2nd out of 51, Bethlehem PA (Zoo)

[hungryLIKEALION]

Sooo, I've been preparing for this tournament for a loooooong time. I didn't have a lot of time to prepare given my busy college schedule, but I did spend a long time thinking about it. In the week before the tournament, I was getting concerned about playing Zoo since I felt like people are still gunning for it right now, and so I tested Goyfsligh for a night before deciding it was terrible and going back to what I know.

The list I ended up running is pretty close to what I've been running for a long time. I still feel like the MD is very good.

// Lands
1 [SHM] Forest (1)
2 [FUT] Horizon Canopy
2 [ZEN] Arid Mesa
3 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
1 [9E] Plains (1)
1 [CST] Mountain (2)
3 [b] Taiga
3 [A] Plateau
1 [b] Savannah

// Creatures
2 [FNM] Kird Ape
4 [ALA] Wild Nacatl
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
4 [ARB] Qasali Pridemage
3 [TO] Grim Lavamancer
2 [EVE] Figure of Destiny
2 [CFX] Knight of the Reliquary

// Spells
1 [ZEN] Vines of Vastwood
4 [R] Lightning Bolt
4 [CFX] Path to Exile
4 [REW] Lightning Helix
2 [LG] Chain Lightning
2 [LG] Sylvan Library
1 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [ALA] Relic of Progenitus
SB: 2 [ZEN] Ravenous Trap
SB: 2 [TSP] Krosan Grip
SB: 2 [R] Swords to Plowshares
SB: 2 [SC] Pyrostatic Pillar
SB: 2 [LRW] Gaddock Teeg
SB: 3 [FNM] Tormod's Crypt
SB: 1 [BOK] Umezawa's Jitte

When scouting the meta, I expected to see a lot of storm combo, but it turned out there were only like 3 storm combo decks. There were something around 6-8 dredge decks and I got paranoid, so I bummed two extra tormod's crypts off a friend to replace the Mindbreak Traps I had on my SB.

The TO was having computer problems so the tournament got delayed about an hour, so I played some pick up games against my friend Ken playing Merfolk. We played I think 4 games, and I won all of them. Finally the first round was posted and we were on our way.

Round 1 I had the fortune of a bye.
1-0

Round 2 vs. Mark playing Eva Green

Game 1 I keep five land and some creatures since I know he's playing Eva Green from seeing him play the previous round. He t2 hymns me and hits two lands, so I feel pretty good about it. I drop some creatures and start attacking and he plays a Vampire Nighthawk. I have the lightning helix for it, and a sylvan library makes it down. He plays another nighthawk and I chain lightning it. He makes a third nighthawk and I bolt it. I lose a tarmogoyf to a snuff out and something else gets smothered I think and I end up with a grim lavamancer to his double tombstalker, but I'm at 25 from helix lifegain and he's at 10. I race him with lavamancer and library lets me draw the burn I need to finish the game.

SB: -2 Ape -2 Pridemage
+2 STP +1 Jitte +1 Relic
This siding was definitely not correct. The Relic was definitely not needed and I should have kept the pridemages in. Next time I think I'll go -2 ape -1 chain for the 2 stps and the jitte.

Game 2 I keep 3 lands, a nacatl, a goyf, and some burn. I make t1 nacatl and he kills it, then I make t2 goyf and he kills it. We get into a board stall after I kill his first threat and then he drops a goyf. I throw some helixes at him to make up the life I lose and stick a library. The library gives me my own goyf which he then maelstrom pulses. He goes to swing with his goyf then and I point out that it's also destroyed by pulse. He chastises himself because he used to have vindicate in the deck and forgot that pulse works differently. I then play another creature (Don't remember what) and he plays a chalice for 1. I rip the pridemage and blow it up after like two turns of empty board and then drop nacatl. I hit a few times before he kills it and makes another chalice at 1, then drops tombstalker. Like a champ I rip the last pridemage in the deck and blow that chalice up and path the stalker. Next turn I draw enough burn to finish the game.

2-0

Round 3 vs. Another Mark playing Eva Green

Game 1 he t1 duress+hymns me, taking out a land and my library on the hymn and a PTE on the duress. I land a nacatl and play out some burn. He lands a tombstalker and I topdeck a 5/6 goyf, then another. The goyfs take it home.

SB:The better strategy outlined above.

Game 2 we both make early creatures and I end up trading a goyf with a tombstalker in a weird double block and we go back and forth exchanging a lot of removal until I manage to pull ahead and burn him out.

