[Deck] Zoo

Well in fairness Nick, I don't play this deck in legacy anymore but I use to when it could actually consistently win. I play dragon stompy, counter sliver and eva green mostly right now. However, this deck has always (in the past) gone well with my play style and therefore I am attracted to it.

Well Troop, considering this years Worlds hasn't happened yet and the metagame is anticipated on being similar to last years legacy format, which consisted of a whole bunch of threshold, top, storm and goblins being the most played. I fail to see how last years top Zoo decks that all sported river boas will be any different this year? Other then the fact there will probably be less Zoo this year at worlds because it has such a bad match against, tempo g/u/r threshold, dragon stompy, main deck belcher and top. With the top deck in the format and by far most the most popular deck playing blue (which obviously means islands) boa is tech. Also, with boa's regeneration ability against slogger, keg, deed and explosives, how is river boa truly a bad creature Troop?

I concur with you Nick and you made some very good and factual points.

Funny that you would list multiple of this deck's best matchups when talking about matchups this deck can't win? CB Top's popularity is part of why zoo is good; It's a matchup I'm over 25-5 with in tournaments. Tempo Thresh is also rather easy. Dragon Stompy is not as good a matchup, but is beatable. And did you actually just bring up goblin charbelcher? This is 2009. Catch up.

River boa is a good card, but it is not as good as Tarmogoyf or Qasali Pridemage, and you're certainly not going to cut either of those. However, Rancor is not viable anymore. Swords to Plowshares has become huge lately, which fizzles it, and you're far better off playing another threat instead.

I find it extremely hilarious that you claim zoo can't consistently win (Which is ironic since it's a DTB), and then go on to mention that you play Dragon Stompy... Now don't get me wrong, I love dragon stompy. It's actually my favorite deck in the format.

But please. You wanna talk about a deck that can't consistently win?

Quote:

---

You need to calm down and discuss ideas instead of attacking peope, especially from someone that doesn't play Legacy anymore.

---

People would probably respond to Thoughtseizer's posts in a more civil manner if he didn't open every post by calling whoever disagrees with him 'an amateur' or 'new to magic'. Also not citing gencon and worlds as if they were gospel when there's a whole fuckton of other legacy tournaments held all the time would be nice too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION

People would probably respond to Thoughtseizer's posts in a more civil manner if he didn't open every post by calling whoever disagrees with him 'an amateur' or 'new to magic'. Also not citing gencon and worlds as if they were gospel when there's a whole fuckton of other legacy tournaments held all the time would be nice too.

---

:laugh: Indeed. Claiming to be the master of facts and then telling Loxodon that his username is a mediocre card (which is 100% irrelevant to the debate) just undercuts one's credentials significantly.

And the bashing casual players is ridiculous as well. Casual is not synonymous with moronic. I remember Jon Finkel (you know, the scrubby casual player) when asked what the secret to his success was said to always collect many opinions from everyone and never think you're too good to listen to others.

Awh my flame post got deleted. Anywho, i'll try and word this nicer.

If you wanna make suggestions, try another nicer way, or something.

Also, your screen name is Thoughtseizer. You can't dis Loxodon Baileyarch at all when you just add a "r" to the end of Thoughtseize. Come on.

And the fact that you think I'm some casual player makes me laugh. I've top 8ed more times with Zoo than you've played in Magic tournaments. My track record for Limited and Constructed are very good as well. But I'm not gonna try and convince you otherwise by throwing up random statistics.

River Boa has been discussed, mostly as a joke when i suggested it several months ago. I only recall it being good with a Jitte, and blocking Goblins all day, which is already a good matchup. Land Grant is another bad card for Zoo, because you need land, you don't need to hope your Land Grant resolves in order to even be in the game. Play lands. And as for Rancor, everyone else has already made my point for me.

Wow, this is the first time I have looked at this thread in months and I will tell you, I am glad I did!!! Thoughtseizer made me LOL!!!! He talked about playing Zoo when it could consistently win then mentions he plays Dragon Stompy .... I am putting him on my ignore list.

