Doug didn't mention Mogg Flunkies in this article. The naming difference between Zoo and Goyf Sligh is ticky-tack. Before you knock him with comments like this:
You had better write your own critique and provide some counterpoints. Right now you sound like a jackass.
I was bewildered that neither list had Lion's Eye Diamond. I'm running some side-by-side comparison to see if they would have benefited from LED's inclusion or not. I really like seeing Bloodghast in there too.
While the article was not a masterpiece it was nice to get the information about the decks, props to that. For the short time the writing was ok.
I'm a little surprised that there were no Landstill decks, but I love the presence of the Faeries + 2LEDless Decks.
Well, Zoo seems like an abysmal MU for Landstill as Landstill is simply slow for that MU and quite vulnerable to Price of Progress. Also, modern Tendrils-combo is very good vs. Landstill, and Countertop & Tempo Thresh are both close MUs. Lands autowins vs. Landstill and Merfolk is a bad MU for Landstill so judging by that Top 16 (if it's anything resembling the metagame), Landstill would've simply been an abysmal choice.
I was given the chance to move from writing monthly to weekly for SCG. I tried it for about 2 months this past summer (under "Practical Legacy") and I found that I had little time between articles and felt that most of the articles were rushed. It did not seem to make sense from my perspective to put together articles that I really felt were not given the time that they might deserve. When you write weekly not every article will be amazing, but for me it did not really work. I took a step back from the weekly column and I have not written anything recently. Though I'd like to think SCG would accept something if I sent it in.
Thank you for the compliment and perhaps you'll see an article from me some time in the future.
.... Landstill has about 50/50s across the board (other than counter top, aggro and goblins which should be byes) and combo which is very hard to win. Lands should auto lose if they have cunning in the main (no loams makes that deck TERRIBLE lol)
Im really surprized LEDless ichorid T8ed, its just so fragial without LED, LED is the glue in that deck that makes it playable, it seems like you can never win the tempo matchup and your counterop matchup goes from a bye G1 to a 70/30 or worse.
I c h o r i d - my anti blue
Manaless Ichorid- At least its cheeper than standard.
We admit for the sake of the exercise that following is true:
Landstill > Fromat
Non-Basic Hate > Landstill
Basics > Non-Basic Hate
We can therefore logically conlude that
Basics > Format
Since when are Port/Waste Goblins byes? I've certainly beat Landstill more often than I lose to it, though of course most Landstill-players make lots of mistakes. Maybe I'm testing against the wrong landstill lists...? What would you suggest to autocrush Goblins? And Countertop; I've seen the namesake combination itself do a number of Landstill, particularly in lists with access to a relevant number of 3-drops. What makes you consider it a bye?
And Aggro (I assume you're referring to Zoo), what exactly makes them unable to beat you? Lands; you still have 4 completely dead Standstills MD with or without their Loams and their mana denial can be pretty efficient vs. Landstill, particularly 3+ color versions.
Lets break this down one at a time. The lists that are 70/30ish against goblins are the lists with 5-6 basics 4 EE, Nevs disk, Wog, the singelton path and so on.
In the lands matchup the matchup can either be very hard, or a bye depending if you run 2 cunnings ->exterpate loam. (because they cant after that beat Crucible + waste or dustbowl.)
Aggro has troubles vs EE for 1 which is really aquard because you also run snare which is very good vs them. Once again 2 cunning -> pulse of the feilds makes this matchup go from near even to a highly favorable matchup.
I c h o r i d - my anti blue
Manaless Ichorid- At least its cheeper than standard.
We admit for the sake of the exercise that following is true:
Landstill > Fromat
Non-Basic Hate > Landstill
Basics > Non-Basic Hate
We can therefore logically conlude that
Basics > Format
Anyone trying to say that zoo and goyfsligh are too similar to distinguish is incorrect. The difference between the two is not slight; it is large and pronounced.
For the most part goyf sligh runs crappy cards, and zoo run good cards. So if you see bad cards like Goblin Guide, Figure of Destiny, Rift Bolt, or (shudder) Tarfire, then you probabyl are dealing with goyf sligh. If you see good cards like path to exile, sylvan library, and qalsali pridemage, then you are probably dealing with zoo.
Originally Posted by Parcher
I disagree. Before Zoo was a DTB, it played very differently than Goyf Sligh. Its goal was to play tons of threats to get you most of the way and finish off with burn. As of late, Zoo decks have been packing more burn, namely Price of Progress and Fireblast, which resembles GoyfSligh. Though Zoo has a third color, there is really no difference in strategy between it and Goyf Sligh.
Team GIANCOLI!
Goyf sligh is more focused on a explosive early game and is essentially a sligh deck with green splash (sometimes white for path in the sb) for goyf/nacatl (as the name implies) and almost always runs 16+ burn spells and 12-16 creatures
Zoo on the other hand has a less explosive early game and better mid/late game and is mostly a G/W/R aggro deck with many maindeck answers for lots of decks (pridemage for counterbalance/dreadnaught/jitte/etc.) and a max of 8-10 burn spells and 22ish creatures.
while both decks look similar on paper, they play and handle quite differently, with different overall goals... goyfsligh-> goldfishes as fast as possible, Zoo-> straight ahead permanent based aggro.