3-0

Round 4 vs. Joe playing Rug Goblin/Fish

Joe is a very good player who today was playing an extremely interesting build of goblins. He had standstills, dazes, forces, and some other blue spells in a goblin shell with tarmogoyfs in his sideboard. At this point we though all the undefeateds could just draw into top eight, so that's what me and Joe did. We played two games for fun afterward where I smashed him handily.

3-0-1

Round 5 vs. Nick playing Stax.

We do the math and realize we can't draw in after all, so me and Nick have to play for our spot.

Game 1 we both mulligan, I think we both go to 5 but it might have been 6. I keep a hand with t1 nacatl t2 pridemage t3 pridemage and he keeps a one lander and doesn't draw a land in 3 turns. I win.

SB:-2 Ape, -2 Chain, -1 Bolt -1 Helix
+2 Grip +2 STP +2 Teeg

Game 2 He makes first turn suppression field and I look at my hand of forest, 2 duals, 2 fetches, nacatl, and KoTR. I make basic forest, nacatl, go. I then put down the plateau and he remarks how nice it is I didn't draw fetches. Well, I did, I just kept a land heavy hand. He o-rings the nacatl and I play KoTR, unfortunately as a 2/2. I grip a Smokestack and he has chalice for 1. I start beating in with the knight, using my mana each turn to pop a fetch to grow the knight. He doesn't draw another white source and can't play the baneslayer angel he has in hand. My incredible luck streak against Stax continues!

4-0-1

I end up being the top seed in standings. My brother is the 8th seed and we agree that I have a better chance to win the whole thing, so he scoops to me.

5-0-1

Top 4 vs. Ryan playing Mono Red Sligh
Game 1 we both have pretty quick hands, he puts lethal on the stack and I have the lightning helix to save myself and swing back for lethal.

SB:-2 KoTR, -2 Chain +1 Jitte +2 Swords +1 Teeg

Game 2 is pretty similar. I mean, it's burn, they either kill you or they don't.

6-0-1

Finals vs. Josh playing 4c Landstill

I really didn't want to play against this guy since I didn't play PoP today and I know that's really my best way to win this matchup.

Anyway, g1 I mull to 5, keep an anemic hand, the game lasts 5 years and I lose.

SB:-2 Helix, -2 something else I don't remember.
+2 STP +2 Teeg

g2 I mull to 6, keep an anemic hand, apply minimal pressure, eventually run him out of sweeps and topdeck a KoTR on the last possible turn. I play him as an 8/8 and, amazingly, he has no answer. His goyf is a 5/6 and the KoTR runs it over and then finishes him.

g3 I mull to 6 AGAIN, keep another anemic hand, and the game lasts another 5 years, I once again fail to apply any pressure, and eventually lose. meh. Not like I expected to win without PoP.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have sided in the swords even though he did have goyfs. I really shoulda just tried to be balls to the wall and finish him through the goyfs. Next time I'll be packing PoP though.

Anyway, I got a set of Revised Underground Seas for my trouble. I'd run my deck pretty much as it was again, but the SB was pretty bad. I didn't play against any dredge all day so all those slots went to waste. But even if I had, I don't think it's right to board so many non-versatile cards against 1 matchup. Next time I'll have a better SB for sure.

Not the greatest report I've ever written, but hopefully it's useful to somebody.

[jazzykat]

Thank you for including sideboarding plans.

Why did you take out apes instead of FoD's in your Eva Green matches. My assumption is that they are going to pound on your land and that you would prefer to have the ape from the get go instead of trying to get the figure up to 4/4?

[Michael Keller]

Not to take anything away from your good placing, but it does appear by reading your report you got awfully lucky in many of your wins, including victories due to multiple chronological top-decks, fraternal scooping, and timely mana-screw from your opponents. Some of those wins even came down to using the stack with lethal on board to pull out the win.

Point being: Is there anything you think you could do better to improve the quality of defeat? It's important not to live on the edge with a deck that should be putting opponents away relatively fast. Card choice, quantity over quality (or lack there-of), and play-errors are all things to consider when evaluating your overall performance.

Zoo puts the heat on very quickly, so this is some food for thought.

Still, nice work on the finish.

[Bryant Cook]

Not to take anything away from your good placing, but it does appear by reading your report you got awfully lucky in many of your wins, including victories due to multiple chronological top-decks, fraternal scooping, and timely mana-screw from your opponents. Some of those wins even came down to using the stack with lethal on board to pull out the win.

I'm tired of this shit. People on this website always do this, trying to make it seem like other people's victories weren't earned or deserved. This isn't meant to be an attack on you Hollywood. Just the site in general.

