent against a deck whose success relies entirely on a single card of which four copies are run. Dragon would not enjoy facing this card, nor would Oath -- provided that the first copy was countered or otherwise put into the graveyard. Ichorid wouldn't love to have certain cards removed, I suspect. Each of these decks relies on a single four-of card to work. Against such decks built around one card, Extircate might be quite potent.

However, such decks as these are rarities nowadays. "Gifts" decks by no means cease to function without their namesake. In particular, Brassman's current build has multiple draw spells and tutors -- it is fully functional without Gifts Ungiven itself. Control Slaver, Long, and Fish are all the same way -- the removal of any four-of card would be annoying but not fundamentally destructive to the deck's objective in a match.

[dicemanx]

@Dicemanx: That would be impossible.  Unlike any other piece of disruption, Extirpate can hit almost any card in your opponent's deck.  Every Wasteland target you chose, every Duress target, every time you baited a counterspell...everything impacts the Extirpate targets you had.  Then beyond that, you probably have at least 4 distinct targets in the graveyard by turn three, all of them strongly influenced by your early game choices.

And? Having "multiple targets" doesn't even mean that the card is playable. You're trying to insist otherwise on theoretical grounds, but at this stage testing will ultimately demonstrate to us if Extirpate is even that strong.

Now, let's say you sagely select card X to Extirpate.  2 copies of card X leave the opponent's deck, 1 copy leaves their hand: a great Extirpate, no card advantage lost and a Duress effect achieved.

That to me represents a best case scenario - finding your opponent with card X in hand so that you're not actually going down -1 card when playing Extirpate.

Now, how well are you exploiting the loss of card X?  Did you assign yourself the right role? You could suddenly have switched roles as your Oath opponent digs madly for his Lotus to hardcast Akroma.   Did your opponent assign himself the right role?  Did he make intelligent tutoring choices?  Maybe you just switched from aggro to control, or vice versa.  If you'd picked card Y instead, how would that have affected the roles?  Which role do you really want to be in at a particular point in time?

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.

Though, I'll admit that Extirpate has me a bit concerned about playing Dragon at the moment.

For a brief period of time, I share your concern Rich. However, we only need to have clarification on how prevalent the card will be in T1, and we should get that pretty soon. If it turns out to be prevalent in SBs (or main deck even), I wouldn't necessarily mind that. I'd much rather face Extirpate than Crypt or Leyline, because WGD has some great options in stopping instant speed hate. Having Xantids or Abeyance take out removal and graveyard hate would be very nice; when facing Crypt/Leyline on the other hand, you need to make provisions for counters/instant speed removal AND have a plan versus the permanent-based hate. That's a little tougher.

[brianpk80]

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.

I found almost all of the recent discussion in this thread to be very sensible until I saw this.  While the above may be true when one submits a decklist for exposition and review, no contributor in a "[New Card: Discuss]" type of thread bears any "burden of proof" beyond stating their preliminary opinions, with or without justification.  Even if that were required (absurd as it would be), there is no reason the burden would fall squarely on proponents of the card when it could just as easily fall on naysayers, to prove that X games were lost due to the inclusion of Extirpate that otherwise would have been won had the slot(s) been dedicated to "better" choices.  Mind you, it's impossible to prove with any reasonable precision how the inclusion of a single card out of at least sixty is solely and directly responsible for determining the final outcome, especially with an effect as circumstantial and frequently subtle as Extirpate's.  Some cases may seem more clear than others (ie Atog Lord reversing the Mystical Tutor) but even then no conclusion is immune to questioning.  What if the Extirpate had been a Force of Will?  Or a Tormod's Crypt?  What if Rich had no black mana available, would Extirpate then have "lost" the game?

Despite attempts to aggrandize the processes of deckbuilding and review as scientific in nature, the presence of too many variables involved in the game precludes them from aspiring to that standard.  At their best, deckbuilding and post-game assessment will nearly always be an exercise of informed intuition rather than applied pure scientific methodology.  To impose the rigorous burden of the latter on a contributor here is both unfair and unrealistic.  The standard of proof you're seeking is silly, all things considered.

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?     

-BPK

[Dralock]

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.

Last year (or the year before, I can't remember), there was a call to ban Yawgs Will from Vintage by a reputed player who has already weighed in here. The move was controversial, and many believe unwarranted. However, you cannot dispute that the card is horribly powerful, is auto-included in every deck running black (or that can reasonably support black) and is, along with power, a -1 to the possible cards you can put in to a deck.

Goblin welder is an undercosted threat that makes players quake in their boots, and breaks games as well. This card makes it possible to completely shut someone out of a game by using one ability a turn after it comes in to play. Granted, there is some setup to be done, but really its not hard to do. There are people who design entire decklists around removing this critter from the game simply because it is that powerful. So ~20 cards to combat the effect of one. And it isn't even restricted.

Power is the lazy man with money's way to win the game without trying. Until proxies were allowed (I call it the great equalizer), the game was always one-sided to those who had power and those who couldn't afford it. Proxies do not, however, change the fact that there are at least five cards in every decklist out there because they are so powerful to not use them is folly.

So recently, control is super hot in all formats. Abusing graveyards is a concept wizards has brought in to the game to shake things up and to keep players playing something new instead of the same old crap. Well, both of these concepts have become so commonplace, those who would keep their game at a top level have adopted them and those who cannot adapt have been relegated to obscurity. This doesn't mean that those who don't play control or abuse a graveyard are not going to win, it does, however, say that without control or the ability to use and reuse your entire deck you are gimping yourself from your true potential.

To fix the gimping, wizards decides to print a new ability that will counteract the "control problem" that was counterspell (because banning counterspell apparently wasn't enough); split second. 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. Split second breaks this fairness and says "no, I'm not going to allow you to use the spells you have saved up for a situation such as this by cheating you out of your time to play."

Armed with this new ability (giving a choice back to non control players? Was the aggro approach not enough?) wizards also apparently wanted to punish people who abused the abilities given to them to use their graveyard as a resource more, and give them an ability that costs four mana and a random guess previously and let it cost one mana with the knowledge of the target firmly in place.

How is this fair? How is this good for the game? How is this nothing more than a band-aid to fix a problem that requires a real bandage to mend?

How is this not going to let the gaping hole that is broken magic not just fester and become a truly righteous infection?

Homelands 2.0

/rant

[The Atog Lord]

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.