[Deck] Zoo

[Nelis]

Exacly...so Devil almost always guaranteed 4 damage for early in the game. Late game Devil is better than top-decking a Nacatl because they can't take the 4 to sac him...it might put them in Grim/burn range. Having most decks begin at 15 life (1 fetchland, 1 devil) seems like a good place for zoo to be starting their strategy.

It's a bad card. In the early game you want it to be a creature but it will be a burn spell. Late game it will be a creature when to want it to be a burn spell.

The only difference with Nacatl in the late game is that it does one more damage when it hits but that does not compensate for how bad it is the early game. It's not a good strategy.

[Mr. Safety]

It's a bad card. In the early game you want it to be a creature but it will be a burn spell. Late game it will be a creature when to want it to be a burn spell.

The only difference with Nacatl in the late game is that it does one more damage when it hits but that does not compensate for how bad it is the early game. It's not a good strategy.

Seriously? That comment tells me that you haven't played with Vexing Devil, or at least not enough to get the full measure of what he can do. I've won more games with Devil than I ever did with Goblin Guide or Kird Ape.

Zoo is a sligh deck, plain and simple. Vexing Devil is one of the best sligh creatures you could hope for. If you want to play a better straight-up aggro plan then look to Big Zoo, Maverick, or Bant Aggro. Traditional zoo is sligh. I've won games using only dudes and I've won games using only burn.

[Kich867]

Seriously? That comment tells me that you haven't played with Vexing Devil, or at least not enough to get the full measure of what he can do. I've won more games with Devil than I ever did with Goblin Guide or Kird Ape.

Zoo is a sligh deck, plain and simple. Vexing Devil is one of the best sligh creatures you could hope for. If you want to play a better straight-up aggro plan then look to Big Zoo, Maverick, or Bant Aggro. Traditional zoo is sligh. I've won games using only dudes and I've won games using only burn.

Going to have to agree with this. In my experience Vexing Devil is extremely devastating. Facing opponents who go turn 1: goblin guide, swing, turn 2: either Goblin Guide swing for 4 into Vexing Devil or swing for 2 into 2x Vexing Devil.

Now, if you don't have double removal, you've essentially lost that game on turn 2 and this shit isn't even -that- uncommon of a play, replace guides with a Steppe Lynx into Guide / Devil etc. If you don't have the removal you -have- to eat 8 so you only have to deal with one, not 3 creatures. But now you're probably at 8 turn 2 against zoo, if they're on the play you're in a big hole, if you're on the play you've at least got some mana to work with.

The old adage of it being a creature when you want a burn and a burn when you want a creature is kind of irrelevant. As is the "Well they just let it resolve if they have removal". Late game if it's a creature when you want it to be a burn may also mean that they won't live if they let it burn them but they are relying on top decking a removal to not die, it still applies massive pressure for 1 mana and is easily one of the scariest things to see get dropped on turn 2.

[Dragon_mage]

Hi everyone, last thursday I went to a little tournament and I played my favourite deck, Zoo... here is the list:

Creatures [22]
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Figure of Destiny
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Grim Lavamancer
2 Knight of the Reliquary

Spells [17]
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Chain Lightning
4 Path to Exile
4 Lightning Helix
1 Sylvan Library

Lands [21]
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Arid Mesa
4 Windswept Heath
2 Taiga
2 Plateau
1 Savannah
1 Skarrg, the Rage Pits
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Plains

...and this is the sideboard:

Sideboard [15]
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Faerie Macabre
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Pyroblast
4 Mindbreak Trap
3 Gaddock Teeg
1 Umezawa's Jitte

... the matchups:

R1: UR Burn (2-0): in G1 he attack me with a goblin guide who hits me twice and give me a land, after that a lightning bolt to the GG and a chain lightning to his delver gave me back the control of the table, further a couple of qasali pridemage and a goyf killed him. I side in 2 REB and a pyro in G2 and i won when I countered a submerge targeting my reliquary with a REB and a couple helix keep me away from his fire.

