[Deck] Zoo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

The logic on this thread is pretty underwhelming, folks. Anyone thinking to himself right now that life gain is in any way remotely like receiving a time walk needs to stop regurgitating what you have been told and begin thinking for yourself.

---

If it's pushing back the turn you kill your opponent, giving them more turns to stabilize, it is not a good thing for an agro deck.

People were arguing that ~3 life from a plowed creature is inconsequential, where it completely cancels out a burn spell. I think this drawback is larger than some are crediting it.

Most lists running 8+ 3dmg burn spells alot of the smaller opposing creatures can be answered by them, but again larger creatures equals alot more life gain to overcome which gives decks additional turn(s) to stabilize. Yes it's not Time Walk, but it is pushing the game into the later phases where Zoo's strategy looses substantial power compared to most Legacy dtbs.

Swords is giving them more life to utilize which may or maynot be relevant, in the same way that the extra land may or maynot be relevant. The difference is what is more or less relevant. I beleive I gave made points that have not been refuted and need to be addressed, the main point being the weakness of path to exile in the early and mid game.

I see this weakness as the primary reason to not play path. Pathing any creature in the early game when you don't have them dead on the board can potentially lose you the game.

How is giving them land more relevant than giving your opponent like in an aggro deck? I just don't see how it is.

Me and Cairo made fine points on STP, very damn fine points. You're assuming that giving your opponent land will just like give them some broken play, it's iffy, but it's less iffy that STP.

They will ALWAYS gain life with STP. Always. Something you can't afford as the aggressive aggro deck. Idk how many times I've been in situations where i just wished STPed was anything but STP, a fucking Raging Goblin would have been better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

Pathing any creature in the early game when you don't have them dead on the board can potentially lose you the game.

---

You're absolutely correct here.

But for a Zoo deck looking to race to a turn four win, you'd never play that Path before you are in a position to kill them. As others have stated before, we have a gazillion bolts to clear the way of small creatures - using a path on something like Bob is simply not a real option. We're so focused on the 'alpha strike' turn in this discussion because that is really the only time you'd consider playing a path.

Now you could argue that Noughts, beefed up Goyfs, Tombstalker and co. can show up before you reach that critical turn, and you'd be forced to us a sword/path variant early. In these cases, if you're playing a version of Zoo which only plans for speed, you've pretty much lost the game already anyway -- regardless of whether its a path or a swords -- because you're gameplan is to get damage through before they can mount a sizeable defense.

I'll reiterate what I've said before, the only spot for swords in this deck is if you focus less on speed and more on surviving into the later turns. This means including cards like Jitte and Knight. The more of these kinds of cards you add, the more likely you'll have to use a swords/path variant before you are ready to kill. This means that the drawback of path becomes more relevant, making swords that much more appealing.

And yes, Jitte and Knight are both mid- to late-game cards, by the way. Playing, attaching and attacking with a Jitte isn't going to happen until turn three at the earliest, four or five more regularly. Even if you get it active on turn three or four, its at the expense of paying mana to drop dudes or throw burn to the face, which means you've slowed your clock down by a turn or two. A similar argument can be made for Knight, especially in comparison against Throctar.

About the StP vs Path debate:

Which card is better?

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/10e/288.jpg http://magiccards.info/scans/en/9e/38.jpg

[/debate]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

The difference between 6 and 7 doesn't mean anything but the difference betwen 3 and 4 is huge. Oh and don't forget 2 and 3, I heard that matters alot, god forbid your mana screwed opponet lands a creature that you need to kill.

---

And if you're choosing to play swords you're welcome to play it in the early turns all you want. However, Zoo is not a deck that is light on removal. I say the difference between 6 and 7 doesn't matter because that is when I play my paths 90% of the time. I don't path my opponent's turn 2 bob; I lightning bolt it. If I occasionally have to use a path on an early bob, then so be it, but 90% of the time I'm not casting it until the land isn't relevant anyway.

Quote:

---

I heard there is more than the endgame when comparing two cards you guys seem to completly skip over the whole gameand jump right to the alpha strike. If you read kver your arguements you will see that you have said the same thing kver and kver and are specificly looking at the point in the game where you either alpha strike or lose the game.

---

I'm not saying there is no middle game or early game to worry about. But the thing is, in those stages of the game you have other options to kill creatures in your way. Lightning Bolt. Lightning Helix. At least 8 ways to kill an early creature in your way. Yes, pathing an early goyf sucks when you have no other way to deal with it, but that's not path's purpose in the deck.

If you try to use path like it's swords, then yes, it sucks. I'm not arguing that it does STP's job better than STP. I'm arguing that it does Path's job better than STP.

While it can be a problem to give a thresh opponent their 3rd land, once they have 3 or 4 it doesn't matter. When you're up against a deck with 8+cantrips, they're much less likely to be landscrewed than a deck with a lesser form of consistency.

Once the game goes later, their goyfs are going to be very big, and you won't really mind if they have another land.