Glad to see the discussion is going somewhere. No idea where, seems like a god damn circle but at least its headed somewhere! You would think that with 50+ pages of Zoo someone might take the time to glance back at a few of them or, god forbid, read the primer written by two people who extensively tested and played the deck in tournaments and put up results with it. But that would be asking to much. Carry on with discussing how Rancor belongs in the deck and how playing less creatures and more burn isn't like playing goyf sligh :)

This is like the twilight zone for real lol. Some random guy suggests River Boa and Land Grant, I say what everyone else is thinking, and Nick pops in to talk shit on a thread he's never posted in! I love it.

BTW Thoughtseizer, I fucking LOVE River Boa, and played it all the time back in the day. That said, I don't think it competes with Tarmogoyf or Qasali in the two drop department. I also think the rest of the creatures are integral to the deck, and couldn't be dropped for Boa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION

Dragon Stompy is not as good a matchup, but is beatable.

---

Are you kidding me? What is a worse match up for this deck then dragon stompy? Lets see, trinisphere, chalice, blood moons, magus and first turn sloggers; with kegs and pyrokinesis in the board. Terrible match up to say the least!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION

River boa is a good card, but it is not as good as Tarmogoyf or Qasali Pridemage, and you're certainly not going to cut either of those. However, Rancor is not viable anymore. Swords to Plowshares has become huge lately, which fizzles it, and you're far better off playing another threat instead.

---

Swords has always been around and has always been huge and heavily played; ever since it was printed in beta and whenever it was legal in any given format. Even when rancor was a must 4 of in every Zoo deck, STP lingered about. You just have to play smarter.

It is trite to say that no creature is as good as goyf! Agreed! That doesn't mean you cut other solid creatures. Your deck is 60 cards and there is room for boa, especially in the right meta. With so much explosives, kegs, deeds, goblins and blue based decks around, it is a solid metagame choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryLIKEALION

Also not citing gencon and worlds as if they were gospel when there's a whole fuckton of other legacy tournaments held all the time would be nice too.

---

What? Local tourney's that draws 8-12 players should be cited? With all due respect, please! Worlds is the bench mark and the leading authority for what is viable and what is not. The two biggest and most prestige legacy events of the year with all the pro minds and tech on display, that is the measuring stick on what has been tried, tested and true in the most competitive legacy metagame and tourney's of the year. That is why it is worth citing; especially when those decks and players support your card selection in any given deck.

Obviously my decisions are quite reasonable when pro's and competitive zoo decks are concurring and playing the same cards I am submitting for consideration. I missed the previous argument on the issue at bar and hence I disagree with it and I am trying to rationally explain why. When my integrity and decisions gets attacked in a non-constructive manner by random scrubs arbitrarily calling cards bad with no basis is not right. Hence I justify and actually back up my card decisions with pro players and decks that have had proven success in a competitive metagame. If that is not proof that a certain card can be good in a deck then I don't know what is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pulp_Fiction

You would think that with 50+ pages of Zoo someone might take the time to glance back at a few of them or, god forbid, read the primer written by two people who extensively tested and played the deck in tournaments and put up results with it. But that would be asking to much. Carry on with discussing how Rancor belongs in the deck and how playing less creatures and more burn isn't like playing goyf sligh :)

---

I read what you had to say in your "primer" and although I agreed with much of it, I think you were incorrect in other aspects. Obviously you didn't test and play it enough? Obviously the question that comes to mind is at what level of tournaments did you play your deck at and were the alleged results obtained against competitive opposition; I say that with respect. In any event, although your build is very good, I prefer some of the pro lists that have river boa included in them. I myself have tested him in the present blue based metagame and I concur with them in that particular regard. You really shouldn't bash someone just because they are open to giving rancor a whirl again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loxodon Baileyarch

Also, your screen name is Thoughtseizer. You can't dis Loxodon Baileyarch at all when you just add a "r" to the end of Thoughtseize. Come on.

