[/b]That's what I've been wondering lately: What to do about that burn suite versus creature package. Burn can be useful, but I always feel like I want things that stick around more, and we have so many good options that there's only a few creatures that actually give us trouble.Originally Posted by Loxodon Baileyarch
What I mean is the difference between Keep in mind, these are not necessarily "ideal" creature/spell combinations, but rather to illustrate a creature/spell balance:
Because sometimes I feel like burn could help, but most of the time I feel like creatures should be the way to go, and that once we reach a certain point the more creatures we have the better, because then it become less and less likely that the opponent can actually deal with all of them. Especially with lack of many sweepers in the format, I think that this has a lot of power. (Also, I really like the 4/4/4 Nacatl/Figure/Ape) Honestly, I haven't gotten a ton of "real-play" experience with a burn heavy build, so it's difficult for me to compare.
I definitely feel the same. I havent been upset with KoR once. I really dont see Thoctar coming back unless he replaces the Figures in my list but thats iffy. KoR is a lot better against late game big goyf's too.
I just have one question about the list. You run 4 apes but not 4 Watchwolves. Is this something you noticed working better or just for a tempo thing? I cut my Apes a long time ago but Ive debated bringing them back in.
@Valtrix Ive always thought that if your going to play a burn heavy list, why not just drop white and play Goyf Sligh? It would stabilize your mana base and give you pretty much the same deck.
Last edited by jimmerz213; 07-19-2009 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Reply to Valtrix
Because nacatl, pridemage, andremoval are just that good, and I have seen people making those type of zoo lists. I just keep wondering what type of balance the deck should go for, and I keep gravitating for those creature-heavy lists. With more creatures you tend to fish slightly slower, but I think that more than makes up for it in inevitability. Also, when you're thinking about running magma jet, I think you have a problem :P
@jimmerz213: As like noobish as this is going to sound, i don't really sit down and build a deck around a curve or cc. I just take powerful cards, put them together, and tweak it from there. I've had ALOT of success in the game of Magic disregarding regular deckbuilding and doing it on my own. I love Ape, and i have noticed that alot of people are cutting him, but I'll make the argument i make for Isamaru, because it's the exact same thing. People see Ape and aren't scared. He gets in there for 4 damage almost every time i cast him. And i like 4 damage for 1 mana.
Watchwolf on the other hand is just a beater. He has no land stipulation and is always beefy. I've loved him since Rav block and i couldn't see cutting him either. He is just good.
@Valtrix: I've always thought that Zoo should be more creature heavy, and it's the definition of the deck. People try and blend Goyf Sligh and Zoo, and it work for them, but the true "Zoo" deck, is permanent creature threats that stick around, and burn on the side to finish the job. I could never see myself going the burn heavy side because though it may goldfish better, it seems less consistent. At least creatures stick around for 3 damage a turn.
@hungryLIKEALION: Thank you!!! The land is hardly ever relevant is it? I've killed Gathan Raiders, Spectral Lynx, Sower, Tombstalker, Naught, and the land has never affected the game state or turned the game state in my opponents favor. Knight seems more resilient late game. He can play the turn 3 aggro role, sometimes not as good as Thoctar, but that's what you have burn for. And he seems like an excellent topdeck late game, because he just seems massive. And he thins your deck in tight spots, all while being ridiculous.
Dead or Alive, you're coming with me.
-Robocop-
I dont think I made my point clearly, thats my fault. I was trying to say that if your going to play a burn heavy list, its probably because you like that style of play. Goyf Sligh would probably be a more successful deck for you to pilot. To me, Zoo is supposed to be (in my opinion anyway) a creature heavy list.Because nacatl, pridemage, and
I actually tend to do the same, especially when it comes to homebrew decks. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesnt. Its half the fun :p
Comparing Ape to Isamaru is probably the best arguement, the only difference is that Isamaru is a static 2 power, which I like more. I would love to fit Ape in, but I would want them as a 4 of, and I cant justify replacing something in my current list with them...it works too good as is.
i think path to exile early can lock you out of the game vs countertop. a path on a t2 goyf means a possiblity of a t3 cb + t3 top which means GG to your 1 drops right away and a possibility of a 2 drop blind hit.
edit: with t3 mana open possibility for top as well.
My 12 Post Videos - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...Q65OWRL5my7utn
Yeah, I cut Ape and put him back in all the time. A page or two back you'll see he's not in my previous list. But I like him again for now. It's just too important to have a t1 creature to not run him. And like Baileyarch said, he's no nacatl, but he'll usually be worth at least 4 damage, and even when you play him past t1, he'll still be bigger than a lot of creatures that don't rhyme with smarmogoyf.
