Printable View
Or you could take out some burn cards to get Stifle and Daze in, because those cards are basically Time Walks and important when trying to establish Tempo. Maybe take out a few more creatures to get some Force of Will and Brainstorm in and have a pretty solid Zoo build. Nice and tempo-based.
Now you're just being silly
It seems this thread now being the place of discussion for two different decks, Big and Lil zoo. It also seems the conflict from the two stems from one proponent confusing discussion about the other type of deck.
Wasteland and Hierarchs don't belong in traditional Zoo.
There. I said it.
It's like we need a Big/Lil tag with each of our posts, or else it'll degenerate to hair pulling and name calling like in other threads.
Immature trolling is immature. :) Have a nice day sir.
On a serious note. Zoo is tempo. Zoo is not sligh. Recent printings have given zoo plenty of very mana efficient threats that allows it to dominate even in the mid game. In the testing I've done, I could match even new horizon's monsters in the mid/late game. Having the most efficient threats from 1-3 cc in the game is a form of tempo. Daze is not tempo, you are put back a turn by playing daze (you almost never want to daze T1). Stifle is situational tempo, which requires keeping mana open and can result in egg all over your face if the opponent plays a non-fetch.
Turn one kitty on the other hand, is always tempo. Goyf turn 2 is always awesome. Especially if you are staring at puny creatures on the other side of the table. Wasteland delays their big drops while you pound their punies into dust. Zoo always has the biggest dudes in the 1-3 cc region. You want to prolong the early game as much as possible with wasteland. I'd happily be stuck at 2 mana with my opponent while my tarmogoyfs and kitties pound the opponent's face in. Mana screwing them is just icing.
He was being sarcastic. The last page he suggested Troop just play Bant, feeling that all these big tempo cards are ruining Zoos consistency and aim.
I personally don't think a deck with 4 Wild Nacatl, 4 Noble Hierarch, 4 Tarmogoyf, and 12 1cc removal spells has an unfavorable Goblins or Merfolk matchup. STP over Path actually seems really good against Goblins, and Terravore and Knight are huge in both matchups. I think we should consider having a seperate thread for Big Zoo. Like everyone said, it's a pretty different strategy, and could cause confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION
You'd be wrong. Maybe not about Merfolk, but Goblins is a lot tougher than you're giving it credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
If you want a separate thread for Big Zoo, you can create a thread here.
Quick question: Is there a recent primer on Zoo? Preferrably not a rundown like "Nacatl, beats for 3, play four", but something that explains the different variations (Little Zoo, Big Zoo, Tribal Zoo) and their advantages/disadvantages. Sideboard guides and burn suite explanation would also be nice.
Recent? no.
Your best bet is to just read back over the last 40 pages. Therein lies the Ape/Lion/Lynx arguement (beaten to hell), Big vs Lil zoo, sligh zoo, and a few tournament reports for good measure. It's obviously not as condensed as a primer, but the same information is avialable.
Stay away from Tribal zoo, playing Bob is fun but one wasteland will wreck your day.
I've never done anything but give Goblins credit in the Zoo matchup, but it is still in our favor. They don't get god draws all the time, and we answer turn 1 Lackey effectively on the draw with 16 cards! that's better than any deck in the format. Zoo is favored against Goblins, with or without Grim Lavamancer. You're right that he is great there, but against Counter-Top and Combo? He's a dead card.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpT
edit: yeah ty jandax
You're doing something wrong if Grim Lavamancer is a dead card against Counter-Top. He's not a great turn 1 play, but he is far from dead against Counter-Top. Recurring damage is always good there. It helps win Goyf wars, goes to the dome, kills Vendillion Clique, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
Against Goblins, it's not the turn 1 Lackey that is an issue. It's the ripped Ringleader into Piledriver/Warchief/etc... Keeping them under control with Lavamancer is generally the key there. Either stopping their haste or killing a Piledriver and then blocking their garbage creatures is the way to win that.
Were you meaning to reply to another post, troop?
Grim Lavamancer is Lackluster against Counter-Top. You can't get it into play after the lock lands, it gets swept up by EE and Firespout, and most Counter-Top lists I've played against play a Combo finish, and Grim Lavamancer doesn't help with that. I think playing something like Terravore in that spot might improve that matchup in particular, along with other decks with massive creatures. Lavamancer can always chill in the board, and I don't think those are bad matchups regardless. If you see alot of Goblins and Merfolk of course you play Lavamancer, but you should still evaluate the card in other matchups.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpT
I'm Big Zoo theorycrafting here, but if you cut Grim Lavamancer from the MD, you can also cut Path for Swords because the lifegain is no longer as relevant as the Land. So in essence, you're removing two disynergies from the deck in one fell swoop. Noble Hierarch and Wasteland now look good as 4ofs, and Grim Lavamancer will never have to remove lands to shrink your guys. After that, you have 6 monsters to finish the game, and bunch of great creatures to get you there. STP would make me feel a lot more secure in the Goblins matchup. Path doesn't answer Lackey.
It looks like the new Naya Control. Just cut Nacatl and play Top.Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
Or cut Red entirely and run Blue instead... Almost like a Bant Aggro or New Horizons style deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
I've said this before, and apparently Ill need to say it again. Zoo is an aggro deck. It's not a Control deck or a Tempo deck. I suppose if you call every efficient creature a "tempo" creature:
Then, sure, Zoo and every other deck in Legacy is a Tempo deck, but what's the point of calling anything Tempo then?Quote:
Turn one kitty on the other hand, is always tempo. Goyf turn 2 is always awesome.
I get that you want to innovate Zoo. But there isn't much room to do that. If you want to make it more controlling (which is what you're doing), you're going to lose the consistency that the straightforward lists have. You can probably improve some matchups that way, but ultimately hurt your over all %s.
Honestly, not snide at all, I don't understand why you don't just play Bant. You're pushing yourself away from the things that make Zoo good against Goblins and Merfolk without adding the things that would make your deck better against anything else. If you just cut the red and went to Blue, you could pick up a lot of things that make the Combo/Control matchups hard. IMO, you're weakening MUs that shouldn't be weakened as they are large part of the meta and not improving the MUs that need to be improved. That doesn't make sense to me. If you're ok with weakening your Tribal MUs, why not at least improve your Combo/Control MUs?
I don't play Bant, again to anwer the question for you, because red gets Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning. Those are the cards that win you the game against Merfolk and Goblins, and I still play them. I also play 4 STP for bigger guys, and fat blockers of my own. Explain to me why I should be so afraid of Merfolk and Goblins. If your argument boils down to telling me to play another deck, then you should say nothing at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpT
Terravore definitely improves the Control/Aggro-Control matchup, by being massive. Grim Lavamancer is a terrific card, but I'm going to play around with not having him MD. I don't think he and Noble Hierarch really help eachother. Wasteland is always great against Combo/Control, and my SB is jam packed with combo hate. Naya Horizons?
4 Windswept Heath
2 Wooded Foothills
3 Arid Mesa
2 Taiga
2 Plateau
2 Savannah
1 Forest
1 Plains
2 Horizon Canopy
4 Wasteland
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Terravore
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
2 Sylvan Library
I think this deck would be favored against Merfolk, Goblins, Counterbalance, and even with a bunch of other stuff. Yeah combo stomps you if you can't put up pressure quick, but what was Grim Lavamancer doing there? I think this list has potential, I'm gonna keep working on it.
Exactly, you're trying this kind of New Horizons without Jace, Brainstorm, Ponder, Stifle and countermagic and replacing then with 8 spot removals and running subpar cards like Wild Nacatl.Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
I'm with CorpT here, can't see WHY play this when you can play Bant.
Wild Nacatl is a subpar card? I feel like I've arrived in the twilight zone. Wild Nacatl remains the best card in the deck, period.
In New Horizons-ish deck? I can't remember the last time anyone played Nimble Mongoose against me.
Yes! If New Horizons could play Wild Nacatl it would! Nimble Mongoose does not swing for 3-4 on turn 2. I can't believe this is even being debated, Wild Nacatl is one of the best creatures in the format. Tempo has yet to be tried in Naya, and Wild Nacatl is what makes this attractive in the first place. Bant plays 4 removal spells main, and LOSES to Merfolk and Goblins. Also, So what if they have Jace, we have Elspeth. Also, Jace isn't very good against this deck. They play Ponder+ Brainstorm where we play Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning. They play Stifle, we play Noble Hierarch. We have alot of the same creatures in common, but in general we play more of them. It's the burn spells that give us a better Aggro matchup than Bant, and that's why I play this deck.
Yes, it is good that he is trying to Innovate Zoo. However, as stated, there's not much room to innovate zoo as the consistent lists are all a few cards different from each other. That doesn't include sideboards because each metagame is different. But the options for sideboard cards remain the same. Only when a new card every year or so is printed, like Nacatl two years ago and Lynx a year ago, is there time for innovation as folks seize innitiative.
Big Zoo is indeed innovation, and should be stated by whoever posts that it is specifically different from little/traditional zoo to avoid butting heads.
Let's think back to PT Austin last year. That format was rampant with fast Zoo decks, and what innovation came along to beat it all? Big Zoo. It's an easy port to legacy thanks to better mana and a wider card pool.
If we're going to argue against Troop, we should at least test his lists and have specific reasons why the deck is or isn't good. I don't really think this arguement/discussion is extending further than our computer screnes as it should (ie, testing)