About the Zoo archetype

[godryk]

Hi everybody and excuse me if this is dumb.

As some may know, I write a monthly research (http://sololegacy.blogspot.com/2010/01/legacy-tier-decks-enero-2010.html) 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 (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29392), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31231), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31237), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30567) and this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30407) 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 (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31063) 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 (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31231) 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 (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=29392), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31231), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=31237), this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30567) and this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=30407) 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.

[Forbiddian]

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.

I used that specifically as an example of a card that could go in either deck. Reanimator is on the rise.

Getting that 6/6 flying lifelink on the table is game against Sligh, but if you can path it you can win that MU easily. Since Path is probably a borderline card for a Sligh deck anyway (SOME burn goes toward creature removal in Sligh), it's not hard to imagine Path seeing a bit of play.

I guess they might still dig Archangel, but Path isn't far out of playable for a Sligh/Zoo deck. Not nearly as far out of playable as Woolly Thoctar or KotR.

Ninja Edit: Said the wrong card.

[Rico Suave]

Zoo is simply a Sligh deck that has more colors. There is no other difference.

Different cards in each one will shift the deck towards a very beatdown oriented version or a very spell oriented version. I can show you examples of a beatdown Zoo, beatdown Sligh, spell oriented Zoo, and spell oriented Sligh.

Zoo/Sligh can shift back and forth along that spectrum of beatdown<----->burn but at heart they are the same exact strategy.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Rico's point is valid.

A Sui strategy or Thresh strategy doesn't become something else because you cut a couple of counters for more creature removal, or a discard or LD spell for another creature. Tendrils decks don't stop being Tendrils decks because you cut one protector for a tutor, nor do Landstill decks lose their function because one sweeper turned into another counter.

Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms.

[crow_mw]

Clearly the border between Sligh and Zoo is somewhat a personal preference. What was most appealing to me, was the definition of Sligh Hanni promoted all over the forums (like here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=392239#post392239) here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=398697#post398697) or here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=391330#post391330)). In his understanding Sligh deck is more of a creature heavy burn deck, than burn heavy Zoo deck. A Sligh deck would rather play creatures only during first or maybe second turn and finish with burn from there.

Many of the posts above are in compliance with Hanni definition. Since the OP is clearly looking for a straightforward method to distinguish a Zoo deck from a Sligh deck for statistical purposes, rather than involve himself in an academic debate, I would recommend creature to burn ratio as the best criterion. According to Hanni definition out of the decks mentioned in OP I would classify only the second one as being clearly a Sligh deck (Edit: on second thought, the first one too, since Marauders and Fanatic are more of burn spells than creatures). Decks running 50/50 creature/burn split are somewhat borderline, but I would suggest classifying them still as Zoo decks, since their gameplan isn't as distinguishable from Zoo gameplan as the one of truly Sligh decks. To push as many decks as possible away from the gray zone I would call a deck in question a 'Sligh' deck if it runs 22+ burn spells.

Now, clearly, the gameplay of a r/g deck with 50/50 creature/burn split is much different from a deck packing in Libraries and Jittes but than again so is the difference in gameplay of different cb/top decks. Aiming for a t3 goldfish, being satisfied with only 6 damage dealt by creatures and being unhappy about drawing creatures past opening hand is clearly a different approach than a Zoo deck would like to employ.

[johanessen]

Burn - Red damage spells mostly, with mogg fanatic, grim lavamancer (tho is a bad choice), keldon marauders, elementals, etc

Goyf Sligh (also called Naya burn)- Rgw: Optimal burn spells with Tarmogoyf, Kird ape, lamavancer, nacatl, goblin guide, the one that pumps itself

Zoo - less burn spells than goyf sligh, but zoo plays: Qasalis, Thotcars, Libraries, PtE, Jittes, Reliquarys.

Zoo and Goyf Sligh are good decks, Burn is a bad deck.

[Nessaja]

I think the reason this is difficult is because they used to be entirely different decks at one point. Zoo didn't Evolve from sligh. Sligh started as a monored deck and Zoo started as a deck with a low curve and efficient creatures. Zoo has much more emphasis on board pressence while sligh goes for the throat. It so happened to be the case that the two were evolving towards eachother because Wizards has been printing cards that are the most efficient choice for both strategies (Tarmogoyf, Nacatl).

I think a card like Mogg Fanatic or Keldon Marauders is a clear indication that you're dealing with a sligh deck. Fireblast and Price of Progress mainboarded are also clear indications that you're dealing with Sligh and not Zoo.

[Happy Gilmore]

Path to Exile and Quasali Pridemage are what define Zoo at the moment. There is little to no reason to not run both in any agressive RGW strategy. There are simply too many strategies that are hosed by one or the other. It is my oppinion that without Pridemage, Zoo would still be tier 1.5 .

[hungryLIKEALION]

It is my oppinion that without Pridemage, Zoo would still be tier 1.5 .

As a long time Zoo player, I will affirm this statement. Pridemage was a godsend for Zoo.

[Happy Gilmore]

As a long time Zoo player, I will affirm this statement. Pridemage was a godsend for Zoo.

