[Deck - CaNG Finalist] Ewok Zoo (G/R/B Aggro)

[Ewokslayer]

Ewok Zoo (G/R/B Aggro)

Along with Obfuscate Freely and Overlord 95, I have been working on a new design for the old and sometimes successful Zoo template.
The formula is fairly straight-forward, efficient under-costed beaters and cheap burn combine to provide the deck with a swift relentless clock. The use of black over the more traditional white is so the deck can run hand disruption which helps against both control and combo, as well as run Flesh Reaver, which is a pretty scary play against most decks turn 2 and has no white equivalent.
EWOK ZOO:
Creatures:
4 x Carnophage
4 x Sacromancy
4 x Kird Ape
3 x Wild Mongrel
3 x Scrab Clan Mauler
3 x Rotting Giant
3 x Flesh Reaver
Spells
4 x Lightning Bolt
4 x Chain Lightning
3 x Cabal Therapy
3 x Diabolic Edict
3 x Rancor
Lands
4 x Wooded Foothill
4 x Bloodstained Mire
4 x Taiga
4 x Badlands
3 x Bayou
Sideboard
3 x Tranquil Domain
3 x Tormod’s Crypt
3 x Fire Covenant
3 x Tin-Street Hooligan
2 x Duress
1 x Cabal Therapy

Card Choices
Carnophage/ Sacromancy/ Kird Ape: The most efficient beaters in those colors that aren’t super conditional (Skyshroud Elite) or come with some even more horrendous drawback (Ghazban Orge, Kjeldoran Dead).

Wild Mongrel: Efficient, Hard to Kill, Very effective in racing combo where cards in hand is irrelevant.

Rotting Giant: 3/3 for 2 is pretty good. It’s drawback is why there are only 3 in the deck. With two Giants out the graveyard can rapidly become a very empty place.

Scrab Clan Mauler: So far in testing it has proved to be a fairly reliable threat. The bloodthirst condition is usually met and its counters get around Humility.

Flesh Reaver: The biggest creature in the deck and probably bigger than any creature in your opponents deck as well.

Lightning Bolt/Chain Lightning: The burn gives the deck reach and clears away annoying creatures.

Rancor: Reusable creature pump and trample helps the deck get past blockers and turn any one creature into a huge threat.

Diabolic Edict: Its presence in the maindeck is a result of Gro. It is also effective against The Game and Reanimator.

Cabal Therapy: Main deck hand disruption should give you some game against control and combo. With 24 creatures in the deck flashing it back is usually feasible.

19 Lands: The average casting cost of the deck is 1.9 so there really is no need to run that much land. While the deck can sometimes stall on mana it doesn’t seem to affect the results of the game.

Sideboard:
Tranquil Domain/Tin-Street Hooligan: There aren’t too many decks that play both artifacts and enchantments that you need to deal with. So the result is this 3/3 split of enchantment and artifact hate. Tin-Street is currently getting the slot over other hate as it is still a beater and as such can be brought in even against decks with only a few but powerful artifacts. (i.e. Cursed Scroll in DeadGuy Ale)

Tormod’s Crypt: Gro hate.

Fire Covenant: Goblins and Weenie Hate.

Duress/ Cabal Therapy: The rest of the hand disruption package comes in against combo and control to keep them off balance enough for the creatures to do their jobs.

Matchups

DeadGuy Ale: Very Favorable pre and post board. All your creatures are massive threats to them and your curve is so low that their land destruction often can’t keep you from playing your threats. You do need to make sure you don’t keep one land hands, but you shouldn’t do that against most deck. Post board: Deadguy bringing in a whole suite of creature kill to replace some of their less than stellar cards didn’t help the matchup at all.

Vial Goblins: Very Favorable pre and post board. Zoo’s creatures are bigger, cheaper, and come with the burn needed to kill Goblin’s key creatures or to go for the dome when needed. Generally there were two flavors of game, either Zoo crushed Goblins into a bloody pulp or Goblins would stabilize and start to gain control of the game. At that point if the Zoo deck still had burn in hand or drew the burn, Zoo would still win. Lackey never connected during the entire set. Post-Board the matchup didn’t change significantly and Zoo still beat up on Goblins.

Solidarity: About even. Zoo has a consistent turn 4 kill when not disrupted and that can sometimes beat Solidarity straight out. The games where Remand was cast to good effect were usually blow outs by Solidarity. I think the key to the matchup is to win the die roll and keep a decent hand. The addition of Cabal Therapy main improves the matchup but that disruption isn’t always enough. Things should improve slightly post board but not by a great margin.

Rifter/ Wombat: Unfavorable. Rune of protection shuts off your burn, Swords weakens your Rancors. Humility turns all your guys in to weenies (except Scrab-Clan Mauler). The matchup is deceptive in that you think you might win as you get the opponent down to 1-2 life but then they stabilize and drag the game out. This is an incredibly unfun matchup and leaves you with an intense desire to stab Jack Elgin in the head. Your only real consolation is the fact that your opponent is playing Rifter/Wombat and thus isn't having any fun either. Post Board the matchup evens out to 50/50 with who goes first winning. I am currently testing Winter Orb in the board to even further Ewok's Zoo's matchup.

Gro (All Flavors): About even. Gro can stall the ground pretty effectively by soaking up the damage from the one drops and countering/killing the 2 drops until they get threshold at which point their creatures can kill all your one drops. They can usually work their creature kill to 2 for 1 you with a Rancor attempt. However, as they have to exchange life for time sometimes they run out of turns. There didn’t seem to be much difference in results between straight white or red Gro. Post board your matchup improves as the deck now has a long game top deck (Tormod’s Crypt) that can swing the game in Zoo’s favor.

Salvagers Game: Favorable. PreBoard you are fast and run just enough disruption to slow them down for the kill. Post Board your disruption skyrockets and then don't really change their deck at all so you are in an even better position. Therapy, Edict, and Crypt are definite MVPs of this matchup.
More Matchup Analysis to follow ...

[CynicalSquirrel]

Why no Dark Confidant? I've always found this card to be absolutely INSANE in Zoo decks, and a lot of the ones weren't even playing black before.

[Alfred]

Guys, I'm having Zoo overload. No offence Ewokslayer, but I'm not seeing how this deck is that much better than every other Zoo deck. I'm seeing a lot of parallel changes being made, with very few substantial changes. For example, instead of Isamaru and Savannah Lions, you're using Carnophage and Sarcomancy, instead of Watchwolf you're using Rotting Giant, and instead of Swords to Plowshares, you're using Diabolic Edict. Most of these changes seem to be for the worst.

