Tournament Report: Top16 @ SCG Classic with Punishing Zoo, 10/29/17

After going 1-3 drop with Punishing Maverick in the SCG Open on Saturday, I decided to play Punishing Zoo in the Classic on Sunday. My experiences getting hosed by Liliana the Last Hope (maindeck!) and Izzet Staticaster in the Open led me to consider that Zoo may be in a better spot than Punishing Maverick at the moment.

Zoo is specifically stronger against the popular Grixis Delver and Czech Pile-style decks for several reasons. Maverick is a slow, synergy-based strategy that can be effectively combated by their efficient disruption. Its also vulnerable to cards which have become prevalent like those mentioned above and Kolaghan's Command.

On the other hand, Zoo has more individually powerful cards, and can match these decks on the efficiency axis with a 1-mana threat in Wild Nacatl and additional 1-mana interaction in Lightning Bolt. Against Delver its very realistic to race without drawing any interaction, which Maverick can almost never do. You're also less vulnerable to sweepers since you can present a decent clock with fewer creatures.

I ended up on the list below, which can also be found here.

Punishing Zoo, 10/29/17
Creature Spells (20) 4x Noble Hierarch 4x Wild Nacatl 2x Qasali Pridemage 2x Scavenging Ooze 1x Gaddock Teeg 1x Voice of Resurgence 4x Knight of the Reliquary 2x Thalia, Heretic Cathar	Noncreature Spells (17) 4x Green Sun's Zenith 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Swords to Plowshares 4x Punishing Fire 1x Sylvan Library
Lands (23) 4x Wooded Foothills 4x Windswept Heath 2x Savannah 2x Taiga 2x Plateau 1x Forest 1x Plains 1x Dryad Arbor 3x Grove of the Burnwillows 1x Karakas 2x Wasteland	SB: 3x Surgical Extraction SB: 1x Gaddock Teeg SB: 2x Pyroblast SB: 1x Wear / Tear SB: 1x Reclamation Sage SB: 2x Crop Rotation SB: 2x Ethersworn Canonist SB: 1x Bojuka Bog SB: 1x Umezawa's Jitte SB: 1x Chandra Pyromaster

I made a few adjustments to the maindeck since last playing it in June. The "grind slot" changed from a Planeswalker to the 4th Punishing Fire. I also cut the 3rd Qasali Pridemage for a Voice of Resurgence based on Voice's sterling performance in Maverick so far. Lastly, Skarrg, the Rage Pits was replaced with a 2nd Wasteland, mostly due to concern with the Lands and Turbo Depths matchups. Skarrg is a true beating against True-Name Nemesis, but we don't need the extra help against decks employing that card.

I honestly didn't put enough thought into the sideboard, which is functionally the same sideboard I play in Maverick. I incorporated the Crop Rotation package without being certain of its effectiveness in the absence of Dark Depths.

There were 119 players in the tournament so it was 7 rounds. Mine went as follows:

Round 1: Canadian Threshold (2-1)
Round 2: Czech Pile (2-1)
Round 3: Death & Taxes (2-1)
Round 4: Aggro Loam (1-2)
Round 5: Czech Pile (2-0)
Round 6: Sneak & Show (0-2)
Round 7: Grixis Control (2-0)

At 5-2 I had good enough breakers to slide into 15th place.

The only bad matchup I encountered was Sneak & Show, which I regrettably punted a winnable game 1 against. The deck performed well against the various fair Blue decks I expected to face. As long as significant quantities of such decks exist in the meta, Zoo has a chance to be relevant. While not a very impressive result, I hope this provides some visibility to the Zoo archetype and demonstrates that it has life in the current meta.

As a postscript, I would like to congratulate my car mates Matt Kuranda and Caleb Comptois for making Top 8 and Top 32 respectively in the Open!

Top4 @ Legacy Loot with Punishing Zoo

Two local Legacy Dual Land tournaments were slated to take place on June 10th, the weekend before GP Vegas, one at Scholar's in Bridgewater and the other at Die Hard Games in Pawtucket. Both events had been on the calendar for some time and there was reportedly some back and forth between the two stores about a re-scheduling, but a compromise couldn't be reached. Thus, me and many other Legacy players based in MA had a choice of tournaments to attend. I ended up deciding on Die Hard's. While it had worse prize support it had cheaper entry and started later. Plus, I hadn't been to Die Hard in almost two years and felt like going there again.