Fact of the matter is, when people write down reports it doesn't always express the intensity or the moment. Dramatic wins don't seem dramatic when written down. I'm sure there were matches of his that were a lot closer than they appear, that don't seem that impressive in a report.

Anyway, Congratulations on your victory.

[rockout]

I'm tired of this shit.

Anyway, Congratulations on your victory.

Anytime you finish well in a tournament you deserve some congratulations.

[Michael Keller]

Anytime you finish well in a tournament you deserve some congratulations.

Hey, I let the man know a job well done. I'm simply stating that there were more uncontrolled variables that dictated his placing rather than controlled dominance. The point I was making is that I was curious as to what he could do to better his game and strengthen his margin of victory.

Dramatic wins are fine, Bryant. But you should always examine what you could have done to better function on all cylinders. Taking in wins and relishing them is a good thing and everyone does it. But it's more important to understand what you could have done to fix the wrongs rather than sit on the rights, that's all.

[hungryLIKEALION]

Thank you for including sideboarding plans.

Why did you take out apes instead of FoD's in your Eva Green matches. My assumption is that they are going to pound on your land and that you would prefer to have the ape from the get go instead of trying to get the figure up to 4/4?I understand where you're coming from, and you're kind of right. However, it's also pretty easy for them to snipe all your forests and keep an ape a 1/1. So really, in the early game, they're both gonna blow. From my experience, zoo vs. eva green usually goes to about turn 8-10 under normal conditions. Kird Ape is my default creature to side out because, in truth, he's pretty terrible. FoD, on the other hand, can be pretty devastating as a topdeck in the midgame, much better than a Ape would be. Since I still have a good array of one drops, I'd rather cut the apes so I can keep the midgame topdecking power offered by FoD. Really, Figure is a drastically underrated creature and I think that comes from people not understanding how to play with him properly. I said in the Zoo thread I'm gonna write a manifesto on how to use him correctly, and I have every intent to do so as soon as I'm not swamped in papers for college.




Not to take anything away from your good placing, but it does appear by reading your report you got awfully lucky in many of your wins, including victories due to multiple chronological top-decks, fraternal scooping, and timely mana-screw from your opponents. I fully admitted that my wins over Stax were lucky, but winning with good topdecks isn't really significant. Zoo as a deck topdecks EXTREMELY well, particularly with a library in play, which I had in multiple games. For example, against the second eva green player
Some of those wins even came down to using the stack with lethal on board to pull out the win.... Against Burn. You know, the red deck that just plays a bunch of lightning bolts? The one with a four turn clock every game? That's kind of the best way I can use Lightning Helix against them.

In addition, Aggro decks (Especially in aggro mirrors) happen to win a lot of games by racing. It's kind of what they do, and they're pretty good at it.


Point being: Is there anything you think you could do better to improve the quality of defeat? It's important not to live on the edge with a deck that should be putting opponents away relatively fast. Card choice, quantity over quality (or lack there-of), and play-errors are all things to consider when evaluating your overall performance.Here you're mistaken. A win is a win is a win. I have a very good limited rating, for example. At the M10 Prerelease, I played a black red sealed deck with 3 kelinore bats, 2 dragon whelps, some other cruddy creatures and a fireball. No real bombs, no good lategame. I split the finals, and of the 8 rounds of magic I played, 20 or so games, I probably won 15 of those with my opponent having lethal on board, just barely getting there with my fliers or the fireball. That doesn't mean my deck was bad, because obviously it was good enough to win the tournament (I'd argue my playskill, which I consider to be quite high, factored in too, but my point remains.) I draft decks like that all the time. I can't tell you how many zendikar drafts I've won by casting burst lightnings at my opponent's dome with their lethal attack at the ready. That doesn't mean I'm a bad limited player.


Zoo puts the heat on very quickly, so this is some food for thought.Its goldfish is very fast, but being a creature based deck, it's extremely easy to slow down significantly. This isn't burn or goyfsligh where you have the same general clock every game. I say this in the zoo thread all the time, this sort of thing is why I run cards like KoTR and Sylvan Library. Zoo is an aggro deck, yes, but really when you're playing a deck that throws most of its burn except the last 3-6 damage at the opposing creatures, it means the deck is really more of a fish aggro-control style deck. People seem to look at Zoo's goldfish speed and think that's how it plays, but it's not at all. In practice you have to burn blockers, you have to deal with your critters going farming, exploding, and so on.


I'm tired of this shit. People on this website always do this, trying to make it seem like other people's victories weren't earned or deserved. This isn't meant to be an attack on you Hollywood. Just the site in general.

Fact of the matter is, when people write down reports it doesn't always express the intensity or the moment. Dramatic wins don't seem dramatic when written down. I'm sure there were matches of his that were a lot closer than they appear, that don't seem that impressive in a report.