As for watchwolf, I don't run him because I have too many other creatures I like better. I run 3 of the Knight of the Reliquary because my relatively high land count makes it a lot easier to hit three land drops in a row, and curving into this guy on your third turn is awesome. I also run 3 lavamancer (And I believe that not playing any lavamancers is a terrible idea) and 2 figures. If I was going to play watchwolf, I would put it over the 2 figures and 1 knight as a three of, but I find those creatures to be more useful currently. Watchwolf is a good creature, but to me he just isn't quite good enough.
This point has been addressed several times already. Turn 2-3 Path is at it's worst as the land acceleration is most relevant, the card rarely needs to be played at this phase in the game though.
If they have a T2 Goyf it's what a 2/3 (Land, Instant/Sorcery)? In these cases it can be answered by a Bolt or Chain respectively, or one can swing freely into it with a Nacatl, or they can play a Pridemage and buff a Kird Ape to a 3/4 to swing into it, or they can play Lavamancer, losing a turn of attacking, but threatening to off Goyf in future combat.
Rarely it will be gigantic aka: Turn 1 Land, Ponder, Force of Will a Creature threat from Zoo; T2 Fetch, Tarmogoyf, then its a 4/5 but they've used 6 cards to get there. Chances are the remaining 2-3 cards aren't Counterbalance, and Sensei's Top, and if they are it's the nuts draw and you weren't in good shape regardless of Swords to Plowshares or Path to Exile.
TPDMC
i agree whole heartedly with your assessment.
My 12 Post Videos - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...Q65OWRL5my7utn
Keep in mind that if it's land/sorcery, then you need to chain to kill and for land/instant you need bolt (or helix). Since on resolution the respective card will be in the grave to make goyf bigger.
However, we have plenty of answers to goyf even without path/swords, and don't forget that a jitte + any of our creatures still can probably deal with him fairly early.
yeah, what from Cairo and Valtrix have said in these last few posts is pretty much the sum of why I like Path over Swords. Path just doesn't need to be cast early. I only run three because I only want 1 a game most of the time. If I wanted to be casting it early and often I'd run 4. Otherwise, you have enough other ways to take care of early blockers without needing to path them.
I think a split might be called for more often than not.
It seems silly to say this but your guys pro Path logic has boiled down to the fact that the drawback is so large and negatively effects the game in such a way that you will not play it to kill early creatures and to play only three of them so you dont draw them early and often...
From Cario: what happens when you dont have the matching burn spell? If the thresh player leads with land ponder your only out to that turn two goyf is to have the chain lightning. Which has to be played immediatly and not dazed(who cares if you can pay the 1, goyf will still survive). What happens when they play the turn 3 3/4 goyf on the play? Path still has a very relevant downside, it can even be a 4/5 if they dazed a creature, turn three and you already cannot burn out a goyf.
I feel like you guys are glossing over this weakness like it dousnt matter. In your words:
i think path to exile early can lock you out of the game vs countertop.
Hungrylikealion: So when I say that I hold my paths for their big creatures, that is exactly what I mean. And it works out fine.
In legacy most creatures are big. They are also played on turn 1-2 where path does not want to be played.
you said:
That is straight up bullshit and I am calling you on it. I've pathed plenty of early goyfs and gone on to win the game. Once again, the land is rarely relevant. Like, what are the situations that make pathing so scary to you? Say they're playing counterbalance and they make a T2 goyf which you path. Then you're scared of them making T3 sower on your 1 drop(On the draw) or your 2 drop you played along with the path(on the play)? Untap and bolt the sower. They don't have counterbalance down so they'd better have force up, and if they did have force up, they woulda just forced the path 9 times out of ten. And that's assuming they didn't force your t1 nacatl.
Like, that's serious the scariest situation I can think of to argue against path. And it's not even that scary. It doesn't even make me cringe.
What are you so scared of accelerating them into? What, specifically?
Countertop decks for the most part tap out every turn or leave mana open for top activations/brainstorms/swords. If they tap that land once then it has made a difference in the outcome of the game.
I have never once said anything about a nuts draw on the Countertop side. It is the most consistant deck in the format and if you do not look forward to the fact that multiple tarmogoyfs and counterbalance/top will be resolving through the course of the game then you are sadly misleading yourself.
The deck runs on 1cc cantrips and library manipulation. You are reducing the amount of time the CT deck needs to set up lock against you. So let me restate... the card is worse against the best deck in the format. You are helping the most played/popular strategy beat you.
And your plan to negate this problem, run less than 4 path to exiles.