---

Lol! I am just joking with yeah! Just trying to lighten things up on what is becoming a very tense thread. But you have to admit, at least thoughtseize is a good playable card unlike Loxodon? Did you have a chance to read Scott-Vargus article on Loxodon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pulp_Fiction

\He talked about playing Zoo when it could consistently win then mentions he plays Dragon Stompy .... I am putting him on my ignore list.\:)

---

ps. Not to sound arrogant or cocky but since you did, I find my version of dragon stompy manifestly consistent and my record and D.C.I. vintage rating would ostensibly reflect same.

I'm not saying to cite tournaments with 8-12 people, I'm saying cite the power/duel for duals/high profile legacy tournaments held all over the world where the legacy experts play their format.

And the fact that you walk into this thread and call the people who have been posting in it for ages "random scrubs" is insulting, and is the reason no one is going to try to talk to you about anything you say.

You know why I'm saying River Boa is not worth playing? Because I've tried it. It's not as good as Goyf or Pridemage, and the deck does not need any more two drops. Before Pridemage came out, I was playing terrible cards like quirion dryad and watchwolf as my other two drops. Then Boa would have been a decent choice in a blue heavy meta. But now, Pridemage has thoroughly supplanted it.

Edit//And regarding dragon stompy;
If you lose the roll and they open on blood moon, it's very likely you lose. If they open on trinisphere, you can win as long as they don't immediately drop an arc slogger. If they open on chalice @ 1, you can dig to a pridemage and win. If you win the roll, you will most likely win the match. Post Sideboarding, you just fetch your basic forest and side in k-grips and it becomes very easy to beat all their disruption. On top of this, Dragonstompy loses about 1/6th of all games to its own draws. Magus is a joke, we run plenty of burn to kill it. First turn slogger? Meet Path to Exile/Swords to Plowshares. The matchup ends up being about 50/50.

Ok thoughtseizer, listen up. Everyone is new at some point so I'll give you a break, but you have to get off your high horse.

I've played dragon stompy vs. burn-based decks PLENTY and the matchup isn't that far from even. Zoo is only a little worse...on the plus side zoo is more consistent than burn however, and dragon stompy can always shit on itself. Ancient Tomb, Qasali Pridemage, artifact hate out of SB, the all important die roll, dragon stompy shitting on itself. And magus is not a problem, come on.

Yes, "play smarter," realize that you are telling this to people who have been playing this deck for a long time. I've been secretly reading this thread since its inception and they know what they are talking about. They might not always be entirely right, but you are entirely wrong about rancor.

With so many powder kegs around? Need more help with goblins and blue-based decks? I think you should be worrying more about the bad matchups than these matchups.

Maybe you should learn about a popular website called www.deckcheck.net. Where there are many real tested decks, such as normal zoo lists.

Here is a news flash: PRO PLAYERS DO NOT REALLY PLAY LEGACY. There are a few, but they are not the innovators of legacy. The innovation is happening RIGHT HERE. We don't care about pro decklists here, we care about decklists that our successful and work. This is not some silly format like standard.

And honestly, telling us rancor and land grant are great in zoo makes YOU seem like the random scrub.

Attack the argument, not the poster.

This thread needs a serious cool down.



LOCKED until another mod wants to open it up tomorrow.
http://www.hobbyetc.com/jpeg/T/TAM87004.jpg

Hopefully we can all play nicely now.

