Zoo is an archetype with a long history in Legacy. Traditionally, it was built as an aggressive deck with efficient creatures backed up by burn spells. However, "bigger" Zoo builds eventually evolved with more late-game staying power in both Extended and Legacy, perhaps best exemplified by Brian Kibler's winning deck from Pro Tour Austin in 2009. This archetype saw success most recently at an SCG Legacy Open in October 2013, when Shawn Yu piloted this list to a notable Top 8 finish. Legacy has changed a lot since then, and now Zoo is looked at as a relic of the past, but as a dedicated Naya player I have decided to investigate this archetype for myself. Fortunately, I was able to get some input from Mr. Yu to help me along my journey, which I hope others will find valuable as well!
The List
Yu's list brought a lot of interesting technology to the table to make a deck that attacks with Wild Nacatl viable in a format as diverse and powerful as Legacy. The Grove of the Burnwillows/Punishing Fire engine is very strong against most creature decks in the format, while a playset of Green Sun's Zenith adds an element of consistency to the deck while enabling a small toolbox of creatures to combat certain strategies. This was his 75 from the Legacy Open:
| Punishing Zoo, 10/2013 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Interview with Shawn Yu
How did you first hear of this deck and who do you think is credited with "inventing" it?
S: Big Zoo started in Extended shortly after the release of Zendikar when Brian Kibler took a Ben Rubin brew to the championship of PT Austin, featuring the Punishing Fire engine. The first time I was aware of it being ported into Legacy was after the 2010 Japanese Legacy Championship...notably, the first Legacy versions eschewed the Punishing Fire engine, but the real innovation was the combination of Noble Hierarch, Knight of the Reliquary, and Elspeth Knight-Errant, which gave the deck a leg up in the pseudo-mirror against the smaller Zoo decks which were the most dominant deck in Legacy at the time. Punishing Fire was a known commodity, but most people didn't think it was fast enough for Legacy (and it probably wasn't with the old meta). The first medium-sized tournament I ever won was with Big Zoo (without Punishing Fire), so the archetype held a special place in my heart. It was only after the format (and particularly, my local metagame) got saturated with a lot of slow control decks which could easily remove creatures but not reliably answer the Punishing Fire engine that the Punishing Fire became more popular. I eventually picked it up and swore by it. After Green Sun's Zenith got printed, I experimented with variants both with and without the new card. Obviously, that card also gave rise to the Maverick archetype, which is very similar to Big Zoo in many respects, except with even more of a midrange bent. Maverick was arguably the best deck in the format between 2011-2012, so many would-be Zoo pilots gravitated to that deck instead.
Why Big Zoo in a format as diverse and powerful as Legacy? (aside from the fact that it's awesome). What unique advantage can this archetype bring to the table?
S: I honestly think Big Zoo was extremely well-positioned during 2010. The best decks in the format were Zoo, Merfolk, and Goblins, and you improved your matchup in the pseudo-mirror at the slight cost of the latter two, but they still remained favorable. Punishing Fire was later included a strong counter to the rise of slow control decks that still allowed us to maintain the edge against tribal strategies. The metagame gradually shifted away from Big Zoo, but I do think there are many reasons to choose the deck. In my case, it was initially the deck with which I was most familiar, and I think there is a lot of advantage in knowing all the intricacies of a less objectively well-positioned deck. Furthermore, at a large event such as an SCG or GP, you also gain a lot of equity by playing a deck for which players are no longer prepared, which was especially the case when I sleeved up Big Zoo at SCG Seattle more than two years after its time had "passed". But what it does offer in addition to these intangible qualities are a very fast clock, unparalleled creature removal, solid answers to most other problematic permanents, and an inexorable long game that most grindy decks are not capable of matching. The combo matchup may initially seem unfavorable, but with a strong tutor-package and the appropriate sideboard cards, many of those matchups were quite manageable.
S: I honestly think Big Zoo was extremely well-positioned during 2010. The best decks in the format were Zoo, Merfolk, and Goblins, and you improved your matchup in the pseudo-mirror at the slight cost of the latter two, but they still remained favorable. Punishing Fire was later included a strong counter to the rise of slow control decks that still allowed us to maintain the edge against tribal strategies. The metagame gradually shifted away from Big Zoo, but I do think there are many reasons to choose the deck. In my case, it was initially the deck with which I was most familiar, and I think there is a lot of advantage in knowing all the intricacies of a less objectively well-positioned deck. Furthermore, at a large event such as an SCG or GP, you also gain a lot of equity by playing a deck for which players are no longer prepared, which was especially the case when I sleeved up Big Zoo at SCG Seattle more than two years after its time had "passed". But what it does offer in addition to these intangible qualities are a very fast clock, unparalleled creature removal, solid answers to most other problematic permanents, and an inexorable long game that most grindy decks are not capable of matching. The combo matchup may initially seem unfavorable, but with a strong tutor-package and the appropriate sideboard cards, many of those matchups were quite manageable.
What are the good and bad matchups in your opinion?
S: I generally want to play against most creature decks. This includes the likes of Shardless BUG, Deadguy Ale, Death and Taxes, Goblins, Stoneblade, Merfolk, etc. I should note, however, that the likes of Stoneblade and Merfolk have gotten a lot tougher since True-Name Nemesis were printed, and I actually haven't played the deck since SCG Seattle (right before TNN became legal). Most of the combo decks are pretty bad matchups in game 1, but I feel much more comfortable in games 2 and 3, since my sideboard is almost completely geared against those decks. Before the printing of TNN, I rarely needed to bring in any cards from the sideboard for the fair matchups, so I could easily devote all of those slots against combo. Miracles is also difficult as one of the few control decks with the ability to win before Punishing Fire can take the game over, mostly because Entreat is so hard to interact with. I should also note that as a non-blue deck, you'll be subject to variance that will cause you to lose a decent number of matches that should be favorable. I consider all of the Delver matchups to be slightly favorable, but they can definitely capitalize on your mana screw and to tempo you out if you have a slow draw, despite all the removal available in the deck.
S: I generally want to play against most creature decks. This includes the likes of Shardless BUG, Deadguy Ale, Death and Taxes, Goblins, Stoneblade, Merfolk, etc. I should note, however, that the likes of Stoneblade and Merfolk have gotten a lot tougher since True-Name Nemesis were printed, and I actually haven't played the deck since SCG Seattle (right before TNN became legal). Most of the combo decks are pretty bad matchups in game 1, but I feel much more comfortable in games 2 and 3, since my sideboard is almost completely geared against those decks. Before the printing of TNN, I rarely needed to bring in any cards from the sideboard for the fair matchups, so I could easily devote all of those slots against combo. Miracles is also difficult as one of the few control decks with the ability to win before Punishing Fire can take the game over, mostly because Entreat is so hard to interact with. I should also note that as a non-blue deck, you'll be subject to variance that will cause you to lose a decent number of matches that should be favorable. I consider all of the Delver matchups to be slightly favorable, but they can definitely capitalize on your mana screw and to tempo you out if you have a slow draw, despite all the removal available in the deck.
Which matchups are perhaps unexpectedly good or bad?
S: The combo matchups are much better than most people think:
- Against Storm, you have the ability to cast a quick Zenith for two, which completely locks out ANT in game 1. Scavenging Ooze is also quite annoying, and after board, you gain access to Thalia and Canonist.
- Against Reanimator, Scavenging Ooze is terrific, and you also have the ability to find Knight of the Reliquary into Karakas to deal with most of their scary threats. If they have countermagic for the Knight, their Exhumes are probably shut off.S: The combo matchups are much better than most people think:
- Against Storm, you have the ability to cast a quick Zenith for two, which completely locks out ANT in game 1. Scavenging Ooze is also quite annoying, and after board, you gain access to Thalia and Canonist.
- Against the older Show and Tell decks, you have a Karakas and four Knights, in addition to everything else in your deck. That's like running 5 Force of Wills for Show and Tell that they can't fight back against. There are variations since then that allow Sneak Attack strategies to combat that line, but you have some game too.
- I played against Omniscience quite a bit, although this predated Dig Through Time. You have a pretty fast clock with some useful hatebears (Qasali Pridemage, Thalia, Gaddock Teeg), but the most crippling of them is Ethersworn Canonist. If you hold that in your hand for their Show and Tell, a follow-up Red Elemental Blast (or even an on-board Pridemage) will destroy their Omniscience before they have the chance to do anything.
- Aluren can be scary, but with the Punishing Fire engine, they have to combo off instead of relying on grinding you out. You have Gaddock Teeg to protect against Aluren, and you can sandbag Qasali Pridemage or Ethersworn Canonist in hand for the rest of their combo if they do resolve Aluren.
- Elves is not a favorable matchup, but we have more removal spells than any other deck to buy some time. Gaddock Teeg and Ethersworn Canonist are pretty useful to delay their most threatening plays, and if they're unable to kill us before Punishing Fire comes online, we're probably safe. Engineered Explosives out of the sideboard also slows down some of their most explosive starts.
- I've skimped on some Dredge hate in my most recent builds, but the strategy is to use Plows to manage their Ichorids and Bolts to manage their Bridges until you're able to cast or Zenith for Scavenging Ooze (or Knight of the Reliquary for Bojuka Bog). I certainly consider the deck an underdog to an experienced Dredge pilot that has full information about the deck (which would tell them that they're safe to go all-in on an aggressive hand like LED + Breakthrough), but this almost never happens.
- Interestingly, a lot of the Stax matchups are quite favorable as well. This deck has plenty of ways to remove artifacts, to go upstairs, and to even sneak under an Ensnaring Bridge with Noble Hierarch exalted beats.
As far as matchups that are unexpectedly bad, that's difficult for me to assess: people tend to be surprised when Big Zoo wins anything nowadays! But Burn is a tougher matchup for this deck than it is for regular Zoo, given the increased susceptibility to Price of Progress, and a resource denial deck like Pox is really problematic. I also consider Affinity quite difficult, as it can build a board presence much faster than we can keep up with spot removal, plus Etched Champion can stonewall most of our larger threats.
How should one approach fighting Public Enemy No. 1, Miracles?
S: Locally, I'm actually known more for piloting Miracles than Zoo now, so I find it really interesting that you've asked this!
In this matchup, I think it's important to recognize that you're the aggro role once again because Punishing Fire is generally not going to win you the long game. It's important to treat things like a normal Zoo deck would: be aggressive and maintain a significant board presence that forces an answer from your opponent without overcommitting if you can help it. Force the control player to have an answer, which they often don't, especially if they don't know you're on Zoo. By the time they've found a Swords or Terminus on turn 3, your exalted Wild Nacatl beats might have already hit them for 8. Use that to bridge them into bigger threats like Knight and especially Elspeth. Planeswalkers are particularly difficult for Miracles to beat.
Keep in mind that before Council's Judgment and Monastery Mentor were printed, Gaddock Teeg plus Sylvan Safekeeper were essentially a hardlock for their answers and their win conditions. Your opponent will often have to use Swords aggressively to protect their life total, so in some board states where you need to protect the rest of your board against Terminus, it's okay to throw down an unprotected Teeg.
Consider using your Qasali Pridemages aggressively to get rid of their Tops, particularly in response to fetchland activations. Sometimes you'll need the Pridemage for the clock, but still other times, only Terminus will save them, and it's often worth the cost of a 2-for-1 to minimize their ability to find it.
Getting locked underneath a Counterbalance feels terrible, but I wouldn't worry about it. It doesn't directly answer your board and you have the ability to produce varied mana costs, including Green Sun's Zenith for greater than 2, in order to find a Pridemage if necessary. In the situations where they've stabilized the board and lock you out with a Counterbalance, you probably weren't winning anyway.
I've had enough success with Zoo against Miracles, as well as difficulties against Zoo with Miracles, that I wouldn't consider this a terrible matchup. While I do think it's in Miracles' favor, I would like to repeat a quote by Dave Price, the King of Beatdown: "there are wrong answers, there are no wrong threats". The onus is on the Miracles player to find the right cards for the matchup.