R2: B/W tokens (1-2): in G1 a nacatl on T1, qasali on T2 and figure+nacatl+lavamancer on T3 were enough. the G2 was in the other way, his discard, liliana and a couple of lingering souls put me so far of winning this game. G3 was hardest, a vindicate to my sylvan was painful, then a batterskull equiped with sword B/W and the path to exile that never came didn't let me kill him, just for fun an elspeth arrive to finish the work . the lavamancers and qasalis never show up

R3: Enchantress (2-1): G1 I let him in 3 lifes and then he beat me with his combo of Cadaverous Bloom with a lot of draw engine and cast an emrakul.... just for curiosity I looked my next card and it was a lightning bolt .... G2 the pressure of an early nacatl plus 2 goyfs and a couple of lightnings were enough. G3 and again the pressure of 2 qasalis and a goyf made me win

R4: Miracles U/W (2-1): G1 and his mistake trying to equip his vendilion to a jitte using his karakas don't let him save it when I burned it. in G2 the mistake is mine, he had a vendilion equiped with jitte with 3 counters and 2 lifes, in my upkeep he used his jitte to gain 6 lifes and I draw a lightning helix and I didn't doubt in do the 3 damage to him thinking he was on 2 life.... later, that vendillion kills me. in G3 he played a terminus having a nacatl and a reliquary, but they hit him enough to let him at the fire reach, a couple of turns later a lightning in his EOT and an helix with a chain in my turn kills him.

...this was my tournament, some conclusions... first of all I HATE batterskull, this ******* equipment won me any time it was on the field, so I will change my jitte in the side for an ancient grudge, second, I'll include the third reliquary because I need it more than once, so I probably take out a lavamancer... and I hope it wasn't boring for you guys... regards from Chile

PD: sorry for my english but I'm not native

[jandax]

It's a bad card. In the early game you want it to be a creature but it will be a burn spell. Late game it will be a creature when to want it to be a burn spell.

The only difference with Nacatl in the late game is that it does one more damage when it hits but that does not compensate for how bad it is the early game. It's not a good strategy.

Four damage for R was something the deck missed when I played it a year or two ago to some success. This deck has played Steppe Lynx (and I have, too), so at least this one is more on color. Like you said it is a burn spell early in the game, and a creature late game. Is your argument that Zoo needs to have a creature early on and a burn spell later in the game? The opposite of that, basically?

[Nelis]

Is your argument that Zoo needs to have a creature early on and a burn spell later in the game?

I feel a trap coming. But yes that's what I'm basically saying. I mean it's easy to come up with scenarios like Mr Safety and Kich867 do where Vexing Devil could shine but there's also enough scenario's to think of where the card absolutely not shines. So thats not really an argument in my opinion. 4 Damage turn one is not good if your deck mainly relies on creatures to push damage through.

But to be honest I don't really care even if it's better than I think (I really don't think so) since zoo is a bad deck anyway at the moment. That I'm replying is more a courtesy to you because we've actually met irl in the past. I find Goblins much more interesting at the moment.

[jandax]

I feel a trap coming. But yes that's what I'm basically saying. I mean it's easy to come up with scenarios like Mr Safety and Kich867 do where Vexing Devil could shine but there's also enough scenario's to think of where the card absolutely not shines. So thats not really an argument in my opinion. 4 Damage turn one is not good if your deck mainly relies on creatures to push damage through.

But to be honest I don't really care even if it's better than I think (I really don't think so) since zoo is a bad deck anyway at the moment. That I'm replying is more a courtesy to you because we've actually met irl in the past. I find Goblins much more interesting at the moment.

I quite like it in the ZOo deck nowadays, better than a 1/1 or 0/1 that needs lands to be anything. And just because it can "burn" an opponent it's not a totally dead draw like the aforementioned Kird Animals/lynx. There's no sugar coating a turd.

And I'd play Gobbos over Zoo right now anyhoo. At least it can win faster against the non-interactive combo decks, totally agree with you there

[Plague Sliver]

And I'd play Gobbos over Zoo right now anyhoo. At least it can win faster against the non-interactive combo decks, totally agree with you there

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. Zoo has a great matchup against Goblins and especially Merfolk, which is making a comeback. Not only that, but Stoneblade is on the decline and Batterskull has traditionally been the enemy of Zoo.

Goblins has to splash W for Thalia; Zoo can play Thalia already.

Combo is always going to be a problem, and that's where REB and possibly Revoker can come into play. Zoo has burn so it can win fast too.

David Price just finished 20th in the SCG Open with a pretty sweet Zoo brew:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=48481

As the man behind New Horizons, I can appreciate David's use of Horizon Canopy for the pseudo-card-draw effect.