In the matchups where giving them an extra land will probably matter (Goblins, merfolk, landstill) we either have a very good matchup (goblins+merfolk) or we would be siding out our 1cc white removal anyway (landstill).

Lavafrog, welcome to my ignore list. I'll check back in on your posts in about six months or so when you've had a chance to pilot this deck and the counter top variants. Your past several posts demonstrate either a total lack of playing these archtypes or failure to pay attention to what is going on in the games you have played.

For the rest of you who are arguing the merits of StP and PtE, simply read the previous two or three posts by Finn and Justcurious.

@JustCurious, shockingly content rich posts for someone with such a low post count. Thank you for contributing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

I see this weakness as the primary reason to not play path. Pathing any creature in the early game when you don't have them dead on the board can potentially lose you the game.

---

And I see this as the weakness of swords: Swordsing any creature with lethal on the board can potentially lose you the game. And for zoo, I think that reality is much more likely than yours.

I still don't see your argument, when you say that the early game is only the first 1-2 or even mid-game with 3-4 turns. You don't need a :w: removal in the early game, and even in the mid-game it's drawback starts to become not that awful to deal with, especially if they've already gotten a 3rd or 4th land.

@Elfrago:
Comparing two cards that nobody would play in legacy isn't very useful. In a vaccuum life is quite obviously less valuable than a land, but we're not in a vaccuum, so we can't make that comparison. However, even in legacy after the first few turns I would argue that the life is more valuable, since most decks curves are so low/fast that they can't find use for that extra land.

I have recently decided that I am no longer allowed to post from my iPhone.
I dont read over the posts and apparently I sound like a jerk when my thoughts free flow from mind to screen.

Being added to someones ignore list is of great pride to me, I have never posted anything that anyone has felt any emotion towards so even if it is negative in nature I will take it as a plus.

Saying that somone has no experience with a deck when you know nothing about a player is a rediculous notion. I for one, have alot of experience with Countertop decks, you dont know that.

Anyone who says that there is not a difference between 3-4-5 land from the countertop players perspective has never played the deck. Top is very mana hungry to manipluate what you are gonna graw and what you are going to float on your library.

3 mana is enough to play a goyf/bob and top once to counter something. Four mana is enough to hard cast a sower/4cc spell and protect it with free countermagic. Five mana is enough to cast that sower and protect it with your counterbalance.

You can always set your top three to protect the sower before playing it but that 1) takes mana and 2) takes time and can fail if the opp is smart. Seeing how the countertop deck wants to get to as mana landdrops as possible they will daze creatures, plow creatures, play goyfs and bobs to get in the way of your plans(not adding any creatures that the player might run i.e. painter, nought, pridemage etc).

You say that you have burn to clear the way of these little creatures but anyone who has played burn knows the difficulty of burning out a turn 2-3 tarmogoyf with anything less than double bolt.

There is always a fringe in the game where the countertop player needs one more mana to completely wreck you or completely lock down the game to make it non interactive from that point on.

Even with the amount of cantrips they play when they are digging for land instead of (insert bad things) then they are wasting time and giving up tempo, basicly what you want them to do.

Every counter example that has been stated has lead to the assumption that PtE will mostly be cast on the last turns of the games when the opp cannot do anything with the extra land. This is theoreticly turning the card into an unsummon(dead/gone) because if they cant replay the creature then why kill it.

With swords, you swords the creature and move on the the next phase in the game(hopefully the attack phase)

...and for all means read the last few pages to make your desicion about the cards.

Why not just run neither STP nor Path and run more burn? There's spots in the sideboard if you need to actually get rid of something problematic.

But then what would we fight about?

Let's run both. OMNOMNOM.

With lavamancer it's pretty easy to kill an early goyf with one bolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chokin

Let's run both. OMNOMNOM.

---

OMG!!! SUCH AN ASSHOLE!!! :tongue:

Hahahahaha sorry i had to :smile:

Quote:

---

With lavamancer it's pretty easy to kill an early goyf with one bolt and one Lavamancer.

---

You still have to have both. Or you could plow it and go about your business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

You still have to have both. Or you could plow it and go about your business.

---

I'd prefer to Path to Exile it and go about my business, But to each their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

You still have to have both.

---

Wait, seriously!? I thought that just having a card in your deck was as good as having it in play! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

2 for 1s are bad right? I mean right?:cool:

Anywho, gaining your opponent 5 or more life is good too right?:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hungrylikealion

Wait, seriously!? I thought that just having a card in your deck was as good as having it in play!

---

You say that as if I did not make some sort of valid point. Bolts suck ass against Tarmogoyf even on turn 2. Thinking up a scenario in which having a second card finish it off is about as useful as Drago's argument. Ya know the one against Ichorid?

BTW Drago, I am trying hard to be respectful. In that example Path is better. Yes. But so is Jump. So, by your logic we could replace StP with Jump and have a better deck. This is what happens when you attempt to generalize from a single example.

The discussion has clearly devolved.