Anyway, Congratulations on your victory.Thanks. But you're right. I'm sick and I didn't actually outline every play in every game in this report. For example, round 3 I wrote very short game analyses but there were a lot of good plays on both our sides in those games. I'd say most games sunday lasted between 8-12 turns, and considering the two eva green matches where they pack a lot of removal, that's really not that bad.


Anytime you finish well in a tournament you deserve some congratulations.Thanks.


Hey, I let the man know a job well done. I'm simply stating that there were more uncontrolled variables that dictated his placing rather than controlled dominance. The point I was making is that I was curious as to what he could do to better his game and strengthen his margin of victory.No offense, but good topdecks are not an uncontrolled variable in most cases. I put the cards I do in my deck because I expect to draw them at some point or another, and in most of the cases where I topdecked well there were a lot of cards that would have worked fine. For example, when he played the tombstalker and I topdecked two goyfs, only the first goyf was really necessary to win me the game. In addition, at that point, I had 4 goyfs, 2 KoTRs, 2 FoDs, several wild nacatls, several paths, etc. The number of outs I had was ASTRONOMICAL. The fact that I drew one while it was still relevant is not that surprising.

I will admit my topdeck of KoTR against Josh in game 2 of the finals was very lucky, since that was the only card that would win the game at that point. But I think I'm allowed one great topdeck per tournament.


Dramatic wins are fine, Bryant. But you should always examine what you could have done to better function on all cylinders. Taking in wins and relishing them is a good thing and everyone does it. But it's more important to understand what you could have done to fix the wrongs rather than sit on the rights, that's all.I was functioning on all cylinders all day. I know to examine my play for errors and see how I can improve, and I do, all the time. I'm sorry if my report did not show my playskill enough, because like I said above, I did gloss over a lot of good plays in the long eva green games, and in the landstill games because I just didn't feel like writing about those games since they each lasted at least 25+ turns and involved a lot of draw-going since I couldn't draw a decent hand even once out of three games, and 7 hands.

[Michael Keller]

I'm fully prepared to fire back on all cylinders:


I fully admitted that my wins over Stax were lucky, but winning with good topdecks isn't really significant. Zoo as a deck topdecks EXTREMELY well, particularly with a library in play, which I had in multiple games. For example, against the second eva green player... Against Burn. You know, the red deck that just plays a bunch of lightning bolts? The one with a four turn clock every game? That's kind of the best way I can use Lightning Helix against them.

Yeah, I know the deck that plays Lightning Bolts. And with a Library out, it's no wonder you couldn't pay the four life in critical circumstances to make a burn player extraordinarily happy. Library does fix draws but you failed to mention in your report just how important it really was for you or when it was ever relevant, if at all.


In addition, Aggro decks (Especially in aggro mirrors) happen to win a lot of games by racing. It's kind of what they do, and they're pretty good at it.

I know what aggro decks do, and of course they're good at it. But that doesn't excuse the reality of the situation that the biggest inherent weakness with aggro decks is that all too often players tend to make critical play errors along the way, effectively costing them matches. Just because you drop creatures doesn't mean there's only a right way to play your hand. I was simply stating you were drawing into a lot of gas by the way your report made it sound.

And although Zoo top-decks fairly well, the truth is that in your poor match-ups (like you said), you ended up lucky and got paired against the same archetype two matches in a row, help from a bye, and having your brother scoop to you (lol). Do you see what I'm saying, now?


Here you're mistaken. A win is a win is a win. I have a very good limited rating, for example. At the M10 Prerelease, I played a black red sealed deck with 3 kelinore bats, 2 dragon whelps, some other cruddy creatures and a fireball. No real bombs, no good lategame. I split the finals, and of the 8 rounds of magic I played, 20 or so games, I probably won 15 of those with my opponent having lethal on board, just barely getting there with my fliers or the fireball. That doesn't mean my deck was bad, because obviously it was good enough to win the tournament (I'd argue my playskill, which I consider to be quite high, factored in too, but my point remains.) I draft decks like that all the time. I can't tell you how many zendikar drafts I've won by casting burst lightnings at my opponent's dome with their lethal attack at the ready. That doesn't mean I'm a bad limited player.

I am very certain I am not mistaken. No one ever accused you of being a "bad" player; that's a conclusion you drew yourself and it was obviously not intended for that. Maybe it's just me (but what do I know), but I don't just like to think "a win is a win". A win is really only a win when it happens consistently and the choices you make improve your odds mathematically and statistically in relation to the strength of opponent's knowledge of play and what they are specifically playing. Several years back I began to study and use this ideology behind my play and my Legacy rating ended up shooting up at one point as high as 230 points in a single stretch. I'm also considering writing a book on this sort of thing, essentially how to improve your play using simple math-models.

