Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
This deck looks good, but I do question your landstill and threshold matchups. Honestly these numbers seem a little off. Thresh doesn't just roll over to non reccurring wasteland and their threats are bigger than yours, Tarmogoyf in particular comes to mind here. Also in my experience landstill has to have an extremely slow start in order to lose very often to any kind of zoo deck.
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
I don't think this can be called Zoo anymore... It looks more like Sligh splash green AND white to me.
That out of the way, I'm not sold on your decision NOT to run Helix over Incinerate. You've already got 8 cards in there that require white and 12 that require green (I'm counting the Kird Apes here, since they're crap without Forests, obv). Your manabase seems like it can handle Helixes (Helixi?). Also, you might want to cut one of each dual and a fetchland to it in basics of each color (any maybe 1 Fireblast).
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
The plural of Helix is Helices.
Your matchup numbers make no sense what so ever.
TES can easily deal with Pyrostatic Pillar. Wish for Hull Breach, kill Pillar, Combo out. Going OMG WASTELAND doesn't do much, since you cannot recur, tutor, to even use draw spells to find it.
Thresh being hurt be Wasteland... I am forced to go "Huh?" You were going against the version with BEARS (as opposed to 'Goyfs). Even RECURRING Wastelands don't do terrible amounts of damage to Thresh when they have a bear down, and you have no single spell to deal with a Thresh'd bear.
On your mana base: If I am reading this correctly, you are running 9 Fetches, 8 fetchable lands, and 0 basics. After boasting about how awesome Wasteland is, why is your deck more vulnerable to it than every other deck you list as dieing to it? Do -2 Fetches +2 Basics of your choice.
Further, you run 4 Wastelands in a 3 color aggro deck. That is bad planning there. If you exchange these for basics for maybe some other duals, you can still run 9 fetches, plus include Goblin Legionnaire.
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aznfoodgood
Fairy stompy- (60-40 pre 65-35 post) honestly, I don’t see what is so damn good about this deck. It plays some of the worst cards in the game… come on psy blast? Are you kidding me? Also, they get pwned by their mana base because ancient tomb kicks the crap out of them. Wasteland will be relevant hear. Its also fun to watch them play sea drake on turn 2, scoop up 2 lands and then kill it with a bolt, very funny, I laugh every time… wild mongrel helps against the chalets. Post, just bring in jitte, that’s all that matters.
Lands decks like landstill and 43 land- (70-30 pre 75-25 post) Tabernacle is a plain in the ass, but most of the time, you only need to deal 10 points of creature damage. After that, burn to the dome and watch him die. If he drop Orb to save him self, finish with creatures, because his mana base will be nonexistent.
Please test against competant players, not people on MWS, and post real results. I cannot see this deck going 70-30 vs landstill and Faerie Stompy. Seriously, chalice @ 1 shuts down your entire deck.
Why are you running wasteland?
Why are you running no basic lands?
And I think that the statement "Kird Ape is better than every card in a Goblins deck" is just a tad asinine.
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
Your matchup percentages are laughable. Has it ever occured to you that this exact same deck hasn't been posted on these board like 3 other times? Maybe it also occured to you that a decklist from 2 years ago might not be an accurate indicator for comparison, however awful and filled with holes the comparison may have been.
Let me say something that should be said to every new deck post in the New and Developmental with ridiculous matchup percentages.
Your deck doesnt dominate the format.
70-30 Pe board and 80-20 Post board Goblins? Really. I love how your sideboard has nothing for goblins, and yet it instantly turns from 2.3-1 into 4-1.
Did you think we just wouldn't notice? Ridiculous.
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
Quote:
Originally Posted by
troopatroop
Your matchup percentages are laughable. Has it ever occured to you that this exact same deck hasn't been posted on these board like 3 other times? Maybe it also occured to you that a decklist from 2 years ago might not be an accurate indicator for comparison, however awful and filled with holes the comparison may have been.
Let me say something that should be said to every new deck post in the New and Developmental with rediculous matchup percentages.
Your deck doesnt dominate the format.
70-30 Pe board and 80-20 Post board Goblins? Really. I love how your sideboard has nothing for goblins, and yet it instantly turns from 2.3-1 into 4-1.
Did you think we just wouldn't notice? Rediculous.
No you see, goblins boards in the wrong stuff against him, because his deck is so tech that they just end up doing that, thats how it goes from 70-30 to 80-20, duh [/sarcasm] Zoo decks are cool, but theres no way they are that powerful and 4 wastelands in a 3 color deck that already has mana troubles? And what's your solidarity matchup look like?
Re: [Deck] R/G/W zoo, not to be confused with San Diago zoo which is just a bad deck
Yes, Goblin probably sides all their combo-hate. Starts out with a first turn pithing needle on viscid lemures and such. Because they do not expect the beatdown(-ish) deck to do just that. They expect transformational sideboards!
Also, stax called. I think it said 'turn one trinisphere'. Then it laughed and laughed and laughed.