Over a month ago I "locked-in" Bant Stoneblade as the deck I would play in the main event at GP Las Vegas. I played it almost exclusively in my weekly events since then, but a few days ago realized I wasn't as confident with the deck was I wanted to be for the GP and would probably be better off playing a Green/Punishing Fire deck. Unfortunately, I'd been neglecting Maverick almost completely since SCG Worcester, so that wasn't an appealing alternative. The "solution" I found to these apprehensions was to try Punishing Zoo. It has a lot of the same advantages Punishing Maverick offers while being a bit more straightforward to play. I decided to put Zoo to the test at Die Hard's event this weekend. Here's what I registered:

Punishing Zoo, 6/10/17
Creature Spells (20) 4x Noble Hierarch 4x Wild Nacatl 3x Qasali Pridemage 2x Scavenging Ooze 1x Gaddock Teeg 4x Knight of the Reliquary 2x Thalia, Heretic Cathar	Noncreature Spells (17) 4x Green Sun's Zenith 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Swords to Plowshares 3x Punishing Fire 1x Sylvan Library 1x Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Lands (23) 4x Wooded Foothills 4x Windswept Heath 2x Savannah 2x Taiga 2x Plateau 1x Forest 1x Plains 1x Dryad Arbor 3x Grove of the Burnwillows 1x Karakas 1x Skarrg, the Rage Pits 1x Wasteland	SB: 3x Surgical Extraction SB: 1x Gaddock Teeg SB: 2x Pyroblast SB: 1x Wear / Tear SB: 1x Reclamation Sage SB: 1x Enlightened Tutor SB: 1x Null Rod SB: 1x Ethersworn Canonist SB: 1x Grafdigger's Cage SB: 1x Umezawa's Jitte SB: 2x Blood Moon

There were 25 people at the tournament compared to 30 at Scholars, a near 50/50 split between the two stores. Some people bemoaned that they would have rather played in a single 55 player event, but I was content to play 5 rounds of Legacy regardless.

My rounds went as follows:

Round 1: Food Chain (2-0)
Round 2: Grixis Delver (2-1)
Round 3: Grixis Delver (2-0)
Round 4: ID
Round 5: ID
Quarterfinal: Grixis Delver (2-0)
Semifinal: Omni-Sneak (0-2)

I ended up claiming the 3rd place prize of 2 Revised Scrublands (Unfortunately I noticed after leaving that one of the Scrublands is in very sorry shape - while probably sleeve playable, it is definitely worthless).

My matchups weren't varied, but I gained the valuable knowledge that its difficult for this deck to lose to Grixis Delver. We'll see how I feel about this over the next few days...but if someone is going to play Zoo at the biggest Legacy event of the year, it should be me, right?

Punishing Zoo Update

After a lengthy hiatus from Zoo I was itching to sling Wild Nacatls again, so I came up with a new Punishing Zoo list.

In the process I noticed that throughout 2016, MTGO player nekoyama had been putting up results playing various configurations of Punishing Zoo (the archetype had no results in paper events though). His lists are on the grindiest end of the spectrum and many would argue aren't even Zoo, eschewing staples like Lightning Bolt and Tarmogoyf for cards like Stoneforge Mystic and Huntmaster of the Fells.

I decided to go in a more traditional direction when re-vamping my last list from ~February 2016. One new card had caught my eye-Thalia, Heretic Cathar looked like a strong and natural addition to the deck.

So far I've played Punishing Zoo in 4 local weekly events over the last few weeks and prized (X-1 in 3 or 4 rounds) at all of them.

