About the Zoo archetype

[godryk]

Hi everybody and excuse me if this is dumb.

As some may know, I write a monthly research on the Legacy Metagame, in order to establish a breakdown of decks to beat for my blog and forum. What bothers me the most about it is archetype classification. I mean, if you are making a final ranking with decks ordered according to performances, you need to decide wether Supreme Blue is the same deck as Countertop feat. Progenitus or they deserve different categorization. It always ends up being a matter of personal prefference, as it's pretty much impossible to classify all decks that perform in Legacy events in univocal and obvious categories.

However, the Zoo archetype in particular is giving me a lot of headaches. A year or so ago I considered (and I think most of us did) there were two clearly different archetypes: Goyf Sligh and Zoo. Zoo ran lots of creatures and things like Sylvan Library and often splashed black for Dark Confidant, while Goyf Sligh (frecuently called Tarmoburn in spanish boards) ran fewer creatures paired with lots of burn. You all remeber Goyf Sligh, don't you? It was one of the most popular archetypes back in 2008.

After Shards of Alara and Brian Six performance in GP Chicago, Wild Nacatl became a Legacy staple and Goyf Sligh-esque decks started splashing white for it. Through the first half of 2009 these Goyf Sligh decks splashing white became a succesfull archetype and started being called Naya Burn from non-Legacy media. That really pissed me off, as if RGW Sligh-esque decks were Type 2 Naya Burn ports.

Whatever, right after Qasali Pridemage came out, it became obvious that it was going to kick ass in Legacy Zoo. Then, Alix Hatfiled made a list and everybody started playing and performing with similar stuff and now Zoo is one of the decks to beat of the format. We're ok so far.

The problem arrives when I need to decide if this, this, this, this and this can all be considered the same archetype.

Naya Burn decks (again, I hate using that name, but it's a necessary evil) have usually being classified as R/G in deckcheck. For example, take this list as a recent example. But now, with all that Legacy hype we're living, people started calling that very same decks Zoo or Naya Zoo. For reference you have the finalist deck of the German Magic 1 event.

So:
- Is that particular deck Zoo or another archetype?
- Is it a different archetype from Goyf Sligh decks, that deck that was pretty much the same just replacing Nacatl for any other creature?
- If it isn't, is it the same that a Zoo deck running Sylvan Library, Jitte and 3cc beaters?
- Anything running Wild Nacatl is now Zoo?

To sum up:
- Is there a single RGW archetype (Zoo)?

[Skeggi]

The problem arrives when I need to decide if this, this, this, this and this can all be considered the same archetype.

They all follow the same gameplan and are either GR or GRW. Alot of cards are the same. Just like The Rock is an archetype, this sounds like an archetype to me.

[Nihil Credo]

I'm doing the DTB update right now, and I define the difference between Zoo and Sligh as follows: Zoo cares about dominating the red zone and dealing the majority of its damage that way, while Sligh considers its creatures mostly as efficient but unreliable burn spells. In that light, the cards that mark Zoo are Path to Exile, Qasali Pridemage, and to a lesser extent Umezawa's Jitte. Of the decks you linked, I consider the first two as Sligh and the rest as Zoo.

[sco0ter]

I aggree with Skeggi.

Why do you bother with one color??

Is Mono-U-Merfolk another archetype than Merfolk which splashes W or G?
Is 5C Aggro Loam another archetype than RGb Aggro Loam?
Is Armageddon Stax another archetype if it splashes G for Choke?
...

Nearly every deck can splash different colors, and in the end, it's probably up to the player's preference and the metagame, but the basic gameplan remains the same. A splash color or few other card choices (e.g. Sylvan Library) really shouldn't make a new archetype.

I wouldn't bother if I call the archetype Goyf Sligh, Zoo or even just plain RG(w) Beats. (as deckcheck.net does).

[mchainmail]

I think Qasali Pridemage and Path to Exile should be the deterministic cards in determining archtypes; Goyfsligh is traditionally RG, and therefore a heavy white splash makes a deck more zoo-ish.

[Soldar]

I aggree with Skeggi.

Why do you bother with one color??

Is Mono-U-Merfolk another archetype than Merfolk which splashes W or G?
Is 5C Aggro Loam another archetype than RGb Aggro Loam?
Is Armageddon Stax another archetype if it splashes G for Choke?
...

Nearly every deck can splash different colors, and in the end, it's probably up to the player's preference and the metagame, but the basic gameplan remains the same. A splash color or few other card choices (e.g. Sylvan Library) really shouldn't make a new archetype.

I wouldn't bother if I call the archetype Goyf Sligh, Zoo or even just plain RG(w) Beats. (as deckcheck.net does).

The difference is that they actually do play much differently. As per your examples, while I haven't played 5c Aggro Loam, the Merfolk deck will still play like a Merfolk deck, the Stax deck will play like Stax, but GoyfSligh you need to treat closer to a Burn deck where when its creatures can't get through "Oh well, that Wild Nacatl was 2 Lightning Bolts", and a Zoo deck plays like a random creature deck with a lot of removal to make sure its creatures get through.

Alongside Nihil Credo's classification points, you can also check if they're playing a basic plains or not. Zoo can afford to and should, but the majority of GoyfSligh builds don't (and shouldn't as it doesn't cast any of their spells).

[Gocho]

You can play Goyf-sligh + 4 Wild Nacatl and Plateaus, Is this deck Zoo or Goyf-sligh?
And what about playing Steppe Lynx in the place of Nacatl?

As I see them, Burn -> Sligh/Goyf sligh/Boros -> Zoo are a bunch of similar decks, with Zoo and Burn as archetypes and a lot of list between them. It's not an easy job...

[Nihil Credo]

You can play Goyf-sligh + 4 Wild Nacatl and Plateaus, Is this deck Zoo or Goyf-sligh?

Sligh. It's not the white mana that makes it Zoo, it's the spells.

And what about playing Steppe Lynx in the place of Nacatl?

Tilts it slightly towards Sligh, IMO. Lynx is distantly related to the Ball Lightning family, it deals massive damage but doesn't stick around.

[Shugyosha]

I'm doing the DTB update right now, and I define the difference between Zoo and Sligh as follows: Zoo cares about dominating the red zone and dealing the majority of its damage that way, while Sligh considers its creatures mostly as efficient but unreliable burn spells. In that light, the cards that mark Zoo are Path to Exile, Qasali Pridemage, and to a lesser extent Umezawa's Jitte. Of the decks you linked, I consider the first two as Sligh and the rest as Zoo.

I completely agree but I think both Decks are just minor variants of the Goyfsligh archetype just as there are Countertop lists and Countertop No/Prog lists or red and black Tempo Threshold Decks. They can be summed up under the same archetypes but it is still good to have more detailed variants.

[FoolofaTook]

These would be my rules of thumb for determining if a deck is Goyf Sligh or Zoo:

1. Does it have the same or greater number of burn spells as creatures?

Probably Goyf Sligh.

2. Does it have Fireblast and Rift Bolt?

Definitely Goyf Sligh unless answer 1 was negative.

3. Does it have fewer than 16 burn spells and more than 20 creatures?

Zoo, even if answer 2 was positive.

The difference between the two archetypes, in my opinion, is that Zoo always wants to have a creature advantage on the board, whereas Goyf Sligh uses creatures as semi-permanent damage sources and will take its damage wherever it finds it.

In your examples: 1, 2, 3 - Goyf Sligh, 4, 5 - Zoo.

[FoolofaTook]

Sligh. It's not the white mana that makes it Zoo, it's the spells.

Instants and sorceries augmented by fast creature damage make Goyf Sligh. Creatures augmented by instants and sorceries make Zoo. Just look at which is more prevalent in the deck and you will usually have your answer.

"Spells" as in "objects on the stack", not as in "instants/sorceries". ~NC

Tilts it slightly towards Sligh, IMO. Lynx is distantly related to the Ball Lightning family, it deals massive damage but doesn't stick around.

Steppe Lynx is more like a hyper-agitated Kird Ape than Ball Lightning. Can attack at times and must sit on others. Easily removed. No evasion.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Sligh is like the Blitzkrieg; it throws a lot of stuff out as fast as possible, using creatures only if they can function similiarly to burn spells or provide massive damage per cost.

Zoo is like Napoleon, it uses artillery cover (removal) to push through its infantry.

It's a strategic difference, even if the lists are similiar.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What if a deck can use either strategy?

[nitewolf9]

What if a deck can use either strategy?

Then it is referred to as "Sloo", as is an a whole "slew" of various combative options.

[FoolofaTook]

What if a deck can use either strategy?

Then you probably look at the overall mixture of spells and creatures and decide whether or not the spells are the dominant effect in most cases or the creatures are.

Goyf Sligh wants to do incremental damage with creatures, maintaining constant pressure, and then overpower the opponent with a sudden finish at the end. Goyf Sligh is more likely to reserve damage for the head.

Zoo wants to over-run the opponent with creatures and then finish with whatever is at hand. Zoo is more likely to use damage to clear the way for creatures to get through.

The differences really are very small overall and maybe the answer is that they're really just different faces of the same archetype.

[4eak]

I used to categorize them in the same way Nihil advanced without flinching. I flinch now. Where do you draw that line? I can show you decklists which sit on the very edge of Zoo and Sligh. There is obviously a set of reasons which would guide us to evolving from one version of a deck to another. Both decks can play very similar roles though.

In the broad scheme of things, I tend to lump the majority of Sligh and Zoo decklists together. They are hyper-aggressive aggro-control decks which can convert the majority of their control cards into raw win condition factors (PtE/StP as exceptions). It just so happens that Tarmogoyf compresses Sligh into a deck which is similar to Zoo not just in card choices, but in strategy and role as well. In this one creature, the most aggressive (and efficient forms of) damage also meet the best defender and role-switching aggro-control creature. Tarmogoyf, to some extent, welded these two decks together. Whether or not they choose to make that burn-conversion is entirely match and metagame dependant; obviously they would have different average amounts of time for choosing to play the control role vs. the aggro role. But, within Tarmogoyf and other additions, I'm not sure it is a big enough difference to merit distinction.

[Burn] ---- [Sligh] ---- [Zoo] ---- [Stompy Aggro] ---- [Combat Synergy Aggro] and [Prison Stompy Aggro]

I think the ends of this spectrum, including Burn, burn-heavy Sligh decks, some stompy decks (Berserk Stompy), Prison, and Combat Synergy all too often function as combo decks (small combos). Plain Stompy Aggro is the classic "warrior", which is just "tank and spank". Towards the middle though, Creature-heavy Sligh and Zoo are varying degrees of aggressive aggro-control decks which throw undercosted random stuff together.

Choosing the dominance of role isn't so easy. They play very similar roles in a broad view of this game. I draw the line at Tarmogoyf in this case. If you are playing Mono Red Spark/Hellspark Elemental + Burn.dec, that's pretty obvious. Once you play Goyf though, your capacity to play the control role becomes too effective for us to relegate your deck to merely a Burn deck which is choosing to play efficient burn spells (i.e. creatures).




peace,
4eak

[Nihil Credo]

What if a deck can use either strategy?

All decks with creatures and burn can do it. The question is which strategy are they optimised for.

I used to categorize them in the same way Nihil advanced without flinching. I flinch now. Where you draw that line? I can show you decklists which sit on the very edge of Zoo and Sligh. There is obviously a set of reasons which would guide us to evolving from one version of a deck to another. Both decks can play very similar roles though.

It would be silly to expect to be able to draw a perfect line. This is only possible when we agree that a set number of cards match 1-to-1 to a label (eg. Supreme Blue = CounterTop + Firespout + RWM).

Usually, we imagine the deck pit up against common opponents and try to figure out which game plan it will want to adopt more often - kill that Lord of Atlantis or start bolting the dome? Turn 2 Tarmogoyf or keep up Spell Snare + Brainstorm? This is so abstract that it can't be a perfect science but, as long as only a small minority of decklists end up in gray areas*, it won't hurt the ability of your categorisation to detect larger trends in the overall archetype - which is what you're interested in, not in having perfect labels.

* Which is the case in Zoo vs. Sligh: the weird hybrids are the exception in top 8 decklists, quite possibly because they excel at neither plan and run into trouble against both ground stoppers (eg Elspeth, multiple Goyfs) and anti-PoF tools (eg Kitchen Finks, Pulse, and of course CB)

[4eak]

@ Nihil Credo

All decks with creatures and burn can do it. The question is which strategy are they optimised for.

Tarmogoyf optimizes you for both roles. The role differences between Zoo and Sligh has shrunk dramatically with this card. I don't think there is enough of a difference for us to to really split them. If Counterbalance.dec (of which there are so many flavors) is going to be grouped together, then I think it would be a good idea to put Zoo and Sligh together -- Goyf+Burn.dec.




peace,
4eak

[Forbiddian]

IBA actually has a good point.

There's going to be some point where the deck is equally optimized for beatdown and equally optimized for burn out. Or at least decks where it's impossible to tell which it's better at.

Say you started out as a Zoo deck beating Merfolk, but then ANT became more common, so you cut a creature or two for more burn. Then you cut a bit more for more burn. When are you Goyf Sligh?



For me, the hard and fast dividing line people are looking for is the presence of any 3cc creatures. The presence of Knight of the Reliquary/Woolly Thoctar is a signature Zoo move that's never used in more burn-oriented strategies.

A lot of cards that clue you into the presence of "Zoo" could easily be part of a "Sligh" strategy, and vice-versa.

There are cards like Path, Jitte, and Sylvan Library that seem to indicate Zoo, and there are cards like Price of Progress or Fireblast x4 that seem to indicate Sligh, but individually those tests could just be the result of a metagame decision.

Path might come in where Reanimator or Life.dec are present, even for a Sligh deck, for instance.


The other test that makes sense to me is the "basic plains" test. But whatever metric you use, it should be as objective and narrowly-tailored as possible.



Incidentally, I define the last two as Zoo and the first four as Sligh variants.

http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30567
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30407

In my eyes, this is a Sligh variant:
http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31237


@4eak: The dividing line is partly academic (knowing the roots of the deck), but it has important consequences to strategies against it. "Burn range" for a Zoo deck is ~6-7 life, but "Burn range" for a Sligh deck extends to 12 life. Questions of "when to chump block" vary quite wildly depending on the variant your opponent is playing.

Of course, there's always a sliding scale and it will change depending on the particular contents of your opponent's draw, but there are enough Zoo/Goyf Sligh players out there that you can actually break them up into two useful groups and then talk about them separately when discussing metagame shifts.

On your point about how CB decks are all clumped together: There aren't that many people playing them anymore, and there are a dozen delineations that players make. To make a split, the fragment categories each need a useful sample size AND the decks have to be sufficiently different.

[Otter]

The dividing line for me is usually Path to Exile. That card represends a decisive shift in strategy. If you play Path, you clearly want to be forcing your creatures through for damage and don't mind playing a card soley dedicated to it, therefore you are Zoo. If you skip Path, then creature-based damage is auxiliary to your strategy, not central to it and you're Goyf Sligh.