Nod. I owe a Top 8 at Vestal, and a Top 16 at vestal to Zoo and Pridemage.

[Rico Suave]

There is a huge problem with this notion that Sligh is somehow "burn-heavy" in comparison to Zoo.

This deck is sligh:

Deadguy Red (PT LA '98 Winning Design) - David Price

4 Cursed Scroll
2 Scalding Tongs

4 Canyon Wildcat
4 Fireslinger
4 Giant Strength
4 Jackal Pup
4 Kindle
4 Mogg Conscripts
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Mogg Raider
2 Rathi Dragon

16 Mountain
4 Wasteland

[troopatroop]

Path to Exile and Quasali Pridemage are what define Zoo at the moment. There is little to no reason to not run both in any agressive RGW strategy. There are simply too many strategies that are hosed by one or the other. It is my oppinion that without Pridemage, Zoo would still be tier 1.5 .

This is dangerous though, because I play a sligh deck with both.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Why are we still arguing about this?

Zoo and Sligh are the same deck. Zoo just indicates multiple colors while Sligh can be mono-red. G/r Sligh is the exact same thing as Zoo, G/r/w/u/b Sligh moreso.

[Otter]

There is a huge problem with this notion that Sligh is somehow "burn-heavy" in comparison to Zoo.

This deck is sligh:

Deadguy Red (PT LA '98 Winning Design) - David Price

4 Cursed Scroll
2 Scalding Tongs

4 Canyon Wildcat
4 Fireslinger
4 Giant Strength
4 Jackal Pup
4 Kindle
4 Mogg Conscripts
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Mogg Raider
2 Rathi Dragon

16 Mountain
4 Wasteland

Instead of calling the burn-heavy version Goyf Sligh we can call it "Piss, Apples, and Porcupines" for all it matters, the topic is just about where to draw the line between what is Zoo and what isn't. Besides, Sligh is usually just the best pile of aggressive red things and burn in a given format. Legacy's best guys happen to be very green, so it's hard to do a traditional mono-red Sligh. Splashing into green gives the deck a huge boost and then it starts sliding towards being Zoo, which is why there's the topic.

[Smmenen]

Zoo is an ancient archetype. Back in the day, it used to be UGR with Serendibs or WGR with Savannah Lions and Kird Apes (hence the name). RGW Zoo is a Zoo deck. R/G, mostly burn with Goyfs, is Goyf Sligh.

[MMogg]

Why are we still arguing about this?

Because this is The Source: Your source for inane, hair-splittingly semantic arguments.

I think there must be a differentiation between archetypes and deck types. To me, Sligh is an archetype and Zoo is a deck type. Deadguy Red, Red Deck Wins, even Lackey Sligh are all Sligh decks, and Zoo seems to fit that mould. The only difference is the obvious movement towards Tarmogoyf and therefore a move towards white removal because red burn just doesn't cut it without paying 2 for 1.

I would say the current Legacy environment has a few Sligh archetype decks around, including Goyf Sligh, Zoo and Boros Landfall type decks (I probably missed others).

[Bardo]

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)?

I'm with IBA, at least for purposes of what you're doing: shading may be a little different, and it's super-easy to be pedantic about this, but we're dealing with the same basic strategy: play some guys, connect when you can, burn them out. I'd separate Burn (which is basically a slow storm deck) from Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo; but if I were writing the analysis, would lump Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo into a single archetype for purposes of metagame analysis. If you want to do some deeper analysis on the burn/dudes strategy, then you can break them out; but for high-level "what's the metagame," consolidate where you can.

To your questions (in order), I'd call that Zoo; it's the same archetype; N/A; depends (see above); To sum up: depends on what you're trying to do (i.e. high-level metagame predictions/trends or archetype analysis).

[yadda]

Why are we still arguing about this?

Zoo and Sligh are the same deck. Zoo just indicates multiple colors while Sligh can be mono-red. G/r Sligh is the exact same thing as Zoo, G/r/w/u/b Sligh moreso.

This post is so ignorant that i simply cannot let it pass.

Zoo is an aggro deck which uses high efficiency cards to guarantee a positive card quality advantage in any 7 card hand over the deck sitting opposite it.

Sligh judges its card choices on the what mike flores calls the "philosophy of fire" in which a card is judged by the number of it that is required to deal 20 damage. For instance it takes 6.9 lightning bolts to kill someone.

thus the difference lies not in the card choices but rather why they are being chosen, and how they are played.

also your above statement "Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms." is also remarkably incorrect. the original zoo deck was called San Diego Zoo because it was full of apes and lions. (kird ape, Savannah lions, and Isamaru were the 1drops.)

[Bardo]

the original zoo deck was called San Diego Zoo because it was full of apes and lions. (kird ape, Savannah lions, and Isamaru were the 1drops.)

FYI. Smennen's right, "original" zoo decks ran also Serendib Efreet and Psionic Blast (white-bordered). San Diego Zoo was a historical variant of the dudes/burn strategy; like the Hatfield variants with Sylvan Library and Path to Exile. Like I said, it's easy to be pedantic with this topic.