You have added 2 somewhat signifigant things to the maindeck: Flesh Reaver and Cabal Therapy. IMO, Felch Reaver is a poor, poor choice. Sure he may be bigger than most creatures in the format, but against any other aggro deck, he turns chump blockers into -4 to the dome, and is actually counterproductive when blocking. Cabal Therapy however does seem pretty good, and good discard would probably be the only reason I would be at all interested in the black splash.

[AnwarA101]

You have added 2 somewhat signifigant things to the maindeck: Flesh Reaver and Cabal Therapy. IMO, Felch Reaver is a poor, poor choice. Sure he may be bigger than most creatures in the format, but against any other aggro deck, he turns chump blockers into -4 to the dome, and is actually counterproductive when blocking. Cabal Therapy however does seem pretty good, and good discard would probably be the only reason I would be at all interested in the black splash.

Have you ever actually played Flesh Reaver against any deck in this format? This deck goes aggro against goblins and goblins can't really kill Flesh Reaver. Its not like Zoo is only going to swing with Flesh Reaver where the lifeloss would be a problem. It has burn and it has many 1 drops. Turn 2 Flesh Reaver is a nightmare for a goblin player. Given the fact that he's also amazing against control and combo - I don't see any reason not to run him.

[Alfred]

My question would be whether Goblins would want to kill Flesh reaver at all. Once the goblins deck starts to pump out chump blockers and starts to swing back, Flesh Reaver is going to be useless. Considering that every time Flesh reaver is chumped you lose 1/5 of your life total, you'll see that in a race scenario, which the Goblin matchup is, he isn't optimal. I know how fucking awesome Flesh Reaver was back in Vintage a few years ago where chump blocker wasn't even in the vocabulary, but in this format Reaver is going to be a liability.

[Ewokslayer]

Dark Confidant has been tested in the deck, but the big problem with him is he is not a threat. He is a situational draw spell.


For example, instead of Isamaru and Savannah Lions, you're using Carnophage and Sarcomancy
Not being a Legend and not dying to a cycled incinerator on the second turn are well worth the switch.

As for Flesh Reaver, he is card advantage or a swift clock. If the opponent doesn't block you knock 1/5 of their life total off or they block and you kill a creature or two as almost no creatures can trade with Flesh Reaver one for one except for Werebear and that is a trade that I am more than willing to make.

The Goblin matchup isn't a race, it is a beating. All there creatures are crap compared to yours. They have no way to catch up in regards to damage as long as you kill piledriver, warchief, and lackey.
Seriously, you are paying one mana for a 2/2 (as your worst creature) they are paying 3 or 4, I think I can race that.

Generally the way the game plays out is you play a one mana creature, then next turn you swing and play another creature that the can't kill or swing into. Rinse and Repeat. Kill annoying Goblins as needed.

[Evil Roopey]

Dark Confidant has been tested in the deck, but the big problem with him is he is not a threat. He is a situational draw spell.


That's absolutely incorrect. Dark Confidant isn't only a threat, he is the biggest threat in this kind of deck. I see him as your Goblin Lackey, if he isn't dealt with you will win the game. It's that simple.

Roop

[Obfuscate Freely]

That's absolutely incorrect. Dark Confidant isn't only a threat, he is the biggest threat in this kind of deck. I see him as your Goblin Lackey, if he isn't dealt with you will win the game. It's that simple.

Roop
It's correct because 2/1s will almost always get dealt with in this format (you can thank Lackey's presence for that, I guess). That comparison is terrible, anyway, because Lackey comes down a turn earlier and affects the board much quicker.

If you test the matchup, you'll find that Confidant is actually unplayable against Goblins, because you will always want to play something that can block effectively, and because their Fanatics, Sharpshooters, and even Gempalms won't have any better targets. That alone is probably reason enough not to run it (why worsen your matchup against the most prevalent deck in the format?).

Confidant is better in other matchups, but still not optimal. 2/1s for 2 are simply not efficient investments for such an aggressive deck.

Dark Confidant also makes Flesh Reaver worse, both because it slows down your clock and because it makes you lose life. And no, Confidant is not in any way worth cutting Flesh Reaver.

[Ewokslayer]

That's absolutely incorrect. Dark Confidant isn't only a threat, he is the biggest threat in this kind of deck. I see him as your Goblin Lackey, if he isn't dealt with you will win the game. It's that simple.

Roop

That is a horrible analogy.
If Lackey isn't dealt with the turn after it hits play Goblins gets a huge tempo and card advantage swing that is often unrecoverable. If Dark Confidant itsn't dealt with for a turn you draw an extra card. That is not game breaking. Dark Confidant is more like Night Whispers, except it has to survive for three turns and can be counterd by Mogg Fanatic.

[Evil Roopey]

It's correct because 2/1s will almost always get dealt with in this format (you can thank Lackey's presence for that, I guess). That comparison is terrible, anyway, because Lackey comes down a turn earlier and affects the board much quicker.

If you test the matchup, you'll find that Confidant is actually unplayable against Goblins, because you will always want to play something that can block effectively, and because their Fanatics, Sharpshooters, and even Gempalms won't have any better targets. That alone is probably reason enough not to run it (why worsen your matchup against the most prevalent deck in the format?).

Confidant is better in other matchups, but still not optimal. 2/1s for 2 are simply not efficient investments for such an aggressive deck.

Dark Confidant also makes Flesh Reaver worse, both because it slows down your clock and because it makes you lose life. And no, Confidant is not in any way worth cutting Flesh Reaver.

If your Goblin match-up is 9-1 like Overlord says it is, then who gives a fuck if you weaken it slightly to improve other matchups? Even if the matchup was 7-3, I would play him in an instant.

I also think it is odd that you think Confidant isn't aggressive, when he is quite so. He fills your hand late game and early game, giving you more threats and pressure. He is more than efficeint for what he does. He is probably the most efficient black creature in the game and probably the most deadly. If he was a 2cc 1/1, sure I can see you not playing him, but at mana for a 2/1, he is efficient and some damn extreme card advantage.

Not only that, but you are running Wild Mongrel in his place. He is also 2 mana for 2 power and instead of giving you more threats, he gets rid of them. GJ Noob.