Zoo isn't great at playing the control game vs. RUG Delver but the Jittes do the trick.

I also dig the 1-Wasteland configuration, for the random Waste-your-Maze blowouts.

The only thing I would try to do is squeeze in some Fireblasts, so that it becomes even more Sligh-ish in nature.

[jandax]

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. Zoo has a great matchup against Goblins and especially Merfolk, which is making a comeback. Not only that, but Stoneblade is on the decline and Batterskull has traditionally been the enemy of Zoo.

Goblins has to splash W for Thalia; Zoo can play Thalia already.

Combo is always going to be a problem, and that's where REB and possibly Revoker can come into play. Zoo has burn so it can win fast too.

David Price just finished 20th in the SCG Open with a pretty sweet Zoo brew:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=48481

As the man behind New Horizons, I can appreciate David's use of Horizon Canopy for the pseudo-card-draw effect.

Zoo isn't great at playing the control game vs. RUG Delver but the Jittes do the trick.

I also dig the 1-Wasteland configuration, for the random Waste-your-Maze blowouts.

The only thing I would try to do is squeeze in some Fireblasts, so that it becomes even more Sligh-ish in nature.

That's all fair, but here in the Netherlands/Belgium/Germany the metagame is way different than the SCG circuit. What Nelis was saying has more merit than it would stateside, which I was agreeing with him.

[feline]

Unfortunately I cannot defend my zoo deck either, right not it's just not fast enough as a baseline aggro deck, there's too much more relevant "stuff" going on, I still have my zoo deck together however, and I have options from "fast zoo" to "big zoo" and I have no plans of dumping the cards for any reason, but the closest thing to zoo I am looking at right now would be maverick, everything else is combo, control, or my other aggro deck "goblins."

Correct your capitalization and grammar please.
-4eak

[Nelis]

Simply put in this regard you’re right and Nelis is conspicuously wrong.

Give me some good reasons why I'm wrong. Apart from some situational reasoning in this thread I haven't read one bit of proper argumentation why it is so good. Because 'I say so' or 'if my opponent does not have creature removal' or 'Nelis is conspicuously wrong' has no value whatsoever.

And all you do is wrongfully attacking people based on your own ignorance of Zoo/Sligh. The definition of a Sligh deck is putting on pressure with cheap but effective critters and use burn to either get those creatures through or finish your opponent when they're low on life. If you have played zoo a lot then you'd know that you seldomly win by starting off without creatures. It is you who has no knowledge of the concept of zoo.All I can think of is that you mix up burn with zoo and think it works the same. But even in burn Vexing Devil is not good for exactly the same reasons, you never get what you want.

[Curby]

To be honest I'm surprised at the recent support of Devil in Zoo. Way back when it was spoiled, I argued against its use in Zoo. An edited version below:

A 4/3 for R is just what Zoo wants. It's better than Nacatl, Kird Ape, Loam Lion, etc. On the other hand, the purpose of our burn is often to clear a path for our creatures. Only towards the end of the game is burn directed at the opponent. This means that the vast majority of the time, Zoo's getting 4 damage for R. Despite the raw efficiency of 4 damage for R, Zoo would rather have something with more utility that can target a potential blocker, utility creature, etc.

Of course that was just speculation, but early testing seemed to confirm it: you always get what you'd rather not have. Despite each side of the card being better than Browbeat's two sides, it's still the opponent's choice. So really, what logical arguments can be made in support of its inclusion?

[lordofthepit]

To be honest I'm surprised at the recent support of Devil in Zoo. Way back when it was spoiled, I argued against its use in Zoo. An edited version below:



Of course that was just speculation, but early testing seemed to confirm it: you always get what you'd rather not have. Despite each side of the card being better than Browbeat's two sides, it's still the opponent's choice. So really, what logical arguments can be made in support of its inclusion?

I think Vexing Devil is terrible, but then again, I never liked Kird Ape or Loam Lion either. I want something that actually has a high impact on the board state or deals damage really quickly. Vexing Devil is the worst of both worlds.

[Curby]

I'm glad the voice of reason is still alive.

Devil is the worst chump blocker when you're losing the damage race and staring down a huge Knight of the Reliquary.

Devil is the worst burn spell when they're at 3 and you just need a little extra to win the game.

Here's the kicker: Devil still has a place in competitive Legacy.

