Do you run some Knights with em?Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION
Printable View
Do you run some Knights with em?Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION
Yes. He's also pretty good at fueling lavamancer if you need him to, and if not, it's pretty easy to avoid shrinking him.
KK, i'll guess i try em both out then =), ty.
Hi there,
I also happen to run a zoo deck, with a card choice quite in line with what was discussed earlier on the thread.
I find library is great as x2. Drawing aggressively against control is great and synergy with helix helps.
The only card I run not mentioned yet is sylvan protector. I know everybody thinks he sucks but I like him. He has kind of the same role as mother of runes (refering to earlier discussion) exept I find him a bit superior. As it was pointed out, most deck run mostly spot removal to deal with your threats and dodging removal goes all the way with your strategy of inflicting quick combat damage. Protector doesn't have summon sickness, meaning he is more likely to survive the turn he arrives. He can also grant multiple protection the same turn and protect T2 teeg/canonist against combo or shusher against control . Obvious drawback is to sac land. I don't deny there is always a risk of hurting your manabase but in the long run, you need very few lands and it's just great to be able to trade the extra for protection. There is also a has nice synergy with knight, especially in alpha strike mode.
What do you guys think?
I tested the deck last night on MWS a little bit. Only definite observation is too much land is better than too little. I can't tell you how many times my opponent tried to screw my land over and I would have surely lost had I not had a back up. The canopies were generally golden (I'm playing 2 right now).
First of all, I think you mean Sylvan Safekeeper, right? And it isn't that he's unaffected by summoning sickness inasmuch as you can use his ability regardless of his summoning sickness because it's not a tap ability. Ok, now that the nitty gritty rules lawyer shiznit is out of the way, I have to be a bit skeptical of this guy (even though I haven't playtested him).Quote:
Originally Posted by Misobizo
He's a pretty weak sauce first turn drop. :confused: Usually by turn two, I can be attacking with a 2/3 Kird Ape or a 3/3 cat. Why would I want a 1/1? Protect my creatures? What creatures? Himself? If I cast him first turn, on second turn, let's say I cast a teeny tiny goyf. You want me to sacrifice a land to save his ass? That would set me back another turn's land drop in a deck that is already quite mana shy. :confused:
From what you have already said, I'm still not entirely convinced. What comes out for him anyway? Removal?
I think you summed it up wtih "weak sauce". Nothing against the original comment, but to take away optimal slots from teh deck to protect against removal that will get through anyways is not in lines of the deck's purpose. Threats need to be played through instead of around, Zoo is the agro deck. Yet in the mirror or similar agro deck I can see usefulness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMogg
I should have talked about this to begin with.I personaly play safekeeper in the lavamancer slot. Again, the logic is that you don't need that much to clear the way for your creatures: you already play tons of removal and your creature are supposed to be bigger. However, none of your creature has haste, meaning any removal from the opponent induce tempo loss for you. Gameplan is quick kill, so in my opinion, you'd rather try to have your nacalt dropped T1 swing as much as possible rather than drop on threat after another to see it dealt with the next turn. Not to mention very nasty things such as thread of disloyalty, shackles or submerge that really wreck you.Quote:
What comes out for him anyway? Removal?
So is lavamancer, who is also not that hot in very early game when your graveyard is empty and you don't have much mana to spare to activate him.Quote:
He's a pretty weak sauce first turn drop. Usually by turn two, I can be attacking with a 2/3 Kird Ape or a 3/3 cat.
Tbh Sylvan Safekeeper is quite bad.
Instead of playing weak bodies with an ability like that its WAY better to just drop a nacatl or kird ape. This deck doesnt care(too)much about spot removal. ie:-if ur kird ape/nacatl attacks a turn or two then gets plowed its not a bad trade. SS is just loss of tempo. Not to mention against certain MU's where u want dmge in asap(like combo,..)
I just wouldn't wanna give up land. And he is a 1/1. I know Lavamancer is too, but he deals alot more damage.
And once again, land destruction is bad for Zoo.
Also, 1000th post bitches :laugh:
How come none of the deck lists from people playing Zoo on this thread include land grant?
Because the card is bad, and is worse than a land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughtseizer
It is a spell, and your opponent gets to see you hand before it resolves (if you play it for free, which is the only time it might be good), so it sucks as your only land against anything with counters.
I have to agree. In some decks, like ye olde deck 9-land stompy, there wasn't any intrinsic disadvantage from revealing your hand, whereas in Zoo there are a number of removal spells you may not want to reveal (or, conversely, you may reveal you have no removal spells). In Zoo, the disadvantages out weight the advantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrel
Fetch lands already fill the function of stabilizing your mana base and at the same time thinning your deck of unwanted addition land draws.
Don't you mean 10 land stompy? In any event, the older version of zoo back 4 years ago ran them and they were quite good. I agree with counters although they were always around even back when grants were good.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMogg
Moreover, if you are playing this deck with 3-4 rancors, wouldn't river boa be a very efficient creature to consider? I can't see any of the current staple zoo creatures (goyf aside) that would be more lethal and efficient rancored.
Actually I always ran 9 lands, not ten. :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughtseizer
The problem with Boa is that at two mana he is in the same slot as Goyf. Would you take out Goyfs for Boas?
For Rancor, what do you propose removing from the maindeck for them? Creatures or removal? And, with Swords/Path to Exile being the removal of choice for most decks, when you're rancoring something, if they remove the creature in response, you lose your creature and the rancor: 2 for 1 in their favour. Compare with Jitte, which doesn't let you lose the card and is also very effective, despite being more expensive to cast.
Noone runs Rancor in the deck anymore, or River Boa.
It was discussed when the thread was created, so read the thread and you'll get full feedback on those two bad cards.
And Land Grant, is just fucking terrible. If you run 9 or even 10 lands, you'll lose in today's format. And goodluck casting anything or meeting the land conditions for Ape and Nacatyl too.
Zoo: T1 Landgrant?
Blue: FoW?
Zoo: :(
Land grant is bad.
So since when did rancor become a bad card? I take it you are a new casual player to magic no doubt? You want to know what a bad magic card is, Loxodon! see the following: http://strategy.channelfireball.com/...-its-terrible/Quote:
Originally Posted by Loxodon Baileyarch
Firstly, the discussion pertaining to rancor discussed by two or three amateur players in the archives of this form is dismissed as having no logic or merit. Secondly, the only two Zoo deck lists to even have moderate success at last years gen con and worlds legacy format both sported rancors. Also, you don't have to play four boas, you would play two which means you don't have to cut goyf. Moreover, if you do run rancor, whether that be in the quantity of 2 or 4, boa is just plain better then wolf for that purpose.
LAST YEARS Gen con. Nobody plays Watchwolf, River Boa, or Rancor in this deck because they're not better than anything. Why don't you read the thread and get off your high horse for god's sake. Rancor opens you up to a 2 for 1 every time you cast it. How isn't another burn spell/creature just better? You should catch up with modern legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughtseizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by troopatroop
You need to calm down and discuss ideas instead of attacking peope, especially from someone that doesn't play Legacy anymore. Last year there was no merfolk running around so the metagame was a bit different, which is why River Boa is pretty good.
I remember a deck that made top 8 in the prelims this year that replaced tarmogoyf with river boa because it was just that much better in the current metagame. There are not a lot of decks that can block river boa these days since most of the decks run some sort of islands.
Legacy is crazy right now, in a good way though. I heard you need to play blue in order to win. :)