[Zilla]

I'm pretty sure the only viable way to resolve this debate is with a steel cage judo deathmatch. Begin.

[Evil Roopey]

::Slams both Brian's and Alix's heads together and they die::

I win.

[Zilla]

I meant a real death match. Get in the goddamned cage. RIGHT NOW.

[Evil Roopey]

::Steps into cage, turns around and shoots Zilla in the head::

[Ewokslayer]

I also think it is odd that you think Confidant isn't aggressive, when he is quite so. He fills your hand late game and early game, giving you more threats and pressure. He is more than efficient for what he does. He is probably the most efficient black creature in the game and probably the most deadly. If he was a 2cc 1/1, sure I can see you not playing him, but at mana for a 2/1, he is efficient and some damn extreme card advantage.
In this type of deck he is not a threat. He can't effectively block or attack without either getting gobbled up or trading with a cheaper threat on your opponents side of the table. Why would I want to play a creature that can't survive combat with anything in a deck revolving around the combat phase?
I agree that Dark Confidant is a great creature, the best black has gotten in a long while, but I think it belongs in a more controlling deck that can better dictate what the board will look like. I know scott has had sucess running Confidant in the black version of Gro for example.


Not only that, but you are running Wild Mongrel in his place. He is also 2 mana for 2 power and instead of giving you more threats, he gets rid of them. GJ Noob. I know this might be shocking, but creatures have two numbers in the corner. Yes both Wild Mongrel and Dark Confidant have the same base power but Wild Mongrel has a greater toughness and can pump to trade with both Nimble Mongoose and Werebear, usually at the cost of extra land. In addition Wild Mongrel is the second best two drop against Solidarity after Flesh Reaver as the game doesn't go look enough for the cards in your hand to matter.

[Obfuscate Freely]

If your Goblin match-up is 9-1 like Overlord says it is, then who gives a fuck if you weaken it slightly to improve other matchups? Even if the matchup was 7-3, I would play him in an instant.
Specific matchup percentages are less relevant than a deck's average win percentage against the metagame it's facing. You'd have to prove that swapping something out for Confidant improves that average in order to justify it. Even if the Goblins matchup is the only matchup that is weakened by Confidant (and I would certainly argue otherwise), it's entirely possible that you'd rather have the extra percentage points against the most prevalent deck in the format than whatever improvement Confidant gives you for less important matchups.

What matchups do you suppose would be improved by Confidant, anyway?


I also think it is odd that you think Confidant isn't aggressive, when he is quite so. He fills your hand late game and early game, giving you more threats and pressure. He is more than efficeint for what he does. He is probably the most efficient black creature in the game and probably the most deadly. If he was a 2cc 1/1, sure I can see you not playing him, but at mana for a 2/1, he is efficient and some damn extreme card advantage.
Confidant does not "fill your hand" in the early game. What he does in the early game is clog up a 2-drop slot with a weak 2/1 body. He has to survive for decades to actually do any sort of hand filling.


Not only that, but you are running Wild Mongrel in his place. He is also 2 mana for 2 power and instead of giving you more threats, he gets rid of them. GJ Noob.
Wild Mongrel may not be the best creature in the deck, but he's far more efficient at maintaining board advantage than Confidant is. It is critical to apply early pressure with this deck, because you have to deal the majority of your damage with creatures. Mongrel is much more reliable at this because he gives you the option of trading cards in hand for your opponent's mana investments (removal and creatures).

Confidant is a great card, but is much more suited to strategies involving attrition and card advantage. Ewok Zoo is a true "tempo" deck, aiming to generate an insurmountable early advantage that leads to a quick endgame. In an aggro-control deck, Bob is fine, but he's poor here for the same reasons Hypnotic Specter hasn't been considered.

[Evil Roopey]

In this type of deck he is not a threat. He can't effectively block or attack without either getting gobbled up or trading with a cheaper threat on your opponents side of the table. Why would I want to play a creature that can't survive combat with anything in a deck revolving around the combat phase?
I agree that Dark Confidant is a great creature, the best black has gotten in a long while, but I think it belongs in a more controlling deck that can better dictate what the board will look like. I know scott has had sucess running Confidant in the black version of Gro for example.

If your opponent has a creature to throw in front of Confidant that puts them at an advantage, then why are you attacking with it? You don't have to hit your opponent to get his benefits. Just sit there and overrun your opponent with an actual unsurpassable army of cheap dudes.


I know this might be shocking, but creatures have two numbers in the corner. Yes both Wild Mongrel and Dark Confidant have the same base power but Wild Mongrel has a greater toughness and can pump to trade with both Nimble Mongoose and Werebear, usually at the cost of extra land. In addition Wild Mongrel is the second best two drop against Solidarity after Flesh Reaver as the game doesn't go look enough for the cards in your hand to matter.

Since when do we take Solidarity into account when putting cards in the main of a deck? Even if we were, Confidant finds answers like Therapy which is really your only hope anyways.


What matchups do you suppose would be improved by Confidant, anyway?

Fuck matches against a specific deck, lets talk archtypes. Control, Combo, and Aggro-Control are all improved a rediculous amount. Getting cards to the point where you can either overrun them, recover from a mass removal, or find cards that are actually relevant in any matchup sounds like a good deal to me.

Now, you will probably argue that Mongrel is a faster clock and is good in the Thresh match because he trades with there creatures. Now, let's think about that. Instead of getting +1 card per turn, you are willing to trade 2-3 cards for 1? Giving them even more card advantage than they probably already have from there Bears and Geese already being bigger then all of your creatures. Of course, you guys still haven't evolved to using Mental Note, so that point is less relevant because in your testing you won't have Threshold as fast as a good build would.

See, you can waste a Chain and a Bolt on a Werebear when you got the extra card for free. You can't easily do that otherwise. And if you are still worried about the Threshold match with Confidant in the deck, then stop being a bad player and run 4 Rancors.


Confidant does not "fill your hand" in the early game. What he does in the early game is clog up a 2-drop slot with a weak 2/1 body. He has to survive for decades to actually do any sort of hand filling.

Wrong again. Getting a an extra card a turn at the cost of 0-2 life is nothing that should be taken lightly. Especially when it's in the early game and you want to have as many threats as possible.


Confidant is a great card, but is much more suited to strategies involving attrition and card advantage. Ewok Zoo is a true "tempo" deck, aiming to generate an insurmountable early advantage that leads to a quick endgame.