I don't understand why zoo players aren't automatically including Steppe Lynx and Vexing Devil in their lists. Kird animals are a little more resilient but far less explosive.

Those who argue for Devil and Guide seem to be confusing the gameplan of a Sligh/Burn deck with that of a Zoo deck. Zoo is not Sligh, and it isn't meant to be. They're both aggressive, but the difference is stamina.

Sligh/Burn is indeed explosive, and strives to do as much damage to the dome as quickly as possible. To clinch the quick win, it runs more burn (explosive, damage-once) spells, and these are flung directly at the opp. Its chances of winning decrease drastically as it stops topdecking; it has run out of steam and the opp has a chance to stabilize.

As a counterpoint to Sligh/Burn, Zoo's burn spells are typically used to clear a path for its ground-pounders. Zoo tends to use more consistent, low-variance creatures. It wants to maintain more viability into turn 4+, and that means creatures that stick around and do consistent damage. For starters, that means creatures that actually have a chance of landing on the table when cast early, so that it can attack several times.

Since Sligh plays the short game, creatures will likely have fewer opportunities to attack, and a 4/3 that turns into a Fireblast won't have missed too many attack phases. Since Zoo plays a longer game, creatures will have more opportunities to attack, and a 4/3 that turns into a Fireblast will be missing more attack phases.

Sure, you can make a hybrid, draw inspiration from both, and achieve success. It still doesn't mean that it's the only way, or even a better way. To me, the intended gameplan of a Zoo deck simply doesn't support creatures like Lynx and Devil, but they would fit just fine in Sligh/Burn decks. If you want to play Lynx and Devil in an aggressive deck, maybe there's another deck that would better fill your needs.

[Nelis]

Hmmm, to me Zoo is the modern day take on sligh. It's just that the creatures have become better and are in different colors. If you look at the original sligh deck, it still features (just like zoo) a lot of creatures and relatively little burn spells. (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Sligh or http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...daily/deck/691) The way you play both decks is also the same. Use burn to get your creatures through and use the remainder of the burn spells to finish of the opponent.

Modern day burn decks on the other hand only run a lot of burn spells and just a few creatures (which basically represent burn spells). Generally speaking its played differently too. Burn spells are not meant to get rid of creatures (with some exceptions) but to go straight for the dome.

[Curby]

Modern day burn decks on the other hand only run a lot of burn spells and just a few creatures (which basically represent burn spells). Generally speaking its played differently too. Burn spells are not meant to get rid of creatures (with some exceptions) but to go straight for the dome.

I was referring to modern day goyf sligh, which plays a lot like modern burn in philosophy, though it focuses a little bit more on creature-based damage. In both, there's a lot of burn sent at the opp.

[feline]

Gen con, this deck made the finals, but lost to a sneak & show deck:

4 Arid Mesa
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Plains
2 Plateau
1 Savannah
2 Taiga
4 Wasteland
2 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
1 Granger Guildmage
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Kird Ape
3 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Qasali Pridemage
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Swords to Plowshares
Sideboard
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Gaddock Teeg
1 Granger Guildmage
1 Knight of the Reliquary
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Pyroblast
1 Swords to Plowshares
3 Tormod's Crypt

[mmmetaphor]

Gen con, this deck made the finals, but lost to a sneak & show deck:

4 Arid Mesa
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Plains
2 Plateau
1 Savannah
2 Taiga
4 Wasteland
2 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
1 Granger Guildmage
4 Grim Lavamancer
4 Kird Ape
3 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Qasali Pridemage
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Chain Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Swords to Plowshares
Sideboard
2 Ancient Grudge
1 Gaddock Teeg
1 Granger Guildmage
1 Knight of the Reliquary
3 Mindbreak Trap
3 Pyroblast
1 Swords to Plowshares
3 Tormod's Crypt

Granger guildmage???

[feline]

Yea I know, I don't know why that's not a Grim Lavamancer.
-EDIT- Nevermind, there's already 4 lavamancer's in there.

[from Cairo]

Yea I know, I don't know why that's not a Grim Lavamancer.
-EDIT- Nevermind, there's already 4 lavamancer's in there.

Lavamancer number 5 seems fine in such an agro oriented format. Granger's ability to grant First Strike doesn't seem too shabby either against Tribal and even to expand the value of Bolts by going 1 for 1 on larger blocking targets (Goyfs, opposing Knights, Oozes, etc).