I also enjoy making the analogy to any real sport; you can win a variety of different ways, but you'd be foolish to assume that the way you get there isn't important and that it is just "happenstance". Simply "settling and taking" a win completely negates the betterment of you both as a player and deck-designer.

In other words, I'm not knocking your performance; I want to know how you could have done better and will continue to do better.


But you're right. I'm sick and I didn't actually outline every play in every game in this report. For example, round 3 I wrote very short game analyses but there were a lot of good plays on both our sides in those games. I'd say most games sunday lasted between 8-12 turns, and considering the two eva green matches where they pack a lot of removal, that's really not that bad.

Not outlining specifics sometimes can lead a reader to wonder just what it was that happened, and that is, after all, the best part of a report (as well as the most integral).


No offense, but good topdecks are not an uncontrolled variable in most cases. I put the cards I do in my deck because I expect to draw them at some point or another, and in most of the cases where I topdecked well there were a lot of cards that would have worked fine. For example, when he played the tombstalker and I topdecked two goyfs, only the first goyf was really necessary to win me the game. In addition, at that point, I had 4 goyfs, 2 KoTRs, 2 FoDs, several wild nacatls, several paths, etc. The number of outs I had was ASTRONOMICAL. The fact that I drew one while it was still relevant is not that surprising.

Without sounding too pretentious here, you have no idea what you are talking about as it relates to expanded statistical analysis and simple quantitative and qualitative statistical analysis. Zoo is a deck with few, if any, cards that push the math farther in your favor as you draw a single card per turn. The point of the deck is to apply severe pressure so an opponent will be incapacitated within the first few turns and shell-shocked by the amount of damage coming their way both through spells and the battlefield. This is obvious, as I'm sure you know. But the truth is, optimizing your selections will turn your "average" draws into "amazing" draws. So if there are any changes you want to make, we'd be willing to hear about them.


I was functioning on all cylinders all day. I know to examine my play for errors and see how I can improve, and I do, all the time. I'm sorry if my report did not show my playskill enough, because like I said above, I did gloss over a lot of good plays in the long eva green games, and in the landstill games because I just didn't feel like writing about those games since they each lasted at least 25+ turns and involved a lot of draw-going since I couldn't draw a decent hand even once out of three games, and 7 hands.

You played well and it looks like your match-ups were relatively favorable. But, again: You drew round one, played the same deck twice in a row, "lucked" out against Stax, and your brother conceded to you. I'd say that might have been a substantial reason why you did so well. I'm gunning more towards the bigger picture here; far beyond any of the things we've mentioned, and that is that when analyzing the placing of a deck and taking note of its performance, it is somewhat important to also understand, well, how it actually got there.

[hungryLIKEALION]

I'm not gonna quote this again, but here's my general thoughts;

Honestly, it seems like you're saying I didn't earn my finish because I got good matchups. I'm not sure what it is you want me to say. I'm sorry I got good matchups? I can't help that, so there's no reason to keep berating me about it. It's like you're telling me my performance was poor, but if you wanted to see me smashing countertop decks all day, I'm certainly capable of it. I've done it a million times. I'm sorry that you don't think my tournament was legitimate, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Alright, you're right, my report did suck. I should have put more work into it and taken better notes in the tournament and next time I'll definitely do so. I'll do better to

Would you be nitpicking about me playing against the same archetype twice in a row if it had been countertop? It's not like Eva Green is some terrible tier 4 deck or something, it's a legitimate contender. It's also not a particularly good matchup for Zoo, It's about even IMO.

To cite me drawing a round as a reason I did so well is kinda bullshit though, people draw into top 8 all the time, so please don't criticize that.

Did I get lucky against stax? Yes. I already admitted that. But it's not like I couldn't have won without absurd luck. I mean, my g1 hand against him would have beaten a lot of average stax hands I feel. (Nacatl Pridemage Pridemage, I'm referring to.)

And finally, with my brother conceding to me, yes, it was nice to not have to worry about the quarterfinals, but if the breakers had worked out differently, well, the top 8 was this;

1 zoo
1 landstill
1 Probasco cbtop
1 Rug Goblins
1 burn
1 Urw Fish
1 43 land
1 Mono White Workshop

So, really, I have positive matchups with 4 of those, even matchups with 3, and poor matchup with 1 (Landstill). Those odds are fine with me that I could have won my quarters without my brother scooping to me.