That is completely untrue, drawing more removal and more threats keeps control of the board position much more effectively than Mongrel ever will. What happens when you run out of gas because you aren't running Confidant? Confidant is keeps the tempo going throughout the whole game when not dealt with. Meaning your opponent really won't have time to recover because the pressure won't stop.


In an aggro-control deck, Bob is fine, but he's poor here for the same reasons Hypnotic Specter hasn't been considered.

If Hyppie was a 2/1 Flyer for 2, I would call you a moron for not running it.

Roop

[Obfuscate Freely]

If your opponent has a creature to throw in front of Confidant that puts them at an advantage, then why are you attacking with it? You don't have to hit your opponent to get his benefits. Just sit there and overrun your opponent with an actual unsurpassable army of cheap dudes.
What army of dudes? You spent your 2nd turn playing Confidant. If your 2nd turn mana investment doesn't do damage, you're in pretty bad shape.


Since when do we take Solidarity into account when putting cards in the main of a deck? Even if we were, Confidant finds answers like Therapy which is really your only hope anyways.
Trying to kill them as quickly as possible is a better plan than trying to find a Therapy with the 1-2 extra cards Confidant will find you before Solidarity can go off.


Fuck matches against a specific deck, lets talk archtypes. Control, Combo, and Aggro-Control are all improved a rediculous amount. Getting cards to the point where you can either overrun them, recover from a mass removal, or find cards that are actually relevant in any matchup sounds like a good deal to me.
Confidant is terrible against combo decks. Flesh Reaver is better than Confidant against all three of those archetypes, and the two can't really coexist.


Now, you will probably argue that Mongrel is a faster clock and is good in the Thresh match because he trades with there creatures. Now, let's think about that. Instead of getting +1 card per turn, you are willing to trade 2-3 cards for 1? Giving them even more card advantage than they probably already have from there Bears and Geese already being bigger then all of your creatures. Of course, you guys still haven't evolved to using Mental Note, so that point is less relevant because in your testing you won't have Threshold as fast as a good build would.

See, you can waste a Chain and a Bolt on a Werebear when you got the extra card for free. You can't easily do that otherwise. And if you are still worried about the Threshold match with Confidant in the deck, then stop being a bad player and only running 3 Rancor.
Mongrel is better against Gro because he can potentially take down their fatties, yes. Confidant gives you an extra card per turn, but at the cost of tempo and damage. Besides, once Gro drops fat, the values of the cards in this deck go down considerably. Is Confidant still worth it if it's only drawing you a quarter of a card a turn? I'd rather power a Mongrel through their blockers by discarding otherwise useless lands and Kird Apes.

Honestly, I'd probably agree that Confidant is fine against Gro if it weren't for the fact that Flesh Reaver and Confidant have such poor synergy. Again, cutting Reaver for Confidant would hurt the matchup overall.


Wrong again. Getting a an extra card a turn at the cost of 0-2 life is nothing that should be taken lightly. Especially when it's in the early game and you want to have as many threats as you possible.
Stop being so disrespectful and re-read what you posted. This deck isn't even capable of emptying its hand fast enough to run out of threats in the early game, so Confidant's draw can't possibly be relevant until turn 4 or later. At that point, most games will be decided, anyway, and Confidant replacing a bigger threat on turn 2 or 3 will only hurt the deck's clock and its chances of winning the game.


That is completely untrue, drawing more removal and more threats keeps control of the board position much more effectively than Mongrel ever will. What happens when you run out of gas because you aren't running Confidant? Confidant is keeps the tempo going throughout the whole game when not dealt with. Meaning your opponent really won't have time to recover because the pressure won't stop.
Confidant itself is a worse creature than Mongrel. Thus it will create a lapse in the pressure you can generate. In such a dedicated early-game deck, this initial lapse is more damaging than the additional endurance is helpful. Goblins is actually a good example of a deck that takes your approach. It has lots of ways of ensuring gas in the mid/late-game, but it's lack of early pressure costs it lots of games against Gro. Don't tell me that Dark Confidant is a better draw engine than Matron, Ringleader, & Co.


If Hyppie was a 2/1 Flyer for 2, I would call you a moron for not running it.
...Confidant doesn't fly. Can I call you a moron?

[URABAHN]

Rifter/ Wombat: Unfavorable. Rune of protection shuts off your burn, Swords weakens your Rancors. Humility turns all your guys in to weenies (except Scrab-Clan Mauler). The matchup is deceptive in that you think you might win as you get the opponent down to 1-2 life but then they stabilize and drag the game out. This is an incredibly unfun matchup and leaves you with an intense desire to stab Jack Elgin in the head. Your only real consolation is the fact that your opponent is playing Rifter/Wombat and thus isn't having any fun either.

I think the matchup is not favorable for Rifter from what Krieger and I found out. Humility doesn't stop Rancor'd creatures or the burn to the dome. Pyroclasm and Lightning Rift won't stop the 3 toughness creatures. RoP: Red doesn't stop Carnophage, Sarcomancy, or Rotting Giant. That means Rifter's only decent removal spells are StP (which doesn't exactly stop Rancor) and Vengeance (can you survive to 6 mana?).

[Evil Roopey]

Confidant itself is a worse creature than Mongrel. Thus it will create a lapse in the pressure you can generate. In such a dedicated early-game deck, this initial lapse is more damaging than the additional endurance is helpful. Goblins is actually a good example of a deck that takes your approach. It has lots of ways of ensuring gas in the mid/late-game, but it's lack of early pressure costs it lots of games against Gro. Don't tell me that Dark Confidant is a better draw engine than Matron, Ringleader, & Co.

The fact of the matter is, a deck like this will go into the late-game against decks like Gro and any control deck ever, and Confidant is a much stronger card in that sense. But if you want to lose versatility by not running good cards over bad ones, be my guest.


...Confidant doesn't fly. Can I call you a moron?

Yes, but Hyppies effect would suck if it didn't fly and Confidant gains you card advantage without attacking. So, no you can't.

[AnwarA101]

The fact of the matter is, a deck like this will go into the late-game against decks like Gro and any control deck ever, and Confidant is a much stronger card in that sense. But if you want to lose versatility by not running good cards over bad ones, be my guest.


But you are taking out a creature Mongrel/Flesh Reaver both of which can compete with Gro's creatures and adding one that can't under any circumstance. As for control decks if a control deck can't answer a 2/1 then it probably never had a chance of beating this deck anyway.