As a long time Zoo player (like reaaaally long time) I recently picked up this list and have dabbling a bit with it. From all my years of playing red based aggro decs I've really come to the conclusion that redundancy in all aspects is your key to victory most of the times. While the dec has been running well I really can't come to grips with two cards that seem to gather a lot of support here and I was hoping peeps could enlighten me on their necesity the one is

a) Knight of the Reliquary or the 3 drop in genral

So yeah he does all these tricky things and is a fat body that can smash past Tarmogoyfs. But I'm really wondering if such a thing is needed since him costing 3 mana and beeing somewaht conditional (meaning he sometimes needs time to growa nd you sometimes don't draw 3 lands). Shouldn't your strategy once the board is stalled with goyfs be to just point all burn at the opponents face and alpha strike once or twice?

b) Sylvan Library
While I can somehow symbathise with the idea of running 3 drops I really can't get my head behind this one. OK obviously it's great against control, not always better than another dude or burnspell but the fact that it can selctively draw you up to 4 extra cards makes it really sweet. But in no other matchup I have played until now have I drawn it and been happy that it's not another dude or burnspell. In any race situation it's horrendous, against Combo it's a timewalk for the opponent and in attrition war against another beatdown dec using it to draw extra cards becomes a liability and I seriously doubt any of you guys ever considered running top in a dec like this.

So in essence my critique of this two cards comes down t the question. Do you really want to attempt to commit yourself to a lategame you have little chance of winning if your standard Plan B (Burn to Face) gives you an almost equal chance at victory while giving your dec more redundancy.

I have a similar qualf with Horizon Canopy since it produces the wrong colors of mana and thus reduces redundancy and increases the likelihood of mulligan. If we take Hatfields list as the benchmark, the fact that the dec runs only 15 red sources which is really slim for a dec running mainly red spells might even ofset the extra cards u can draw of cannopy. If MWS isn't lying the probability of drawing no red mana source in your starting seven is 12% and most of those hands should then be mulled subsequentally. If on the other hand you run 17 red sources (say by removing canopys for 2 bloodstained mires and adding a another burnspell) your likelihood of drawing no red mana drops to 8%. Which results in a 1/3 less mulligans due to lack of red.

Just some food for thought there. looking forward to peoples responses.

Sylvan library only costs 2. Also, it's ability to filter your draws is priceless.

As for river boa. I tried him out for a little while when merfolk started getting big, but the fact is, he is just too small to have enough impact on the game. A 2/1 for 2 doesn't cut it in this format anymore.

I've been skimming this thread and I'm getting a bit confused. Could someone point me in the direction of a good, generic, breakdown of what matches we are favored in? I don't want to cause a flame war or anything, I'm just building the deck and would like to be able to predict whether I should be playing this or 'folk in my current meta. I'll be playing a fairly generic version of the deck, running RGw. Thanks!

What does your metagame look like?

@Fling: Read the primer man, there is a detailed matchup analysis there.

I'm getting kinda bored with my Zoo list, and i kinda wanna switch it up a little. So this is what I'm going to test:

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Windswepth Heath
2 Bloodstained Mire
3 Taiga
3 Plateau
2 Savannah
1 Plains
1 Mountain
1 Forest

4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
3 Chain Lightning
2 Jitte
4 PTE
2 Sylvan Library [I've agreed that's it's good and worth spots]

4 Goyf
4 Nacatyl
4 Ape
4 Pridemage
2 Thoctar
2 Isamaru/Figure of Destiny

Since i cut Watchwolf, I'm not sure if i want to run FoD for more pure beef or not. I guess that's what testing is for. I added my 4th PTE because i've been running into alot more fat shit lately. Namely more Tombstalker, Goyf, and that 6/6 Pestilence Wumpus XD.

The list seems good. Though i might cut back down to 2 Chain Lightning for another creature. Bc 21-22 seems like the right number. Idk.

Constructive thoughts?

Baileyarch: Is there a reason you're cutting Lavamancer? My experience is that it's by far the best 1-drop in the deck, killing Goyfs (or augmenting your burn-spells enough to kill them), going to the head past blockers & wrecks any small creature-decks if it sticks.

