[Article] Breakdown - SCG $5K, October 2009 [Archive]

Aggro_zombies

10-14-2009, 06:05 AM

The Source: your source for good ole fashioned trollin'!
Because apparently people who write articles without compensation and immediately following a major tournament are mentally deficient!

Like the article, even though there wasn't much to it (not much to say yet, really). Vines of the Vastwood is an interesting choice in Zoo, but I'm not sure why it's better than another burn spell. The burn spell doesn't require combat, and saving a creature from something like Swords seems mostly irrelevant when you've got that creature base. I guess it could save a guy from Firespout, but it doesn't save anything from EE or Wrath.

In the end, it just seems like a green burn spell. Then again, I wasn't there, and the guy obviously did something right to place as well as he did. Zoo isn't my style of deck, but it would be interesting to hear thoughts on that card from people who actually played it.

I was wrong on the Ghasts. Go figure. It will be interesting to see which of those two designs proves to be superior in the long run.

Belcher is pretty fuckin' lulzy. I have to hand it to him, that was a hellavu choice.

I continue to be unimpressed with Countertop-Progenitus, but the black list is certainly interesting. That something similar has done well in the past is just icing on the cake.

I'm surprised to see only one Merfolk in the Top 16. Were there not enough Islands at Philly? Either that, or the continuing popularity of Zoo makes Merfolk less attractive. I'd like to see an article looking at the matchup between those two in-depth, since I don't have the time to test it myself and dislike playing Zoo-style decks anyway.

That Grixis list is...a fluke? I'm honestly not sure how it gets there without Tombstalker. It can play the tempo game really well, but Bitterblossom isn't a tempo card at all and Tombstalker is the deck's only realistic clock, short of a Jitted-out Faerie removing both counters to become a 5/5 every turn. Tempo decks really need fast clocks to capitalize on their disruption, but...I'm just not feeling it here.

The HexDepths deck is cute. Probably not really viable in the long run if people come expecting it, but cute nevertheless.

Intuition-Loam in 42land! Nice. It looks somewhat similar to what I did with Aggro Loam a while back, so that makes me happy.

Canadian Thresh lists have barely changed for, like, forever. Moving on...

Stax? Stax? Jesus Christ.

I still contend it's a bad deck, so that just makes the first place finish Mr. Peters got with it that much better. Congrats!

georgjorge

10-14-2009, 06:57 AM

Really nice to see some LED-less Ichorid, as well as some innovative decks, up there. I don't really "get" the Hexmage deck though - I can't figure out how the Pox-style disruption (Sinkhole, Smallpox) fits into the deck as it doesn't protect the combo or help with Goyf beatdown. Also, is Bloodgast really that good in a deck that can't sac it for Zombie tokens or Dread Return ? It would seem that a 2/1 attacker would repeatedly run its head into a Mongoose, Goyf, or just be ignored because it's too slow to be a real threat. He obviously must be on to something, maybe someone can explain it better...

Soldar

10-14-2009, 08:17 AM

...Also, is Bloodgast really that good in a deck that can't sac it for Zombie tokens or Dread Return ? It would seem that a 2/1 attacker would repeatedly run its head into a Mongoose, Goyf, or just be ignored because it's too slow to be a real threat. He obviously must be on to something, maybe someone can explain it better...

I haven't proxied up this list and tested it, but it looks like Bloodghast turns the normally semi-disadvantageous spells of Smallpox and Cabal Therapy into much less fair versions. You barely think twice about sacrificing/discarding Bloodghast to Smallpox, and similar with Therapy.

I think the list is kind of rough still, but I think the positive Bloodghast/Therapy/Smallpox interactions are pretty viable on their own.

Cthuloo

10-14-2009, 09:31 AM

I haven't proxied up this list and tested it, but it looks like Bloodghast turns the normally semi-disadvantageous spells of Smallpox and Cabal Therapy into much less fair versions. You barely think twice about sacrificing/discarding Bloodghast to Smallpox, and similar with Therapy.

I think the list is kind of rough still, but I think the positive Bloodghast/Therapy/Smallpox interactions are pretty viable on their own.

It works very similar to old nether spirit for pox, but it can return to play much faster. and can lead to really broken plays. Imagine: play smallpox, discard 'ghast, play fetch, 'ghast comes back, play cabal therapy, sac 'ghast to therapy, crack fetch, 'ghast is back => swing (maybe).

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 09:40 AM

The guy playing dark depths-hexmage combo won atleast 1 match on Sunday by winning game 1 and than stalling game 2 (which he would have lost if it was finished).