[Ewokslayer]

If your opponent has a creature to throw in front of Confidant that puts them at an advantage, then why are you attacking with it? You don't have to hit your opponent to get his benefits. Just sit there and overrun your opponent with an actual unsurpassable army of cheap dudes. So I am spending my turn 2 on playing a creature that isn't going to be involved in combat at all? Any turn that Dark Confidant is cast is a turn that the opponent is not facing an increase in pressure. Yes, if the Dark Confidant survives for several turns while NOT doing anything related to being a creature, then the deck can make up for the tempo and pressure it lost by playing the creature.




Since when do we take Solidarity into account when putting cards in the main of a deck? Even if we were, Confidant finds answers like Therapy which is really your only hope anyways. See that was an example. Not the full width and berth of the reasons that Wild Mongrel has a spot in the deck but Dark Confidant does not (I have tried to fit Dark Confidant in repeatedly). An other example would be the Gro Matchup mentioned below and the Goblin matchup. So, Wild Mongrel is better against Solidarity, Gro, and Goblins.




Fuck matches against a specific deck, lets talk archtypes. Control, Combo, and Aggro-Control are all improved a rediculous amount. Getting cards to the point where you can either overrun them, recover from a mass removal, or find cards that are actually relevant in any matchup sounds like a good deal to me. You overrun these decks by dropping lots of damage early, which this deck is capable of without drawing extra cards. The deck has a consistant turn 4 kill. As for mass removal, the most common form of mass creature control currently is Humility and Dark Confidant is as useless under that as every other creature save Mauler.



Now, you will probably argue that Mongrel is a faster clock and is good in the Thresh match because he trades with there creatures. Now, let's think about that. Instead of getting +1 card per turn, you are willing to trade 2-3 cards for 1? Giving them even more card advantage than they probably already have from there Bears and Geese already being bigger then all of your creatures. Of course, you guys still haven't evolved to using Mental Note, so that point is less relevant because in your testing you won't have Threshold as fast as a good build would. Besides the pointless and inaccurrate point about Mental Note (I have tested against just about every single build of Gro, Mental Note builds included) the problem with Confidant against Gro is that it is designed for slow and steady card advantage, not damage. Zoo doesn't win in the long term, Gro does.



And if you are still worried about the Threshold match with Confidant in the deck, then stop being a bad player and run 4 Rancors. Rancor isn't a 4 of because they suck with out a creature and you tend to lose the game when Gro kills the creature you are trying to enchant with it. I would think someone having such a hard one for a card advantage creature would understand the obvious card disadvantage Rancor can present.





Wrong again. Getting a an extra card a turn at the cost of 0-2 life is nothing that should be taken lightly. Especially when it's in the early game and you want to have as many threats as possible. Tha is kind of the point. Dark Confidant isn't scary until it has been in play for a number of turns. Early game I want to play a creature that does damage to my opponent.




That is completely untrue, drawing more removal and more threats keeps control of the board position much more effectively than Mongrel ever will. What happens when you run out of gas because you aren't running Confidant? Confidant is keeps the tempo going throughout the whole game when not dealt with. Meaning your opponent really won't have time to recover because the pressure won't stop. Yes drawing more cards will in time allow you to gain control of the board, but that doesn't stop you from giving up board postion in the first 2-3 turns after you have cast Dark Confidant instead of Wild Mongrel. Those would be the 2- 3 turns Zoo is winning the game.


I think the matchup is not favorable for Rifter from what Krieger and I found out. Humility doesn't stop Rancor'd creatures or the burn to the dome. Pyroclasm and Lightning Rift won't stop the 3 toughness creatures. RoP: Red doesn't stop Carnophage, Sarcomancy, or Rotting Giant. That means Rifter's only decent removal spells are StP (which doesn't exactly stop Rancor) and Vengeance (can you survive to 6 mana?).
Humility might not stop the pump of Rancor, but it does make Slice and Dice and Pyroclasm kill the creatures. And Swords in response to Rancor can be bad news. I haven't tested the matchup postboard enough yet. As I said, you can often get Rifter down to very low life before they gain control so I do have hope for the postboard games.

[AnwarA101]

Given that this deck seems to have problems with White-based Control decks like Rifter/Wombat and that the curve of this deck is a very low is Winter Orb a possible solution. This allows you to play all of your spells fairly quickly without having the expensive spells for those decks coming online.

[Bane of the Living]

Confidant is absolutely made for this deck. What happens when Thresh blows explosives and leaves you in top deck mode? Bob, whether you feel you need him or not will be killed by your opponent over any other creature in your deck. Any noob knows that unchecked bob will lose the game. Your reasons for not including him are lame and seem quite biased. You should just say I dont want to play bob cause everyone else is.

Theres no such thing as 'I dont play confidant because its too slow'. Affinity plays bob, and affinity is the fastest aggro deck in any format it shows up in.

As far as card disadvantage with Rancor, I think you can afford to abuse it. Rancor and Therapy are the only ways in your deck to gain card advantage, why would you bitch about rancor being a liability? Especially when your worst matchup is white.dec

As far as Im concerned any deck with 20+ creatures should include Confidant, Jitte, or Vial.

[Evil Roopey]

Given that this deck seems to have problems with White-based Control decks like Rifter/Wombat and that the curve of this deck is a very low is Winter Orb a possible solution. This allows you to play all of your spells fairly quickly without having the expensive spells for those decks coming online.

Confidant is pretty damn good against white-based control.

[Ewokslayer]

Confidant is absolutely made for this deck. What happens when Thresh blows explosives and leaves you in top deck mode? Bob, whether you feel you need him or not will be killed by your opponent over any other creature in your deck. Any noob knows that unchecked bob will lose the game. Your reasons for not including him are lame and seem quite biased. You should just say I dont want to play bob cause everyone else is.
I would say that if it were true. However, I have tested him in the deck and he was just subpar. He was always the worst card in my hand for the given situation except excess land. The deck runs very little disruption and as such he isn't capable of engaging in combat ever without dying. If he can't attack then he is strictly worse that Nights Whisper. When was the last time Thresh played explosives? I would have to agree that I am biased against Dark Confidant in this deck. It happens to be a bias stemming from many hours of playtesting.