[jazzykat]

Being someone totally uninvested in the emotions in this thread I would like to say a few things.

Hollywood's opening post wasn't perfectly worded to get what I perceive is his message across but I don't think he was trying to be a dick in anyway. I would boil his opening statement down to:

1 Congratulations to Lion.

2 zoo has been a dominant metagame force for a while. Given the results for this tournament that had a bye, a mana screwed opponent, and a lot of very close games do you feel that; your play could have been any tighter or have the opponents in your area adapted so much that Zoo is no longer a metagame force?

3. If you had to replay this tournament with exactly the same metagame would you have done anything differently? (sb, different plays, etc.)

My point in writing what I did is to focus on the points of the deck and the lines of play that Lion made that particular day, and try not to devalue his victory or make a value judgement about his experience.

Writing this took me about 20 minutes because I wanted to focus on the issues and do my best not to put anyone on the defensive, the reason I stepped back into this thread to "defend" Hollywood is that his post would have been very similar to mine if I hadn't stopped to ask more deck centric questions and take the focus off the player.

[Michael Keller]

Being someone totally uninvested in the emotions in this thread I would like to say a few things.

Hollywood's opening post wasn't perfectly worded to get what I perceive is his message across but I don't think he was trying to be a dick in anyway. I would boil his opening statement down to:

1 Congratulations to Lion.

2 zoo has been a dominant metagame force for a while. Given the results for this tournament that had a bye, a mana screwed opponent, and a lot of very close games do you feel that; your play could have been any tighter or have the opponents in your area adapted so much that Zoo is no longer a metagame force?

3. If you had to replay this tournament with exactly the same metagame would you have done anything differently? (sb, different plays, etc.)

My point in writing what I did is to focus on the points of the deck and the lines of play that Lion made that particular day, and try not to devalue his victory or make a value judgement about his experience.

Writing this took me about 20 minutes because I wanted to focus on the issues and do my best not to put anyone on the defensive, the reason I stepped back into this thread to "defend" Hollywood is that his post would have been very similar to mine if I hadn't stopped to ask more deck centric questions and take the focus off the player.

This pretty much sums it up.

All I was curious about is how you think you are able make your deck work more efficiently and what changes you would make, that's all. I'm not berating you in any way, it's just that if you post you came in 2nd out of 51 players, you should voluntarily bear the burden of enlightening us all at the very least what you could have done differently or the inverse.

This is standard etiquette when writing any good report. I take your placing very seriously and think you did a fantastic job. But the work shouldn't stop there, should it?

[Bryant Cook]

This pretty much sums it up.

All I was curious about is how you think you are able make your deck work more efficiently and what changes you would make, that's all. I'm not berating you in any way, it's just that if you post you came in 2nd out of 51 players, you should voluntarily bear the burden of enlightening us all at the very least what you could have done differently or the inverse.

This is standard etiquette when writing any good report. I take your placing very seriously and think you did a fantastic job. But the work shouldn't stop there, should it?

I wasn't trying to do an attack on you, sorry if it caused this.

I wasn't trying to say there isn't room for improvement.

What I was trying to say is how people on this website often act like the person had a choice in who or what they played against. Instead of the fact of the matter that person won. Comments such as, "Woooo, Zoo won because it had good match-ups every round, well deserved! You earned it!" are just petty, I'm not saying that you said this Hollywood. But it seems to be a theme on this website.

[Michael Keller]

I just need my coffee.

Has anyone suggested Singing Tree or Mijae Djinn, perhaps?

EDIT: Don't take that seriously.

[hungryLIKEALION]

2 zoo has been a dominant metagame force for a while. Given the results for this tournament that had a bye, a mana screwed opponent, and a lot of very close games do you feel that; your play could have been any tighter or have the opponents in your area adapted so much that Zoo is no longer a metagame force?


3. If you had to replay this tournament with exactly the same metagame would you have done anything differently? (sb, different plays, etc.)This is fair. I'll answer it at the bottom of the post.


All I was curious about is how you think you are able make your deck work more efficiently and what changes you would make, that's all.Sorry for overreacting then, but your tone was kind of demeaning.
I'm not berating you in any way, it's just that if you post you came in 2nd out of 51 players, you should voluntarily bear the burden of enlightening us all at the very least what you could have done differently or the inverse.

This is standard etiquette when writing any good report.You're right, and in the future I'll definitely try to write a better report.

First thing is that I need to do more testing with Vines of Vastwood. I only drew it once in the tournament and didn't cast it when I did (It was the last turn of g2 vs. Landstill). Despite not drawing it though, there were all kinds of situations where I really wished I'd had it in hand. I'm either going to test more main (Not sure which slots since I don't really want to cut removal or the MD Jitte which are the usual flex slots, but I'll have to figure that out) or a few in the SB and take the one main out. I posted this in the zoo thread, but I've found Vines to be a very good one of since if you blow somebody out on it early (Which is pretty easy considering how often people just swords your creature after you turn it sideways) you can force them to try to play around vines for the rest of the game, even when you don't have another in the deck. And since it's still 4 damage for 2 mana, it's a fairly efficient spell and doesn't really cost much to the deck's speed or consistency as a one of. At worst it's comparable to a burn spell of equal cost.

My zoo list differs from other modern zoo lists mostly in that I run no fireblast, a full set of lightning helix, and kotr over wooly thoctar. My logic for each is as follows;

Fireblast is a good spell, but I've never liked it in this deck. Every time I've run it in the past I've been dissatisfied with its huge cost to play. Sacking two lands can be devastating, more often than not being most of the lands you have in play. I only run seven mountains, so sacking two can be devastating, especially if I've already been getting wastelanded. Therefore, Fireblast is pretty useless for anything except dealing the last four damage. It's certainly nice to only have to do 16, and fireblast does make it a lot easier to win on turn 3 or 4, but I would rather have more versatile burn in my deck. I like the way the deck plays with ten burn spells, and 14 total removal spells. The deck has enough reach to win once the opponent is on 3 to 6 life consistently, and as much as 9 in some games. More when you bring in Price of Progress against the decks where it applies. Fireblast gives you more and faster reach, but I think the deck has enough reach without it so that its drawbacks just aren't worth the speed advantage.

I think Lightning Helix is a very important spell for zoo. A lot of zoo lists run 4 chain lightning instead of playing helix, but I think that's a huge mistake. first of all, having 12 instant speed removal spells is huge in its utility. Helix is very good against a lot of decks where you get into races, like zoo mirrors, goblins, or merfolk, even tempo thresh sometimes.. Granted, racing isn't your only option in these matchups. Personally, when playing in aggro mirrors, I prefer to adopt the control role. This is pretty easy with zoo since it's got such big creatures and tons of removal. The lifegain is extremely relevant in these matchups, in addition to being able to create two for ones on offense. I also like to be able to hold burn I'm planning to throw at their face in my hand as long as possible before playing it out, so being able to EOT 6 to the face with a helix + bolt, untap and finish the job is sometimes a very important series of plays.

Finally, I've been playing KoTR since the black lotus tournament I played at the beginning of the summer. The argument between the two is usually that Thoctar is faster but KoTR has more staying power and is able to win games just be being totally ridiculous. I prefer to play KoTR because I do not believe it is slower by enough to justify playing what is certainly a much weaker creature in the abstract. KoTR is capable of winning games on his own just by being an 8/8. There's rarely a creature larger than this guy. Even other deck's bomb creatures like Tombstalker can't compare to him. If I'm gonna pay three mana for a creature, it had better be capable of winning the game no matter when I am drawing it. To my knowledge, KoTR is the only creature capable of this in these colors at such a cheap cost. Maybe Terravore could do the job, but he can't buff himself and fetch horizon canopies in board stalls to draw more gas, and if the opponent isn't playing fetchlands he might be pretty small.

I would have played a better sideboard. My new configuration (For blind metas) is -2 crypt -2 pillar +1 Teeg +3 Price of Progress. This can still be adjusted depending on what the meta looks like.

[Gekoratel]

1 zoo
1 Probasco cbtop
1 Rug Goblins
1 burn
1 Urw Fish
1 43 land
1 Mono White Workshop
I was just curious which of these matchups were even/good? Also if you were running Prices would you consider the Landstill matchup even then?

@Vines of Vastwood - You mention your opponents potentially trying to kill a creature during your attack step rather than main phase. This seems poor for a host of reasons because you can get blown out by random cards ie Vines and you let the opponent gain and extra life with Nactal example by playing a R or W land. You shouldn't run cards that help you beat bad players more since there not who you should be worried about. I'm not sold on the card but its always cool to see new ideas.

Thanks for the report and congrats on your finish.

[hungryLIKEALION]

I was just curious which of these matchups were even/good? Also if you were running Prices would you consider the Landstill matchup even then?I consider the goblins, fish, and burn, matchups to be good, the 43 land, workshop, and cbtop matchups to be about even, and landstill to be bad. If I had been playing pop I feel landstill goes to even and 43land goes to unlosable.