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 09:44 AM

Phoenix Ignition

10-14-2009, 11:44 AM

I enjoyed the article, it gave a decent breakdown and enough detail to get newcomers interested. It doesn't matter how in depth an article is going to be written, people here will bitch about it, but as long as it keeps the Legacy interest up it's definitely a good thing.

"He doesn't know the difference between Goyf Sligh and Zoo" -- oh who gives a shit, the people who don't know the difference will still get a good overview of that archtype, even if like 8 cards are different. They're almost the same thing anyway, and if he actually broke it down into that specific of deck types he would have to give us 15 different kinds that made it to top 16...

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 11:59 AM

Bardo

10-14-2009, 12:59 PM

Sigh. I'm sure Doug was given a very short amount of time to turn-around a hand-off of lists into an article (only a day or two). Also, we don't know if SCG added the deck titles or Doug (about the Zoo / GS thing). All of the decklists get fed into a back-end database -- and they have to get a name. If the author doesn't provide one, TF or Craig will do it (any maybe not to the author's liking) and I've seen it do things to my articles that were not intended.

As for Doug being one of the few SCG writers -- I encourage you to give it a shot. It's a huge pain in the ass. He's the only one still left after a couple of years. You may remember:

Initial line-up:

* Me
* Anusien
* Machinus
* Hi-Val

Quit: Me
Replaced by: Nightmare

Quit: Machinus
Replaced by: No one

Quit: Nightmare
Replaced by: Anwar (sorta)

Quit: Anusien
Replaced by: No one

Quit: Anwar (sorta)
Replaced by: No one

Last man standing: Hi-Val

Keep up the good work, man. They can't all be golden.

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 01:06 PM

Aggro_zombies

10-14-2009, 02:21 PM

Anwar doesn't write for them anymore? I've always liked everything Anwar wrote and that goes for the rest of you guys as well. Sometimes though I feel like it's better if nothing is written than to give bad advice like this, "Zoo decks have another pounder in the form of Mold Adder" or "maybe the deck wants Tattermunge Fanatic alongside its Mogg Flunkies." There isn't a card named Tattermunge Fanatic in the game although I can assume he meant Tattermunge Maniac.
Some of that is less his fault and more of an editor thing. If the author is referencing nonexistent cards, it's usually the editor's job to clarify, or at least point it out to the author. People slip up from time to time, but someone else should catch that.

Let's face it: the biggest difference between Goyf Sligh and Zoo is the addition of white to the latter. Would you rather we just lump them together as "Base Red-Green Fast Aggro"? There aren't many fundamental differences between the two of them.

Give the guy a break for espousing weird cards. morgan_coke still exists on these boards FFS, and everyone mis-evaluates something at some point (a lot of people didn't think Bloodghast would be that great, for example).

Hoojo

10-14-2009, 02:47 PM

Finn

10-14-2009, 02:47 PM

...but the most troubling thing for me is the large number of 3-ofs. This implies that they used to be four-ofs, but were shaved back to make room for different cards...This was in reference to the Zoo list that sorta isn't Zoo.

Doug, I commonly end up with 3-ofs for a different reason. The card taxes some sort of resource heavily.

In this case, I look at

Goblin Guide
Figure of Destiny
Grim Lavamancer

and I really don't want to see the third copy of any of these in most games. In a deck with little to no library manipulation, I would have done the same thing as this guy given these cards.

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 02:54 PM

Doug's writing is awesome. Keep it up. I miss the whole cast of writers and wish it would come back. I can't stand people knocking the writers who haven't tried it themselves and I'm not talking about writing two or three articles; try a year of weekly articles and see how your opinion changes.

I've written for a number of financial websites and newsletters. It's not that I think it is easy to be a writer, I know it isn't. He should do something else if he isn't going to do it well.

Phoenix Ignition

10-14-2009, 02:55 PM

Wrong.
Right.

(See? I can be a moron trying to argue a point too!)

Not to mention he gave matchup analysis that was completely inaccurate. All I'm saying is he shouldn't be one of the very few writers starcity has for legacy when he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

He had a short time to say a little about a lot, try to comment on each of the decks while pointing out the interesting changes that people made with them. Obviously he didn't have time to playtest each, so you can't trust everything he says or look too deep into it, it's just a glance at each of the decks, trying to break it down for those less informed.

Do you really think this article was meant for top end players? Hell no, you can break the decks down yourself... it's written for the newcomers so stop whining about everything you see...

EDIT:

Why do I even feed the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I

Jim Higginbottom

10-14-2009, 02:59 PM

Phoenix if you're gonna quote me please do it in its entirety. There are several differences between zoo and goyf sligh with the addition of white being a small one. The amount of burn coming from goyf sligh is probally one of the biggest ones. Late game playing Vexing Shusher followed by PoP simply can't be answered by decks like Landstill without them having more counters than you have lands where Zoo never main decks shusher and a late game PoP from them would usually end in a draw anyway since they run so many non-basics.

Phoenix Ignition

10-14-2009, 03:10 PM

Phoenix if you're gonna quote me please do it in its entir

I did, your entire post is quoted. Not to mention the post you happened to just delete was your amazing opener again, "Wrong."

Obviously there are differences between goyf sligh and zoo, but to say they each need their in-depth differences analyzed is just plain stupid, this article isn't supposed to completey say what each deck did, or it would be 20 pages long and no one would read it.

Again, if you think this writeup is meant for people who know all of the differences between the two decks then you're flat out wrong, no one at a high level needs someone to tell them what each deck is. This is written for people of lower understanding of legacy.

And the differences between goyf sligh and zoo are so very small compared to the differences between any of the other decks here and zoo/goyf sligh that grouping them together frankly makes sense.

Troll on though...

hi-val

10-14-2009, 03:19 PM

Thanks for the replies. I had one of the craziest schedules I've had in a long time - I had two legal briefs due in 8 days, and I only got the necessary info to write one four days before it was due, and it had a major constitutional error that I had to figure out a way around for. I'm very pleased that folks liked this article; I thought about just telling Craig that I couldn't write this week, but I really wanted to talk about the Philly tournament and get the info out. The decklists went up Sunday night after my deadline (which was extended) had passed, and I wrote the last of my legal brief at 6:30am on Monday morning, got an hour of sleep, went to class and then wrote this to get it in to the editor so there would be something to read on Monday night at midnight : ) The deck titles were provided by SCG and to be honest, I think Zoo and Goyfsligh are pretty similar decks, enough so to group them together like I did with the Dredge decks or have done with Threshold in the past (see my GenCon analysis).

I'm also pretty pumped about LED-less Dredge; like I mentioned, look for next week's article for more on it. I am excited especially because it's another inexpensive deck for the format, and while I can't say that it's exactly fun, I'm glad to see it getting better! Bloodghast has me thinking of all sorts of other (awful) ideas, like different Pox decks or even ones with Smokestack tricks. Could this be the card Blax needed to makes Braids and Stax really shine?

Also, what boggles me is that people who consistently kvetch about my articles still read them and decide that their opinion is valuable enough to other people that they need to share. For example, I have a friend here at school who is very bright and also happens to really like Twilight books. I don't care for them, and I especially don't care for them to the point where I still read every one anyway and then tell her why I think they're stupid, because my time is more valuable than that and I know her time is too.

Phoenix Ignition

10-14-2009, 03:25 PM

First off, I thought the article was well done enough to hopefully draw in more legacy support and players.

Second,

I don't care for them, and I especially don't care for them to the point where I still read every one anyway and then tell her why I think they're stupid, because my time is more valuable than that and I know her time is too.
But... it's the internet. Aside from porn and bitching, what else is there?

Hoojo

10-14-2009, 03:26 PM

And as far as Doug Linn...I've said the same thing to him over on SCG and in private messages without a warning over there. The guy thinks Mogg Flunkies should be in Goblins and doesn't know the difference between Goyf Sligh and Zoo.

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:

Wrong. Not to mention he gave matchup analysis that was completely inaccurate. All I'm saying is he shouldn't be one of the very few writers starcity has for legacy when he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

You had better write your own critique and provide some counterpoints. Right now you sound like a jackass.

I'm also pretty pumped about LED-less Dredge; like I mentioned, look for next week's article for more on it. I am excited especially because it's another inexpensive deck for the format, and while I can't say that it's exactly fun, I'm glad to see it getting better!

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.

paK0

10-14-2009, 03:54 PM

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.

Phoenix Ignition

10-14-2009, 04:09 PM

I'm a little surprised that there were no Landstill decks, but I love the presence of the Faeries + 2LEDless Decks.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is it just the fact that a lot of the time a landstill player will go to time and the result of a long day of matches means you get some of your "Wins" replaced by draws?

Or was it just a poor metagame for them?

Eldariel

10-14-2009, 05:08 PM

What are people's thoughts on this? Is it just the fact that a lot of the time a landstill player will go to time and the result of a long day of matches means you get some of your "Wins" replaced by draws?

Or was it just a poor metagame for them?

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.

AnwarA101

10-14-2009, 06:10 PM

Anwar doesn't write for them anymore? I've always liked everything Anwar wrote and that goes for the rest of you guys as well. Sometimes though I feel like it's better if nothing is written than to give bad advice like this, "Zoo decks have another pounder in the form of Mold Adder" or "maybe the deck wants Tattermunge Fanatic alongside its Mogg Flunkies." There isn't a card named Tattermunge Fanatic in the game although I can assume he meant Tattermunge Maniac.

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.

undone

10-14-2009, 06:15 PM

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.

.... 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.

Eldariel

10-14-2009, 06:50 PM

.... 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)

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.

undone

10-15-2009, 09:16 AM

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.

hungryLIKEALION

10-15-2009, 11:05 AM

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.

hi-val

10-15-2009, 12:45 PM

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.

Explain further? I think everyone reading would benefit from you elaborating on this statement!

quicksilver

10-15-2009, 01:09 PM

Explain further? I think everyone reading would benefit from you elaborating on this statement!

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.

Genericcactus

10-15-2009, 01:10 PM

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.

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.

Gibsonmac

10-15-2009, 02:52 PM

Explain further? I think everyone reading would benefit from you elaborating on this statement!

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.

hungryLIKEALION

10-15-2009, 03:24 PM

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.

Hoojo

10-15-2009, 04:09 PM

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.

TotallySweet

10-15-2009, 06:45 PM

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)

Arrowni

10-16-2009, 10:56 AM

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 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.

undone

10-16-2009, 11:21 AM

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 follows

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.

Arrowni

10-16-2009, 01:56 PM

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.

Parcher

10-16-2009, 11:11 PM

Also, LED's mana doesn't play any role without Deep Analysis, so to really use it you need to lightning bolt yourself

http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardscans/MAGODY/cephalid_coliseum.jpg

Hanni

10-16-2009, 11:31 PM

Sligh and Zoo are two fundamentally different decks. The color splash has absolutely nothing to do with one being Sligh and one being Zoo. That is rediculous. R/G/w Sligh is the best version of Sligh, but it's still Sligh.

The difference? Zoo is primarily an aggro deck with a large amount of creatures and just enough burn to kill some blockers or finish the opponent off in the end game. Sligh is primarily a burn deck with a large amount of burn and just enough creatures to swing for some very efficient damage per mana cost guys in the early game.

I completely disagree with everyone saying that Sligh sucks and that Zoo is the natural evolution. They are different decks; if anything, I'd say Sligh is the natural evolution of Burn. Sligh is far more aggressive than Zoo and has a much faster clock. It's late game is weaker than Zoo but stronger than Burn, it's clock is faster than both Zoo and Burn, and it's a very powerful deck and strong deck choice in such an aggro heavy metagame. The manabase is also much more stable than Zoo's, which makes it a strong(er) choice in a metagame full of Stifle/Wasteland-fueled tempo decks like Canadian Thresh.

For reference:

R/G/w Naya Sligh

// Lands
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [ZEN] Arid Mesa
4 [B] Taiga
1 [A] Plateau
1 [U] Savannah
4 [RAV] Mountain (2)
1 [8E] Forest (3)

// Creatures
2 [TO] Grim Lavamancer
4 [ZEN] Goblin Guide
4 [ALA] Wild Nacatl
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf

// Spells
4 [A] Lightning Bolt
3 [LRW] Tarfire
4 [LG] Chain Lightning
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [FD] Magma Jet
4 [DLM] Incinerate
4 [VI] Fireblast

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [EX] Price of Progress
SB: 4 [CFX] Path to Exile
SB: 4 [SHM] Vexing Shusher
SB: 3 [TSP] Krosan Grip

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.

In such an aggressive deck like Sligh, Goblin Guide > Kird Ape. The deck runs too many burn spells that it has to run what you think are suboptimal burn spells like Tarfire, Rift Bolt, Magma Jet, and Incinerate. It's unfair to assume that, just because those burn spells are less efficient burn spells than Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, makes them crappy cards. It's also unfair to assume that Kird Ape > Goblin Guide, when Guide's drawback is irrelevant when the opponent is dead before it matters. The deck performs very well, and while Zoo is a great deck, Sligh could just as easily be a DTB if people actually played it.

The deck is so aggressive early on with its beat package and runs more than enough burn to wipe away all early blockers, quickly switching to a straight burn plan once the opponent's life total drops down enough to kill them before they can mount any type of counter-offensive. Considering that the format is well informed that the metagame is heavy with aggro, and is running cards like Firespout sometimes even in the maindeck, I think its fair to assume that Sligh has its niche against certain matchups.

But hey, I'm not worried about convincing anybody, so you can have whatever opinion you want.