Theres no such thing as 'I dont play confidant because its too slow'. Affinity plays bob, and affinity is the fastest aggro deck in any format it shows up in.
I haven't seen any Affinity decks playing Confidant, but I will take your word for it. Though getting hit for 4 and 7 seems god awful. Confidant is pretty much the definition of slow. He draws a steady, constant stream of cards. One extra card per turn is slow card advantage. The fact that he has to be alive to reap this windfall is why he isn't in the deck. The format can kill an x/1 without any problem.


As far as card disadvantage with Rancor, I think you can afford to abuse it. Rancor and Therapy are the only ways in your deck to gain card advantage, why would you bitch about rancor being a liability? Especially when your worst matchup is white.dec Rancor is in the deck, I just don't think it deserves to be a 4 of as it can be card disadvantage or just suck if they deal with all your creatures. Rancor getting around Humility against "white.dec" is balanced by the fact that if Humility is out then all your creatures die to a cycled slice and dice or rift activations. Getting 2 for zeroed isn't how you win that matchup.


As far as Im concerned any deck with 20+ creatures should include Confidant, Jitte, or Vial. Jitte was also tested but for practial purposes it costs 4 which is outside the curve of the deck. Vial is an interesting idea, but I don't like the thought of the Time Walk it gives the opponent turn one. The deck is all about putting on pressure early and ending the game quickly


Confidant is pretty damn good against white-based control.
Confidant is the bomb against Humility, Slice and Dice, and Pyroclasm?


Given that this deck seems to have problems with White-based Control decks like Rifter/Wombat and that the curve of this deck is a very low is Winter Orb a possible solution. This allows you to play all of your spells fairly quickly without having the expensive spells for those decks coming online.
I like the idea of Winter Orb in the board and I will be testing it. White based control ends up being about 50/50 postboard and Winter Orb should make that a favorable post board matchup for Zoo.

I have updated the first post with matchup info for the Post board Rifter/Wombat (sans Winter Orb) as well as Salvagers Game.

[Evil Roopey]

Confidant is the bomb against Humility, Slice and Dice, and Pyroclasm?

To be fair if they have Humility and you don't have an answer for it, you will lose no matter what you have in play. And yes he is good against those other cards because he refills your hand after they inevitably blow up your board.

[Ewokslayer]

To be fair if they have Humility and you don't have an answer for it, you will lose no matter what you have in play. And yes he is good against those other cards because he refills your hand after they inevitably blow up your board.
I am being fair. Confidant isn't really a solution to white decks as you implied because he doesn't deal with Humility. Also, Dark Confidant would be the only two drop that is killed by Pyroclasm and the only creature in the deck killed by a cycled Slice and Dice.

[Bane of the Living]

I think your missing the point. The inclusion of Bob is for a mid-late game card. You have nothing going for you past turn 4-5 except recurring rancor.
No Jitte, no Iwamori, ect. If your opponent does drop Humility your chances of beating them without Jitte are quite small. The reason bob is so good is because he's a friggen 2/1 for 2 that WILL draw you a card every turn left unchecked. Thats so fucking huge. Play him, draw your card, and attack with him, who cares? rancor his ass and send him in the red zone. The point is he's card draw that does infact swing for 2 damage a turn. Even if he's killed, your opponent had to use precious removal for that lowly 2/1 instead of bigger better fat. No one in their right mind wouldnt kill bob when he shows up. Sometimes you want to play him cause there is a target on his face. He'll also create difficult combat situations where your opponent will block him instead of a better creature just to rid you of his card drawing masterfulness.

I think you should reconsider him, or at least the Jitte.

[Rambo]

I agree with bain, if you run out of gas you really need something to get you going again. You have no solid high power beatsticks, so confidant is neccessary.

[AnwarA101]

I think your missing the point. The inclusion of Bob is for a mid-late game card. You have nothing going for you past turn 4-5 except recurring rancor.


I think you are missing the point. This deck has no late-game. Trying to add one card and pretending that you have a late-game is a very bad strategy. You have to win in the early turns of a game or you lose its that simple.

[SillyMetalGAT]

I think you are missing the point. This deck has no late-game. Trying to add one card and pretending that you have a late-game is a very bad strategy. You have to win in the early turns of a game or you lose its that simple.

Have you ever played with DC? He should be in any aggro deck that splashes black just because like Bane said, he's a must-kill. Maybe you should actually play with it instead of saying the first thing that comes out of your mouth, it doesnt help the deckbuilding process to not playtest something.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I think your missing the point. The inclusion of Bob is for a mid-late game card. You have nothing going for you past turn 4-5 except recurring rancor.
Well, this is an aggro deck. Running cards specifically for the mid-lategame is a terrible idea.

No Jitte, no Iwamori, ect. If your opponent does drop Humility your chances of beating them without Jitte are quite small.
Rancor and Scab-Clan Mauler both help get around Humility, but the main way to beat it is to get the opponent low on life before Humility hits, then finish them off with burn and 1/1s. W/x control actually has a very hard time winning against this deck if they don't have a Swords to Plowshares in the first few turns, since things like Wrath and Humility are so slow.

The reason bob is so good is because he's a friggen 2/1 for 2 that WILL draw you a card every turn left unchecked. Thats so fucking huge. Play him, draw your card, and attack with him, who cares? rancor his ass and send him in the red zone. The point is he's card draw that does infact swing for 2 damage a turn. Even if he's killed, your opponent had to use precious removal for that lowly 2/1 instead of bigger better fat. No one in their right mind wouldnt kill bob when he shows up. Sometimes you want to play him cause there is a target on his face. He'll also create difficult combat situations where your opponent will block him instead of a better creature just to rid you of his card drawing masterfulness.
This is a very good analysis of why Bob is a good card, but I don't think it applies to this deck.

Zoo has to put down as much pressure as absolutely possible as early as absolutely possible. That is where this deck's strength lies, and it is how it aims to win games, since most decks in the format are vulnerable in those early turns.

Running Confidant represents a sacrifice in the early game speed of the deck. Even if that sacrifice is less than a turn on average, it is still poor in a deck that cannot hope to match its opponent in the mid-late game, anyway.

In short, investing 2 mana and a card in something that will cycle into a better threat later is NOT what this deck wants to do. This deck wants to invest the 2 mana and card in that better threat, right now.


I think you should reconsider him, or at least the Jitte.
When I played this deck at the Duel for Duals, I ran 3 Jittes and liked them. They give you a way to randomly crush Goblins, and help against Humility and decks with larger creatures. However, Ewokslayer is right in saying they are slow, and cutting them lets you fit in Edicts, which improve the Gro matchup (a harder matchup than Goblins). Jitte is also similar to Confidant in that it can take several turns (or several turns worth of mana) before it's worth the investment, and it can also lose you the game if the opponent has a removal spell or two. Replacing Jitte with Edict is an acceptable trade of effectiveness for speed and consistency.


Have you ever played with DC? He should be in any aggro deck that splashes black just because like Bane said, he's a must-kill. Maybe you should actually play with it instead of saying the first thing that comes out of your mouth, it doesnt help the deckbuilding process to not playtest something.
Ewokslayer has already stated multiple times that he has tested Confidant thoroughly. I have also tested the card. Anwar has at least played against Confidant in this deck. We have found that, despite conventional wisdom, Confidant is not an optimal choice.

I think you should do some testing of your own, with this deck, before so harshly criticizing our deckbuilding.

[Evil Roopey]

I think you should do some testing of your own, with this deck, before so harshly criticizing our deckbuilding.

I did test it. Sarah playing this and me play Gro. In the 10 games played with Mongrel in there, Zoo won 5 of them. That's a 50/50 match. Now in the 10 games with Confidant in she won 8 of them. That is a significantly better match. We haven't got around to testing the Goblin match and it might have decreased just the match just as much as the Gro match increased, but I don't see why it would have.

[SillyMetalGAT]

@Roop: Me and Bane saw the same results TESTING confidant in this deck, and I think anyone who actually did test it saw the same results.

[Bane of the Living]

You could always not play bob on turn 2?? If you have a better threat then play it. Bob is great to play after a wrath or after wingshards. You want him in the chance that you do get to mid-late game. The reason he's phenominal is because he's a 2/1 for 2 that does this! If you dont have a better 2 drop then oh well. But as far as cost efficient card drawing on a body that swings for 2, Id say he's worth it.

Also, if the early turns are the most important then why arent you playing any acceleration? No ESG, no Moxen? If what your stressing is the first 4 turns or so then I'd highly recommend Chrome Mox.

[Lego]

I hate Bob debates, because they're usually everyone who's ever played him against everyone who hasn't. I've never tested this deck, but when I played Bob in my 4-color aggro deck, he was the backbone. That dude's so good.

[Ewokslayer]

I understand that you don’t have to play bob turn 2. This is were it gets a bit difficult to discuss since you, SillyMetal GAT, and Evil Roopey are all arguing from different perspectives and answering one can distort the argument from another. Evil Roopey has stated that Dark Confidant is a good early, mid, and late game creature. SillyMetal Gat has argued that Anwar is incapable of reading and doesn’t like black cards, and you have argued I think very effectively as to why Bob is good. However, I think you are missing the point as to why he isn’t good in this particular deck.
Mid to Late game Dark Confidant doesn’t “refill the hand” as has been stated. He slowly gains card advantage. How many turns do you think that a deck that has successfully stalled this deck into the late game will keep Dark Confidant alive before either a)using a card to kill it (i.e. Mogg Fanatic or Lightning Bolt) or b) kill it incidentally (i.e. cycle Slice and Dice, Pyroclasm, Lightning Rift, cycled Gempalm)? If the answer is less than 3 turns (the turn you play it and two more of your turns after that) then Dark Confidant is worse than Nights Whisper in terms of filling your hand. Dark Confidant asks the deck to make a trade not in life for cards but more damaging to this particular deck turns for cards. By playing him I am stating that I am going to kill my opponent a few turns later than I could but at the exchange of having more cards in hand. Too many things can go wrong for this deck to be able to make that exchange. Decks like Deadguy Ale and Black Gro can make that exchange because they run a crap ton of disruption, either proactive (hymn, sinkhole, duress, etc.) or reactive (daze, counterspell, etc) to both protect Dark Confidant and to ensure that those decks don’t lose control of the board and the match during those intervening turns gifted to the opponent as a result of playing Dark Confidant over an efficient P/T creature.



Also, if the early turns are the most important then why arent you playing any acceleration? No ESG, no Moxen? If what your stressing is the first 4 turns or so then I'd highly recommend Chrome Mox.
I would think that would be obvious. Every card in this deck is as efficient as possible. ESG and Moxen would make horrible top decks and would be dead past the opening hand. I don’t need them to cheat mana costs, having an average mana cost of 1.9 does that for me.

[Ewokslayer]

Londes.com Article (http://londes.com/article.php?id=874)

In addition, I now have data on the Angel Stompy matchup.

It was expected to be bad, but it is so far the worst matchup ever.
Angel Stompy was able to crush Zoo via evasion, equipment, and Parallax Wave.
Sideboarding didn't help really at all so some more work is going into the board.

Right now I will be testing Dystopia in the board as an Angel Stompy, Gro, Rifter answer.

This matchup might even necessitate some main deck changes assuming those changes don't compromise other matchups significantly.

Cards currently on the bubble:
Sacromancy (Sacromancy seems to deal the most damage to you in the matchups you can afford that loss the least)
Chain Lightning (Replacing Burn for targeted removal shouldn't effect most matchups with the exception of Solidarity)
Diablolic Edict (These might have to be moved to the board if Chain lightning is replaced by targeted removal)
Rancor (Some times golden, some times crap)
Cards currently under consideration:
Plant Elemental
Skyshroud Ridgeback
Black Targeted Removal (probably Vendetta)
Drekavac
No testing on these changes has been made except for Plant Elemental in place of Rancor, which seemed to slow the deck down by about a half a turn.

[AnwarA101]

Good work on the article. I think you gave an accurate description of Rancor and how it can backfire. I would prefer another creature in that spot maybe even Ghazban Ogre? He would definitely make a good case for burn being in the deck and he gives you another 2/2 for 1 (which is essentially what Rancor is).

[Ewokslayer]

With all the life loss it is too easy for the Ogre to switch sides.
That is why I believe the one drop that would be next in line for the deck would be Skyshroud Ridgeback.
Too bad fading sucks.

[Bongo]

This is the direction Zoo should go, props on the deck.


Ewok Zoo (G/R/B Aggro)
...
3 x Wild Mongrel
3 x Scrab Clan Mauler
3 x Rotting Giant
3 x Flesh Reaver
...

Why do you have a 3/3/3/3 configuration?