Here is the current iteration of the deck:

Punishing Zoo, 12/19/16
Creature Spells (20) 4x Noble Hierarch 4x Wild Nacatl 3x Qasali Pridemage 2x Scavenging Ooze 1x Gaddock Teeg 4x Knight of the Reliquary 2x Thalia, Heretic Cathar	Noncreature Spells (17) 4x Green Sun's Zenith 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Swords to Plowshares 3x Punishing Fire 1x Sylvan Library 1x Chandra, Pyromaster
Lands (23) 4x Wooded Foothills 4x Windswept Heath 3x Savannah 2x Taiga 2x Plateau 1x Forest 1x Dryad Arbor 3x Grove of the Burnwillows 1x Karakas 1x Kessig Wolf Run 1x Wasteland	SB: 3x Surgical Extraction SB: 3x Thalia, Guardian of Thraben SB: 1x Gaddock Teeg SB: 1x Pyroblast SB: 1x Ancient Grudge SB: 1x Enlightened Tutor SB: 1x Pithing Needle SB: 1x Ethersworn Canonist SB: 1x Grafdigger's Cage SB: 1x Stony Silence SB: 1x Worship

Some musings so far:

• Thalia, Heretic Cathar (replacing Tarmogoyf) has been a solid addition as expected. She has an aggressive body and an asymmetric hateful ability, which I think makes for an excellent Zoo card-I've often considered playing Spirit of the Labyrinth and/or Aven Mindcensor for the same reasons, but Thalia's power level is far higher.

• I used to always play 1 basic Plains, but the mana in the deck is a bit awkward so I cut it for the 3rd Savannah. I would only put the Plains back in a meta with known Burn and/or Blood Moon players, or maybe in a large unknown meta.

• Related to the above, I played Blood Moon in the sideboard a few times. Blood Moon provides valuable land hate for this deck which only plays a single Wasteland. However, I believe you need to have a basic Plains to play your own Blood Moons. Winter Orb might provide a bit of a compromise.

• I'm still unsure which "Trample land" is better between Kessig Wolf Run and Skarrg, the Rage Pits (linked for any unfortunates who don't know this beautiful card). I tested Skarrg and while it is more efficient and gives a point of toughness, the ability to pump Wolf Run to infinity may be superior. Skarrg definitely wins big in the "wtf" category, and the reactions of opponents I killed aided by this card were fantastic. Overall, I think the "Trample land" slot is valuable in Zoo because the deck can sometimes struggle in a grind to push damage through. 

• Worship in the sideboard is a concession to the Eldrazi matchup primarily. I only played against Eldrazi once and lost, and think its not a great matchup. While we have Knight, we have a bad Wasteland plan and are a bit vulnerable to Chalice. Cutting Tarmogoyf probably hurts the most here. Having access to Blood Moon could be an avenue to improve this matchup.

Deck Tech: Punishing Zoo feat. Shawn "FIGHT ME!" Yu

                 

Background

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
Creature Spells (19) 4x Noble Hierarch 4x Wild Nacatl 1x Sylvan Safekeeper 3x Qasali Pridemage 2x Scavenging Ooze 1x Gaddock Teeg 4x Knight of the Reliquary	Noncreature Spells (18) 4x Green Sun's Zenith 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Swords to Plowshares 4x Punishing Fire 2x Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Lands (23) 4x Wooded Foothills 4x Windswept Heath 2x Taiga 2x Plateau 2x Savannah 1x Forest 1x Plains 1x Dryad Arbor 3x Grove of the Burnwillows 1x Karakas 2x Wasteland	SB: 3x Engineered Explosives SB: 3x Ethersworn Canonist SB: 3x Thalia, Guardian of Thraben SB: 2x Ancient Grudge SB: 2x Pyroblast SB: 1x Bojuka Bog SB: 1x Gaddock Teeg

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.

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.

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.
- 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
Creature Spells (19) 4x Noble Hierarch 4x Wild Nacatl 3x Qasali Pridemage 2x Tarmogoyf 1x Scavenging Ooze 1x Gaddock Teeg 4x Knight of the Reliquary	Noncreature Spells (18) 4x Green Sun's Zenith 4x Lightning Bolt 4x Swords to Plowshares 4x Punishing Fire 1x Sylvan Library 1x Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Lands (23) 4x Wooded Foothills 4x Windswept Heath 2x Taiga 2x Savannah 1x Plateau 1x Forest 1x Plains 1x Mountain 1x Dryad Arbor 3x Grove of the Burnwillows 1x Karakas 2x Wasteland	SB: 3x Thalia, Guardian of Thraben SB: 2x Ethersworn Canonist SB: 2x Containment Priest SB: 2x Krosan Grip SB: 1x Crop Rotation SB: 1x Pithing Needle SB: 1x Thrun, the Last Troll SB: 1x Fiery Justice SB: 1x Bojuka Bog SB: 1x Gaddock Teeg

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)