As for specific examples: any cantrip into a tarmogoyf with mana open. Cantrip into CB/Top tap out. CB/Top with mana open. EE for 2 and blow it. Cantrip + EE for one and blow it. EE for 1 + swords. Double goyf. Goyf+Bob.
Top+ Goyf+activation for next turn. Sower. Get more islands for shackles.
These may not seem like "power" plays but the fact is that they are the plays that will beat you and you are speeding up the chances to make these plays. They will use the extra mana to ensure that they draw what they need, when they need it. It is the strength of the archetype.
Btw I love the recent creature lists. Figure+pridemage+awesome
p.s. Ill fix the formatting when I get home.
"eggs... why'd it have to be eggs"
Path's drawback shoudn't be ignored, but neither should swords' drawback. That's why I think a split is/can be a good idea.
Has anyone tried a split? like 3/2 or 3/3...thats proably too much dedicated removal.
"eggs... why'd it have to be eggs"
I'd go 2/2, tbh.
The reason this arguement has continued to rage is simple. Everyone is playing different decks and the life gain is important to some builds while the land isn't. There is no set in stone, this is the way you build zoo. But, check this:
4 AN Kird Ape R Creature - Ape
4 FUT Tarmogoyf 1G Creature - Lhurgoyf
4 ALA Wild Nacatl G Creature - Cat Warrior
4 ARB Qasali Pridemage GW Creature - Cat Wizard
3 TO Grim Lavamancer R Creature - Human Wizard
3 ALA Woolly Thoctar RGW Creature - Beast
// Spells
4 CFX Path to Exile W Instant
4 B Lightning Bolt R Instant
3 LG Chain Lightning R Sorcery
3 EX Price of Progress 1R Instant
2 VI Fireblast 4RR Instant
2 LG Sylvan Library 1G Enchantment
(straight off mWS, sorry)
I run PtE because unless i can land a price that life gain is going to hurt more than a land especially if i get in a countertop lock.
I have tested both. I have always played zoo and even when cursed scroll was a house (especially with sol ring and moxen) that life gain gave them an extra turn.
This is not the end all of zoo build, but this is the build that Alix Hatfield (insert oooo and ahhhh) :) and I came up with and he piloted it to a T4 at a recent SCG 5k in Boston. His neat-o story: I path my own guy to get double mountain so i could fireblast FTW.
Everyone is just going to have to face the fact that some builds like path better while others like swords.
I'm not bothering to quote your post because it's really long lavafrogg, but giving them 3-4 life will often be an extra turn which helps them win anyway. 3-4 life from an un-boltable goyf has an equal chance of losing you the game as giving them a land does as far as I can see it.
Who the hell is Alix Hatfield? Must not be that famous if I've never heard of em
Dead or Alive, you're coming with me.
-Robocop-
Pretty sure I addressed that...
. . .
You still have your creatures, of which many match or outclass a 2/3 Goyf (Kird Ape, Nacatl, Pridemage or Thoctar even if you were on the play). I mentioned this also, if you don't have Chain Lightning, then swing in with Nacatl or a Exalted Kird Ape, chances are they aren't sacing a Goyf to Fog the attack, if they do even better, by swinging your not losing any of your board pressure and you gain another turn before having to answer Tarmogoyf. Their following Turn, Turn 3, they may play out Counterbalance or something that doesn't grow Goyf and you might draw the Chain Lightning; they might grow him and chose to swing, in which case you're still probably in a position to race; you may draw your own Goyf the following turn, which with 'Mancer or Pridemage would put you ahead in the standoff; or you might end up casting your Path to Exile to following turn, accelerating them to land 4-5 on Turn 4, which isn't great but is better than casting it the turn prior and accelerating them to land 4 on Turn 3.
It's not the end of the world to Path to Exile a turn 2 Goyf. My main point is alot of the time the card doesn't have to be played early and in avoiding using it Turn 2 or 3, alot of the drawback is negated. Sometimes it does have to be played early, yes there is clearly a downside to the spell. But if given your hand it makes more sense to accelerate them in exchange for a cleared red zone, than PtE the Goyf and keep swinging. Sometimes the additional land comes back to hurt you, sometimes it was completely irrelevant.
No one is saying Path to Exile doesn't have a downside, they're saying it's downside is only as relevant as what the opponent can do with the additional mana. Swords to Plowshare's extra life is always going to be a relevant downside, extra life points need to be answered to win the game. Path to Exile's drawback definitely has the potential to be just as or more so relevant, but the later into the game it gets the less relevant it becomes and with fast large Creatures and 3pt burn spells one can quite often put off using the Exile removal spells until the mid game, where the acceleration becomes less relevant.
TPDMC
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote