Quote By Matt D'Avanzo, Paragon of Vintage (Matt) on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 06:23 am:
4 Kird Ape
4 Gorilla Shaman
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Blurred Mongoose
4 Chain Lightning
4 Bolt
4 Incinerate
1 Ancestral
1 Walk
1 Twister (yes, Nimbles hate it, but come on, let's be serious now)
1 Wheel
1 Windfall (for the record I hate this in 99% of Zoo decks, but this deck is fast enough to run it and it helps attain threshold...WOW....that is the wierdest feeling...justifying a restricted card because "it gains threshold")
1 Sylvan Library
2 Cursed Scroll
4 Taiga
4 Tropical
3 Land Grant
4 Volcanic
4 Wasteland
3 Moxen
1 Lotus
1 Strip
Simple explanation of why this deck looks the way it does. The main problem with Zoo, beyond uncontrollabl factors like Vise's resrtriction and accumulation of non-basic hate, is that people, IMO, are not building it with any sort of thought in mind past, "Okay, I'm going to take all the best cards from each color, add some creatures, and beat down!"
Zoo was created at a time when few mono-colored aggro strategies were nearly as competitive since the cardpool was more limited. Today there is no reason to play most Zoo builds when you could have Sligh or Stompy that kill faster and are more resilient. Thus, it only makes sense to splash for reasons...for solutions.
The problem with doing so is that solutions aren't general, they are specific and mess up that whole aggro philosophy of having threats instead of answers that are often dead cards.
This, more than Vise and more than B2B/pop/etc., is why Zoo has been such a laughing stock the last 4 years. We have acutally learned a greeat deal about deckbuilding since 1994, so how come most Zoo decks are either 1994 Zoo with better critters or rainbow sligh decks that are worse than sligh? Once we start splashing, we tend to lose some aggressive focus....since we can't kill in 4 turns we need to have Disenchants or somethingto that effect....and before you know it we are playing a deck that would prefer to have all it's creatures removed for 4 Mana Drain, 4 force of Will, and an Abyss.
Another problem is the reliance on draw 7s. the envirionment is faster than it was in 1994-5 and most Zoo decks are just not fast enough to make any better use of a draw 7 than your standard Keeper. Draw 7s, contrary to advice heard on this mill, are NOT good in all aggro decks, but rather only the very fastest and most aggressive (yet you also need to have enough mana to cast them and use some cards the same turn). So it's either use something else (standstill is good in some decks) or make sure this deck is FAST (yes, that means Calls must stay in type II for now).
This deck, though you may argue with a one or two of it's card choices (hey, my gaming time is mostly going to Dark Age of Camelot, not magic right now), represents the actualization of the above theory that at least 1/3 of you probably skipped reading. In short, it is how I believe the philosophy of Zoo applies to 2002.
Without sacrificing much cosistency (note, not one potentially dead card in the maindeck, just like sligh) this deck gives you (as compared to, say, sligh):
1) 8 guys that ignore abyss (not to mention a superior creature base overall). This is really key to the way I think aggro needs to be. It can't have conditional answers (meaning removal) to cards X, Y, and Z---it has to be built to ignore them.
2) Draw to prevent petering out. I made sure to add a nice load of burn to the maindeck to make sure your draw 7s are always something to be feared.
3) 8 guys that ignore cop: red and other similar hosers--see 1.
4) A winning record against sligh (as long as you arne't an idiot and play a ton of lands out for them to pop you) due to unburnable critters and 2/3s where they would have dead pups.
5) Enchantment kill can be used in the SB. Take that CooberP.
