I used that specifically as an example of a card that could go in either deck. Reanimator is on the rise.Originally Posted by Otter
Getting that 6/6 flying lifelink on the table is game against Sligh, but if you can path it you can win that MU easily. Since Path is probably a borderline card for a Sligh deck anyway (SOME burn goes toward creature removal in Sligh), it's not hard to imagine Path seeing a bit of play.
I guess they might still dig Archangel, but Path isn't far out of playable for a Sligh/Zoo deck. Not nearly as far out of playable as Woolly Thoctar or KotR.
Ninja Edit: Said the wrong card.
Zoo is simply a Sligh deck that has more colors. There is no other difference.
Different cards in each one will shift the deck towards a very beatdown oriented version or a very spell oriented version. I can show you examples of a beatdown Zoo, beatdown Sligh, spell oriented Zoo, and spell oriented Sligh.
Zoo/Sligh can shift back and forth along that spectrum of beatdown<----->burn but at heart they are the same exact strategy.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
Rico's point is valid.
A Sui strategy or Thresh strategy doesn't become something else because you cut a couple of counters for more creature removal, or a discard or LD spell for another creature. Tendrils decks don't stop being Tendrils decks because you cut one protector for a tutor, nor do Landstill decks lose their function because one sweeper turned into another counter.
Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Clearly the border between Sligh and Zoo is somewhat a personal preference. What was most appealing to me, was the definition of Sligh Hanni promoted all over the forums (like here here or here). In his understanding Sligh deck is more of a creature heavy burn deck, than burn heavy Zoo deck. A Sligh deck would rather play creatures only during first or maybe second turn and finish with burn from there.
Many of the posts above are in compliance with Hanni definition. Since the OP is clearly looking for a straightforward method to distinguish a Zoo deck from a Sligh deck for statistical purposes, rather than involve himself in an academic debate, I would recommend creature to burn ratio as the best criterion. According to Hanni definition out of the decks mentioned in OP I would classify only the second one as being clearly a Sligh deck (Edit: on second thought, the first one too, since Marauders and Fanatic are more of burn spells than creatures). Decks running 50/50 creature/burn split are somewhat borderline, but I would suggest classifying them still as Zoo decks, since their gameplan isn't as distinguishable from Zoo gameplan as the one of truly Sligh decks. To push as many decks as possible away from the gray zone I would call a deck in question a 'Sligh' deck if it runs 22+ burn spells.
Now, clearly, the gameplay of a r/g deck with 50/50 creature/burn split is much different from a deck packing in Libraries and Jittes but than again so is the difference in gameplay of different cb/top decks. Aiming for a t3 goldfish, being satisfied with only 6 damage dealt by creatures and being unhappy about drawing creatures past opening hand is clearly a different approach than a Zoo deck would like to employ.
Burn - Red damage spells mostly, with mogg fanatic, grim lavamancer (tho is a bad choice), keldon marauders, elementals, etc
Goyf Sligh (also called Naya burn)- Rgw: Optimal burn spells with Tarmogoyf, Kird ape, lamavancer, nacatl, goblin guide, the one that pumps itself
Zoo - less burn spells than goyf sligh, but zoo plays: Qasalis, Thotcars, Libraries, PtE, Jittes, Reliquarys.
Zoo and Goyf Sligh are good decks, Burn is a bad deck.
I think the reason this is difficult is because they used to be entirely different decks at one point. Zoo didn't Evolve from sligh. Sligh started as a monored deck and Zoo started as a deck with a low curve and efficient creatures. Zoo has much more emphasis on board pressence while sligh goes for the throat. It so happened to be the case that the two were evolving towards eachother because Wizards has been printing cards that are the most efficient choice for both strategies (Tarmogoyf, Nacatl).
I think a card like Mogg Fanatic or Keldon Marauders is a clear indication that you're dealing with a sligh deck. Fireblast and Price of Progress mainboarded are also clear indications that you're dealing with Sligh and not Zoo.
Path to Exile and Quasali Pridemage are what define Zoo at the moment. There is little to no reason to not run both in any agressive RGW strategy. There are simply too many strategies that are hosed by one or the other. It is my oppinion that without Pridemage, Zoo would still be tier 1.5 .
Team Unicorn is too hetero for me.While this is close it's still wrong. Every one knows it's an orgy of unicorns.******s?
TeaM NOVA for life.
As a long time Zoo player, I will affirm this statement. Pridemage was a godsend for Zoo.
Nod. I owe a Top 8 at Vestal, and a Top 16 at vestal to Zoo and Pridemage.
Team Unicorn is too hetero for me.While this is close it's still wrong. Every one knows it's an orgy of unicorns.******s?
TeaM NOVA for life.
There is a huge problem with this notion that Sligh is somehow "burn-heavy" in comparison to Zoo.
This deck is sligh:
Deadguy Red (PT LA '98 Winning Design) - David Price
4 Cursed Scroll
2 Scalding Tongs
4 Canyon Wildcat
4 Fireslinger
4 Giant Strength
4 Jackal Pup
4 Kindle
4 Mogg Conscripts
4 Mogg Fanatic
4 Mogg Raider
2 Rathi Dragon
16 Mountain
4 Wasteland
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
This is dangerous though, because I play a sligh deck with both.
Why are we still arguing about this?
Zoo and Sligh are the same deck. Zoo just indicates multiple colors while Sligh can be mono-red. G/r Sligh is the exact same thing as Zoo, G/r/w/u/b Sligh moreso.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Instead of calling the burn-heavy version Goyf Sligh we can call it "Piss, Apples, and Porcupines" for all it matters, the topic is just about where to draw the line between what is Zoo and what isn't. Besides, Sligh is usually just the best pile of aggressive red things and burn in a given format. Legacy's best guys happen to be very green, so it's hard to do a traditional mono-red Sligh. Splashing into green gives the deck a huge boost and then it starts sliding towards being Zoo, which is why there's the topic.
Zoo is an ancient archetype. Back in the day, it used to be UGR with Serendibs or WGR with Savannah Lions and Kird Apes (hence the name). RGW Zoo is a Zoo deck. R/G, mostly burn with Goyfs, is Goyf Sligh.
Because this is The Source: Your source for inane, hair-splittingly semantic arguments.
I think there must be a differentiation between archetypes and deck types. To me, Sligh is an archetype and Zoo is a deck type. Deadguy Red, Red Deck Wins, even Lackey Sligh are all Sligh decks, and Zoo seems to fit that mould. The only difference is the obvious movement towards Tarmogoyf and therefore a move towards white removal because red burn just doesn't cut it without paying 2 for 1.
I would say the current Legacy environment has a few Sligh archetype decks around, including Goyf Sligh, Zoo and Boros Landfall type decks (I probably missed others).
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
I'm with IBA, at least for purposes of what you're doing: shading may be a little different, and it's super-easy to be pedantic about this, but we're dealing with the same basic strategy: play some guys, connect when you can, burn them out. I'd separate Burn (which is basically a slow storm deck) from Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo; but if I were writing the analysis, would lump Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo into a single archetype for purposes of metagame analysis. If you want to do some deeper analysis on the burn/dudes strategy, then you can break them out; but for high-level "what's the metagame," consolidate where you can.
To your questions (in order), I'd call that Zoo; it's the same archetype; N/A; depends (see above); To sum up: depends on what you're trying to do (i.e. high-level metagame predictions/trends or archetype analysis).
This post is so ignorant that i simply cannot let it pass.
Zoo is an aggro deck which uses high efficiency cards to guarantee a positive card quality advantage in any 7 card hand over the deck sitting opposite it.
Sligh judges its card choices on the what mike flores calls the "philosophy of fire" in which a card is judged by the number of it that is required to deal 20 damage. For instance it takes 6.9 lightning bolts to kill someone.
thus the difference lies not in the card choices but rather why they are being chosen, and how they are played.
also your above statement "Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms." is also remarkably incorrect. the original zoo deck was called San Diego Zoo because it was full of apes and lions. (kird ape, Savannah lions, and Isamaru were the 1drops.)
declaring war on magic ignorance since 2009.
for the record i have no good ideas. im just pointing out yours are terrible too.
FYI. Smennen's right, "original" zoo decks ran also Serendib Efreet and Psionic Blast (white-bordered). San Diego Zoo was a historical variant of the dudes/burn strategy; like the Hatfield variants with Sylvan Library and Path to Exile. Like I said, it's easy to be pedantic with this topic.
i am not familiar with this.
declaring war on magic ignorance since 2009.
for the record i have no good ideas. im just pointing out yours are terrible too.
Yep. When I got back into Legacy, I was shocked that Zoo didn't have blue in it.
Now there's GRwb "Zoo." Although honestly if we're going back then to 1990s naming conventions, we would have called virtually all the tier 1 decks, "Zoo."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