1. Of all the 2 drops, I have found Rotting Giant the weakest. I would definitely replace a copy with the 4th Mongrel. The remaining Rotting Giants could be swapped for Plant Elemental. The additional toughness makes it kill threshed Mongoose without dying and lets it survive Lightning Bolt.


2. While Diabolic Edict was good against Gro, I have found additional burn to be very helpful in almost all other matchups. Additional burn provides reach and can burn an opponent out on his turn. Wouldn't Dystopia from the board be a more effective card against Gro anyway?

[Ewokslayer]

Why do you have a 3/3/3/3 configuration?

The deck only plays three of each because all the two drops have a drawback and having to play multiples of the same two drop in a given game could stress a resource (life, cards in hand, cards in graveyard) too much for the creatures to be most effective.



1. Of all the 2 drops, I have found Rotting Giant the weakest. I would definitely replace a copy with the 4th Mongrel. The remaining Rotting Giants could be swapped for Plant Elemental. The additional toughness makes it kill threshed Mongoose without dying and lets it survive Lightning Bolt.
I have actually found Wild Mongrel to be the weakest 2 drop in the majority of matchups.



2. While Diabolic Edict was good against Gro, I have found additional burn to be very helpful in almost all other matchups. Additional burn provides reach and can burn an opponent out on his turn. Wouldn't Dystopia from the board be a more effective card against Gro anyway?
I am currently testing Vendetta in place of Edict with Dystopia in the board.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I am currently testing Vendetta in place of Edict with Dystopia in the board.
Have you considered Terminate? Vendetta is faster (answering Lackey on the draw) and can target Silver Knight, but Terminate plays better with Flesh Reaver and of course hits black creatures.

[Ewokslayer]

Have you considered Terminate? Vendetta is faster (answering Lackey on the draw) and can target Silver Knight, but Terminate plays better with Flesh Reaver and of course hits black creatures.
I have considered Terminate but one of the reasons behind this change is to try to improve the Angel Stompy matchup which unfortunately Terminate doesn't do.
I am also trying replacing Sacromancy with Skyshroud Ridgeback in order to manage some of the life loss. Though I am less thrilled with that change because Fading Sucks.

[URABAHN]

I have considered Terminate but one of the reasons behind this change is to try to improve the Angel Stompy matchup which unfortunately Terminate doesn't do.
I am also trying replacing Sacromancy with Skyshroud Ridgeback in order to manage some of the life loss. Though I am less thrilled with that change because Fading Sucks.

I rather liked Chain Lightning in that deck. Not that you'd ever draw all 8 bolts, but even finding 4 of them is a significant chunk of life you've blasted off your opponent's face. You're looking for targeted black removal to improve the matchup vs. Angel Stompy? Smother comes to mind. Do you think AS is prevalent and dangerous enough to warrant Dystopia in the board?

[Ewokslayer]

Dystopia would also be used against Gro.
As for Smother, I think it costs too much for the deck. I like having my removal cost one. It allows me to kill something and drop a creature turn 2.
Chain Lightning is still in the deck.

[Dr.ugs]

Because of my testing with my mono black aggro deck I recommend you to test perish instead of Dystopia.The lifeloss Dystopia causes is really pesky in a deck like yours.Perish does not require BB and gets rid of all green creatures at once.White permanents cause a problem but even without Dystopia you sad you want to manage some of your lifeloss and since you have acces to 3 colors you might board in other sideboard options against white permanents.I still forgot to write the biggest argument against-it is slow which is reaaaaaally bad in a deck like yours.


Smother is a great undervalued card.Test it out.Against decks where you wan´t to cast removal Smother is almost just as good as Terminate(when your meta game is modern then you will see very narrow creatures with more than 3 CC ).I run smother over Vendetta because I don´t need to kill the weenies that early because I can block them with my ones , which are bigger , anyway.

How about Scrab Clan Mauler is it really that strong to deseve that many slots.Even if its very often that you already dealt damage to an opponent I don´t see him as very good choice.I mean its just a 3/3 trample for RG.Sure trample rocks with rancor but I like Plant Elemental more because every one is running 3/3s because of Mongoose and Goblins and Plant Elemental kills all of them.


Did I miss something or did none of you suggest Grim Lavamancer?It´s a permanent source of damage and it works well with 8 fetchlands and all your burn.



just my 2 cents

[Ewokslayer]

Dystopia V. Perish

Perish doesn't kill white creatures or permanents. Dystopia does. It is usefull against both Gro and Angel Stompy. You can't say the same about Perish

Smother

Smother costs two. That means turn two if I need to kill a creature I have to choose between casting Smother or playing a creature of my own. With Vendetta in that spot I can do both.

Scrab Clan Mauler
The Mauler has been very good. It dodges Humility, tramples over weenies, and is almost always a 3/3. Plant Elemental has been tested in the Wild Mongrel slot with poor results generally (primarily against Solidarity and Goblins) I will test Plant Elemental in the Mauler slot and see if that is a better fit, but I doubt the deck can really afford to loss a forest so easily.

Grim Lavamancer
He has been tried in all the various builds of Zoo I have tested. He ends up being slow, fragile, and generally not that hard to deal with. He also has horrible synergy with Rotting Giant.

Changes to the deck.
After some more testing I have been able to improve the Angel Stompy matchup pre and post board while also slightly improving the Goblins matchup. I haven't been able to test what the changes do to the Gro matchup, but I don't think it should change significantly.

-1 Chain Lightning
-3 Diabolic Edict
-4 Sacromancy
+4 Skyshroud Ridgeback
+4 Vendetta

The Ridgebacks replace the Sacromancies as another one drop that can survive all of Angel Stompy's one and two drops as well as not deal damage to you when other decks eventually kill it. Fading still sucks, alot. The other reason for this change is to decrease the life loss in the deck in order to run Vendetta.
Vendetta has been nothing but positive in testing. It will be slightly less effective against Gro than edict was but it can still kill Werebears which is significant.

[Bongo]

Why not Snuff Out instead of Vendetta?


In order to cast Vendetta, you need to have a Badlands or Bayou in play anyway.

[Krieger]

Why not Snuff Out instead of Vendetta?


In order to cast Vendetta, you need to have a Badlands or Bayou in play anyway.

You need a swamp for Snuff Out as well. It requires that you have a swamp for its alternative casting cost.

As far as Vendetta is concerned it is better against smaller and commonly played cretures like Goblin Lackey whereas if you played Snuff out in that spot you would lose 4 life. Life totals are often very close in that match up so Vendetta would always be better.