[yadda]

FYI. Smennen's right, the "original" zoo decks ran also Serendib Efreet and Psionic Blast (white-bordered). San Diego Zoo was a historical variant of the dudes/burn strategy; like the Hatfield variants with Sylvan Library and Path to Exile. Like I said, it's easy to be pedantic with this topic.

i am not familiar with this.

[Forbiddian]

FYI. Smennen's right, "original" zoo decks ran also Serendib Efreet and Psionic Blast (white-bordered). San Diego Zoo was a historical variant of the dudes/burn strategy; like the Hatfield variants with Sylvan Library and Path to Exile. Like I said, it's easy to be pedantic with this topic.

Yep. When I got back into Legacy, I was shocked that Zoo didn't have blue in it.


Now there's GRwb "Zoo." Although honestly if we're going back then to 1990s naming conventions, we would have called virtually all the tier 1 decks, "Zoo."

[godryk]

I'm with IBA, at least for purposes of what you're doing: shading may be a little different, and it's super-easy to be pedantic about this, but we're dealing with the same basic strategy: play some guys, connect when you can, burn them out. I'd separate Burn (which is basically a slow storm deck) from Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo; but if I were writing the analysis, would lump Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo into a single archetype for purposes of metagame analysis. If you want to do some deeper analysis on the burn/dudes strategy, then you can break them out; but for high-level "what's the metagame," consolidate where you can.

To your questions (in order), I'd call that Zoo; it's the same archetype; N/A; depends (see above); To sum up: depends on what you're trying to do (i.e. high-level metagame predictions/trends or archetype analysis).

Thanks everybody for all the feedback.

I'm just trying to analyze the metagame in order to get a clue on what are the most succesfull archetypes. Besides, I'm doing a monthly ranking, so that it's more fun for me and readers if cold data ends up with a deck being the month's best deck, the month's second best deck, etc.

I just found it funny how two decks that actually have different origins have being evolving to became almost the very same thing. It' just hard to do metagame analysis because you can't avoid mixing up very specific decks (Canadian Threshold, TES) with broad archetypes (The Rock, Countertop). Of course there is an easy solution in attaching archetype breakdowns so that you can compare the performance of a particular archetype's incarnation (Supreme Blue, UWb Landstill, Naya Burn) with more specific decks like Canadian Threshold.

I guess I'm going to lump them into the same category (beautifull expression, didn't know it, see, my english still sucks).

You can close the thread at your discretion whenever you feel it becomes stupid.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This post is so ignorant that i simply cannot let it pass.

Zoo is an aggro deck which uses high efficiency cards to guarantee a positive card quality advantage in any 7 card hand over the deck sitting opposite it.

"Card quality advantage" is not a term that any serious Magic strategist has ever used as anything but a joke.


Sligh judges its card choices on the what mike flores calls the "philosophy of fire" in which a card is judged by the number of it that is required to deal 20 damage. For instance it takes 6.9 lightning bolts to kill someone.

thus the difference lies not in the card choices but rather why they are being chosen, and how they are played.

Which is why the original Sligh ran Cursed Scroll and modern Zoo runs Fireblast.

This reminds me of people honestly trying to argue that there's a distinction between appetizers and hors douerves.


also your above statement "Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms." is also remarkably incorrect. the original zoo deck was called San Diego Zoo because it was full of apes and lions. (kird ape, Savannah lions, and Isamaru were the 1drops.)

This has already been covered.

[morgan_coke]

IBA,

The term "Card Quality Advantage" isn't used per se, but the theory behind it - using the single best cards available regardless of any reasoning beyond raw power level - is the founding principle of every "good stuff" deck ever built.

The best "good stuff" decks tend to run a few card synergies, but the pieces are almost always generally very strong on their own.

For example, I'm going to make a legacy deck:

I'll start with the best creatures:

Tarmogoyf, Nimble Mongoose, Trygon Predator, Dark Confidant

Then I'll throw in the best counters:

Force of Will, Daze, Counterbalance

Now I'll add the best card selection:

Brainstorm, Ponder, Sensei's Divining Top

The best removal:

Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile, Diabolic Edict

And we'll finish with the best lands:

Blue fetches, Blue duals, Basics.

Whoops. I just built Thresh/Supreme Blue/NLU.

Guess card quality advantage DOES exist as a theory.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What you just said was, "People run good cards, so card quality advantage exists".

But that's not why no one refers to "card quality advantage".

People run good cards. Good observation.

Yet referring to the idea of running good cards as some kind of theory like "card quality advantage" that's impossible to quantify is retarded. Essentially this is jumping directly into the pit that people have tried to avoid due to the overuse and distortion for the concept of card advantage- the idea that it would end up just being a nebulous, useless term that could be applied retroactively to fit any deck that does well.

[Bardo]

I guess I'm going to lump them into the same category (beautifull expression, didn't know it, see, my english still sucks).

You can close the thread at your discretion whenever you feel it becomes stupid.

Your English is just fine. :)

Locked.