I made my original post with the intention to elaborate later, but Gibson did well enough already and I'm still on my iPhone. If that wasn't clear enough, I'll go over it again tonight when I'm home from work.
The difference between Zoo and Goyf Sligh is one is a deck to beat and the other is not. But in seriousness, the strategy is the same; Zoo just executes it better.
I would opine that their strategies are dissimilar. Or at least their philosophies. I think it's too oversimplistic to just describe both as "Turn guys sideways then finish with burn" since by that logic TES, ANT, and SI are the same too (Accelerate and/or tutor, cast ad nauseam, draw a bunch, play a bunch, insert storm card here).
Goyfsligh is appropriately named. The sligh really implies a sort of suicide red playstyle with undercosted downside creatures. You are sacrificing long term power for short term gains, similar to deregulation in the financial sector. You'll find these decks playing with 'bad' cards like Goblin Guide and Keldon Marauders. Creatures in these decks are either glorified burn spells, are goyf, or can block goyf while still dealing damage. You try to overwhelm other aggro decks, then go for the face when your dudes are worse than theirs.
Zoo plays with the most efficient one and two drops ever printed in r/w/g. Each card must be exceptional in its own right. There's simply no room for 'good, but...' if you're a creature card in Zoo. You play the control role vs other aggro decks with your obscene amount of removal and quantity of quality creatures with some help (Sylvan Library, Jitte).
Similarities:
Both can use Grim Lavamancer.
Both have a burn package.
Sometimes Goyfsligh splashes white for various zoo stuff, but this is just that particular Goyfsligh player slowly realizing that zoo is the natural evolution (:P)
I plainly disagree with this, additions such as Sadistic Hypnotist give the deck a way to win without fully "going off", which benefits consistency and flexibility much more than speed -other card choices such as tireless tribe can help you win the tempo matchups too-. LED does not help to play sideboard cards, and everyone knows Ichorid dies or lives with their sideboard, LED doesn't enhance playing many lands as needed with Bloodghast, and does not combo with any dredge enabler other than Deep Analysis which is arguably better when you play many lands. Not running LED also lets you more slots to customize the deck.
Your options with ichorid are as followsI plainly disagree with this, additions such as Sadistic Hypnotist give the deck a way to win without fully "going off", which benefits consistency and flexibility much more than speed -other card choices such as tireless tribe can help you win the tempo matchups too-. LED does not help to play sideboard cards, and everyone knows Ichorid dies or lives with their sideboard, LED doesn't enhance playing many lands as needed with Bloodghast, and does not combo with any dredge enabler other than Deep Analysis which is arguably better when you play many lands. Not running LED also lets you more slots to customize the deck.
1) be too fast for hate to consistently work
2) Not face hate (by far the best option lol)
3) play anti hate
4) slow dredge
Now, slow dredging seems good (and isnt terrible) untill we come across decks with dudes that die or die to thier own removal. The slow dredging route has a hidious game vs swords and can actualy have major problems vs decks with humility (which LED makes you too fast for) and so on. The Deck is so much more vulnerable to disruption. Thats not to say its unplayable but its like manaless ichorid vs manaed ichorid in vintage, the trade off of being undisruptable is sometimes you will just die, othertimes your opponent will stare at his manadrains and forces and think "why couldnt you be X". In this format we have daze and force instead and you dont go manaless often but the thing is, you only need about 2-4 total mana to actualy win the game outright, you need a discard outlet, a draw spell and sometimes a deep anal. and thats GG. The number of combo peices is significantly lower and LED ichorid can mind twist as well lowering the threshold of a "kill" to 2 dudes + 2 bridges because you can return a hipnotist and empty thier hand entirely.
Its not unplayable I just see no resiliance gained by making the deck slower and using ghast as a crutch. In regular ichorid you need 2 creatures, one of them can potentialy be played with mana and if you drew the nuts double LED you can even cast a thug/imp off a deep anal.
I also agree goyf sligh is drasticaly differant than Zoo, its like saying boros (when it was standard/extended) is the same as zoo both boros and goyf sligh only care about the 20 points of life, not whatever else the opponent plays.
I c h o r i d - my anti blue
Manaless Ichorid- At least its cheeper than standard.
We admit for the sake of the exercise that following is true:
Landstill > Fromat
Non-Basic Hate > Landstill
Basics > Non-Basic Hate
We can therefore logically conlude that
Basics > Format
Well, for starters, the meta was such that there were no decks with Humility in competition.
LED is also an unreliable discard outlet if you have no Deep Analysis, if you have them you also need a dredger, so the hand has to be quite solid; considering that running LED makes you weaker against FoW as you can be much more easily stalled by removing your discard outlets. Also, LED's mana doesn't play any role without Deep Analysis, so to really use it you need to lightning bolt yourself, a good boost that may make slower creature decks faster nullifying your advantage.
But most of all, LED is better against control and (marginally better against) combo but I think LEDless is better against aggro, which is more and more present.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)