@Vines of Vastwood - You mention your opponents potentially trying to kill a creature during your attack step rather than main phase. This seems poor for a host of reasons because you can get blown out by random cards ie Vines and you let the opponent gain and extra life with Nactal example by playing a R or W land. You shouldn't run cards that help you beat bad players more since there not who you should be worried about. I'm not sold on the card but its always cool to see new ideas.

Thanks for the report and congrats on your finish.well, I don't know about that. Even good opponents in my experience usually sit on their sword as long as possible. Josh did a few times in thefinals, granted none were turn 2. But you do raise a good point.

Congrats on your finish too.

[baghdadbob]

Congrats on your finish! Good report. I played your bro on MWS nice guy.

[mchainmail]

I consider the goblins, fish, and burn, matchups to be good, the 43 land, workshop, and cbtop matchups to be about even, and landstill to be bad. If I had been playing pop I feel landstill goes to even and 43land goes to unlosable.

well, I don't know about that. Even good opponents in my experience usually sit on their sword as long as possible. Josh did a few times in thefinals, granted none were turn 2. But you do raise a good point.

Congrats on your finish too.



You think 43 lands is even without price of progress? Between Tabernacle, Wasteland, Port, and Maze of Ith, their control suite is unassailable. Sure you have some burn spells,but Glacial Chasm cuts that option out as well.

In my testing, it seemed to be far more of a 70/30, with Zoo needing to curve out quickly to stand a chance.

[hungryLIKEALION]

You think 43 lands is even without price of progress? Between Tabernacle, Wasteland, Port, and Maze of Ith, their control suite is unassailable. Sure you have some burn spells,but Glacial Chasm cuts that option out as well.

In my testing, it seemed to be far more of a 70/30, with Zoo needing to curve out quickly to stand a chance.

You realize glacial chasm goes away every upkeep, right? I have basic lands to fetch for making wasteland decidedly useless, and can just leave fetches in play to fetch the appropriate dual for when the chasm dies, and burn him then. On top of that, they take 7 years to actually win the game, giving me all the time in the world to draw the burn to kill them.

With PoP it's essentially a bye, but without it it's really not as bad as one might think. Plus, I had 6 GY hate cards on my sideboard sunday, which do a pretty good job of shutting down the deck's engine.

[Otter]

You realize glacial chasm goes away every upkeep, right? I have basic lands to fetch for making wasteland decidedly useless, and can just leave fetches in play to fetch the appropriate dual for when the chasm dies, and burn him then. On top of that, they take 7 years to actually win the game, giving me all the time in the world to draw the burn to kill them.

With PoP it's essentially a bye, but without it it's really not as bad as one might think. Plus, I had 6 GY hate cards on my sideboard sunday, which do a pretty good job of shutting down the deck's engine.

If they Ghost Quarter your Mountain it can get very hard to burn them out and they can also set up Nomad Stadium recursion. I'm not saying it's impossible for Zoo to win, but I don't think you're giving 43 nearly enough credit in the matchup.

[hungryLIKEALION]

Well, the guy there on sunday didn't play ghost quarter afaik and I watched a few of his games. leaving fetches in play still works pretty well though.

I'm not trying to say I think it's a great matchup for me, I'm just saying I don't think it's terrible. But next time I'll have PoP at the ready regardless, so I'm not particularly scared.

[mchainmail]

Well, the guy there on sunday didn't play ghost quarter afaik and I watched a few of his games. leaving fetches in play still works pretty well though.

I'm not trying to say I think it's a great matchup for me, I'm just saying I don't think it's terrible. But next time I'll have PoP at the ready regardless, so I'm not particularly scared.

I personally know that player (It was U/G/R, right?) and he did have quarters.

Also, two Rishadan Port and a wasteland stops your fetch to burn plan easily.

Zoo is still a strong deck that can mise wins, I just don't think it's anywhere close to even.

[hungryLIKEALION]

All right, I'll take your word for it.

But seriously, Price of Progress.

[NQN]

Nice report and mad props for that decklist. After reading your report I copyed it and have been smashing faces on MWS till then. The deck just doesn´t loose...it´s scary o_0.

[hungryLIKEALION]

I'm glad you like the list :) I am very confident in this build, though I hope you didn't copy the sb I used in the tournament, because it's just bad. >_>

[FieryBalrog]

Congrats on the finish.

[NQN]

What would be a good SB?
atm I´m playing:
3 Grip
2 StP
1 Jitte
3 REB
3 Crypt
3 Gaddock

[hungryLIKEALION]

While that's not a bad sideboard, I'm not a fan of REB in this deck. You already have K Grip on the board to take care of CBalance, and that's one of the only blue cards you really care about trying to counter. I'd play the three Price of Progresses in the board over it. Otherwise that's fine.