I'd definitely consider it in the Isamaru/FoD slot and indeed, see it as the obvious correct choice. It was the biggest loss the last rotation gave Zoo in Extended. Really, the deck plays out more like Sligh than Burn in that, it plays burn more often to kill blockers than to shoot the face (although after few swings, burn of course finishes the job) and Lavamancer truly gets value out in match-ups against non-combo decks - that is to say, the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackaber

I have a similar qualf with Horizon Canopy since it produces the wrong colors of mana and thus reduces redundancy and increases the likelihood of mulligan.

---

This has been something that I've wanted to bring up for a long time. I don't think that people are quite realizing how much the basis of this deck has actually changed. It has moved very far away from being mainly red. Let me use Loxodon's latest list as a simple example:

Green Cards: 14 (+4)
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Qasali Pridemage
2 Sylvan Library
(4 Kird Ape)

White Cards: 14 (+4)
4 Path To exile
4 Lightning Helix
4 Qasali Pridemage
2 Isamaru/Figure
(4 Wild Nacatl)

Red Cards: 16 (+4)
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Helix
4 Kird Ape
(4 Wild Nacatl)

//Thoctar Excluded, since he's all colors.

Now, if we look at this color breakdown, we have an almost even split between the number of mana symbols we need. Each color also has the same "creature bonus" need from nacatl/kird apes, so that's probably not so relevant then. Some lists are a little more red heavy if they have more burn/run lavamancer, but still the balance is fairly close. We do not always need so much red. I also really like the inclusion of path for this reason, because it even gives us variety to our removal. With it we have a chance for both creatures and removal to function. That said, the biggest detriment I think to canopy is that it's not actually a forest or a plains. It sometimes sucks with you really need that creature boost; however, it's still not always relevant.

Now, what I've noticed is that having land is better than not, which many agree with I assume. Games where I was able to ramp up to 3 mana on turn 3 seemed to be so much better than those where I'd be stuck on 2 land, or goodness knows only 1. We are an aggressive deck, so we need to be able to play like that. While a draw with 2 lands may give us an extra threat, a draw with 3 lands lets us put a lot more pressure on the opponent. We can dump plenty of creatures, still have room for removal, and even be fine in face of LD. And as much as the next guy I love when I can get away with 1/2 lands, but really it seems that these games go much worse than I'd like. I have more cards to work with, but I don't have as much speed as I want.

(Note: I have not actually testing 3-drops all that much.) Now, onto that thought, I played a little bit with Knight of Reliquary, and honestly it wasn't that I didn't like him, because I really did. However, I really did not like that he cost 3. Although he was big, I felt like he just slowed me down, when I just wanted to be as aggressive as possible. He's clearly one of the best things to draw in topdecking mode/extra land mode, but other than that I really was disappointed.

I'm not exactly sure what we need to do about this situation, but I think we need something. It's one of the reasons why I've liked figure for so long, because he can be useful in the lategame and earlygame. People say that zoo doesn't have a mid/late-game, but I feel like that's how people have just built the deck in the past. I've started to see a shift in builds, with people giving more credence to those cards that are useful in the mid/late game stage, and I like this change. I don't think we have to be simply an early-game deck, because we have so many great tools available to us. I really do think that we can find ways to circumvent this problem.

The other problem being card advantage/quality. People have also been playing library, which makes me happy. The one thing I don't like about it is that it's not always that usable, and the 4 life is pretty steep. However, with helix in our deck and swords used against us it's somewhat useful for us. I'm fairly happy with library, but I still wish we had something a little bit...Not sure if we really do right now though.

IMO Sylvan library is incredible. The arguments for and against are strong but it gives you another way to turn a resource (your life) into a win.

I can't believe anyone is cutting Lavamancer. If I were to cut a 1 drop it would be Kird Ape. Lavamang does so many amazing things. He single handedly squeezes the last few points out in a creature stall, keeps tribal weenies in check before things get nut burger all for the price of converting another resource (your graveyard) into the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackaber

As a long time Zoo player...
...Just some food for thought there. looking forward to peoples responses.

---

Listen to this man, he seems smart!