What would your 75 look like if you were forced to play this deck at a hypothetical Legacy Open tomorrow?
S: The main reason I stopped playing Zoo is that some of the most favorable matchups (Merfolk and Stoneblade) became much more difficult with the inclusion of True-Name Nemesis, so I'd have to find an answer to that card. I've considered going with a Stoneforge package (to find Sword of Fire and Ice) or running a single Kessig Wolf-Run to allow our big threats to trample over for damage. But that begs the question of why not play GW/b Maverick or Punishing Maverick instead.
If I were committed to Wild Nacatls, I would probably try to find some room for Council's Judgment, which conveniently answers many other problematic permanents. I would shave down on the Qasali Pridemage and possibly some combination of Swords and Bolt to make room for that. Elspeth is also a bit underwhelming in these circumstances, so that would probably have to go as well. And finally, I would not be able to afford devoting so many sideboard slots to the combo matchup while skimping on slots for fair decks.
My thoroughly untested deck would look something as follows:
4 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills
2 Taiga
2 Savannah
2 Plateau
1 Dryad Arbor
1 Forest
1 Plains
3 Grove of the Burnwillows
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Karakas
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Noble Hierarch
1 Sylvan Safekeeper
2 Qasali Pridemage
2 Gaddock Teeg
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Knight of the Reliquary
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
3 Lightning Bolt
4 Punishing Fire
3 Swords to Plowshares
3 Council's Judgment
4 Green Sun's Zenith
1 Xenagos, the Reveler
SB: 3 Containment Priest
SB: 3 Ethersworn Canonist
SB: 2 Ancient Grudge
SB: 2 Pyroblast
SB: 1 Red Elemental Blast
SB: 1 Bojuka Bog
SB: 2 Null Rod
SB: 1 Garruk Relentless
Could you explain the omission of staples in Green midrange decks such as Tarmogoyf, Wasteland, and Sylvan Library?
S: Tarmogoyf is a reasonable choice. I played a single copy in my Mirkwood event and it helped me win a game that I might have otherwise fallen behind in, but I cut it for (the) SCG because I was trying to squeeze in some Wastelands.
Wastelands are also reasonable, as I ran two in the SCG Open. Sometimes chaining a few together with Knight is all you need to get your opponent to stumble. Unfortunately, I think squeezing in a Kessig Wolf Run is more important after the printing of TNN, and I feel Wastelands are less useful for mana screwing the opponent the fewer you run.
I've never liked playing Sylvan Library because I would always kill myself with it, but that's more of a personal issue.
Thank you for offering your thoughts Shawn! :)
Conclusion & Further Reading
Punishing Zoo probably won't Top 8 another Legacy Open, but it is a fun deck with a surprising amount of game. My match record "grinding" this deck over three weeks so far is 12-14-1. This is my latest list (also posted in the Zoo thread on The Source):
| Punishing Zoo, 1/2016 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Here is a breakdown of my matches by event:
Shardless Bant 2-0
Esper Deathblade 2-1
Omni-Tell 1-2
Mono-B Reanimator 0-2
Enchantress 2-1
True-Name Bant 2-0
Esper Deathblade 2-0
Affinity 0-2
Burn 1-2
Goblins 1-2
Canadian Thresh 2-1
Mono-B Reanimator 2-1
Belcher 1-2
Flamespeaker Stompy 2-1
Miracles 1-2
Sneak & Show 2-1
Grixis Delver 1-2
Grixis Delver 1-1
UWRB Delver 0-2
True-Name Bant 0-2
Jund Turbo-Depths 1-2
The Cure 2-0
RG Lands 2-1
Aggro Loam 2-0
Esper Miracles 1-2
RG Lands 1-2
Reanimator 1-2
If you've made it this far, I encourage you to check out Yu's tournament reports with the deck on The Source, which are very detailed and analytical:
Shawn Yu's Mirkwood Cup Tournament Report, August 2013 (3rd-4th/95 players)
Shawn Yu's SCG Open Tournament Report, October 2013 (7th-8th/ >200 players)
No comments:
Post a Comment