In my last article I explored the Zoo archetype in post-Guildpact Standard at a theoretical level — analysing the role, in aggro strategies, of particular creatures and spells in order to discern which belonged together and which did not for this archetype. I concluded that article with two Zoo decklists, one for a build based upon the classic Sligh model, the other for a deck more reminiscent of Fires of Yavimaya from Masques-Invasion era Standard. This time around I want to go into detail about that former list.

Petting Zoo Featured by Iain Bain on 2006-03-05 (Standard) As written about in http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11429.html Print this deck!
Maindeck: Creatures 4 Kird Ape 4 Savannah Lions 4 Scab-Clan Mauler 4 Watchwolf Instants 4 Char 4 Flames of the Blood Hand 4 Lightning Helix 4 Shock Legendary Creatures 3 Isamaru, Hound of Konda	Sorceries 4 Volcanic Hammer Basic Lands 1 Forest Lands 4 Battlefield Forge 1 Brushland 3 Karplusan Forest 4 Sacred Foundry 4 Stomping Ground 4 Temple Garden	Sideboard: 4 Tin Street Hooligan 3 Demystify 4 Umezawa's Jitte 2 Godo, Bandit Warlord 1 Brushland 1 Karplusan Forest
Download this deck in Apprentice format!		Download this deck in Magic Online Text format!

Having previously explained why creatures such as Burning-Tree Shaman and Rumbling Slum are absent from this list, I feel that to do so again would be somewhat superfluous. Likewise, I don't need to explain why two-powered creatures that cost one mana and burn spells (per se) are included in what is essentially a Sligh deck. That being the case, there are only a few outstanding issues that need addressing:

1) The merits of Scab-Clan Mauler.

This particular creature seems to have generated a significant enough amount of controversy in various Magic forums that his presence is well worth justifying. The key issues are firstly whether the potential for a 3/3 trampler for two mana is worth the risks of a 1/1 trampler at the same price; and secondly, by how much does the response to that query differ the more likely the former scenario than the latter? Conducting a pure gain versus loss analysis, I think you have to conclude “no” in response to the first question. Sligh decks are built with the objective of doing the same thing to their opponent's game after game: consistency is key. Scab-Clan Mauler just doesn't provide that consistency (again, in purely abstract terms).

The crucial caveat, however, is that the probability of triggering Bloodthirst with this build is exceptionally high. With access to eleven one-drops, four copies of Shock, and - if things get really tight - four each of Lightning Helix and Volcanic Hammer on turn 4, a Scab-Clan Mauler in your opening hand is almost certain to come down as a 3/3 between turns 2 and 3. (I would note, though, that any build opting not to run Shock should probably also abandon Scab-Clan Mauler as it is that card which really boosts the consistency of Bloodthirst). Where the card becomes significantly weaker is in the mid-to-late game, being drawn off the library with no means of forcing damage through. A crucial point can be made here, though. None of the deck's creatures amount to a good draw beyond turns 4 or 5. At that stage your opponent's more powerful effects will have come online and your creatures just can't be expected to impact the game state given their size. The mid-to-late game will always be about finding enough burn to finish off the opponent. Whether you draw land, a Scab-Clan Mauler, or a Watchwolf the effect will typically be the same — a dead draw. This being the case the most significant drawback of the Mauler is practically negated. That leaves you with a two-mana investment, for what is often six damage, that isn't held up by Sakura Tribe Elder, Wood Elves or Ravenous Rats. That, I feel, most certainly justifies its inclusion.

2) More generally, the sheer amount of burn, and more specifically, the inclusion of Flames of the Blood Hand.

Most lists of Zoo I have seen run, at most, Shock, Lightning Helix, and Char, with some opting for just the latter two. In the place of more burn are creatures. This I feel is a huge mistake. Sligh, as I alluded to previously, is only concerned with combat for about the first half of the game; the remaining 50% of the deck's focus is on burning the opponent out. I can understand the misconception which attaches more significance to the creatures because these often seem to have more impact on the game than the one-shot direct damage effects. You play a couple of efficient beaters on turns 1 and 2, burn through your opponent's defences from then on and voilà, those same creatures have each just dealt twice the damage of a Volcanic Hammer. The problem is that this view, whilst justified in the very early game, simply holds no weight beyond about turn 4 or 5. By this time, your opponent's answers really start coming online, as do their more powerful effects. At this stage you will probably be lucky to get any more damage out of combat (other than through a creature rush where you make an uneven trade for the purposes of squeezing as much damage through as possible). Instead, therefore, you need to be drawing burn for the rest of the game i.e. damage that cannot be blocked or destroyed. Remember, your creatures have now fulfilled their role: their inherent tempo advantage has forced a hopefully significant amount of damage through; now is the time for the burn spells to take over and finish the job. Nineteen creatures ensures consistent drops on turns 1 through 3, but twenty burns spells ensures enough ammunition later on to end the game. The sheer amount of burn is very much necessary because it may have to steal you the game from an opponent with as much as twelve to fourteen life. This leads nicely, therefore, to the following point:

Flames of the Blood Hand fits the deck's core strategy incredibly well. Four damage itself it absolutely huge, not as a one-shot effect, but as part of any package of burn that should have accumulated in your hand by the mid game. Being able to send four damage at your opponent during his end phase, followed by another four on your turn is devastating (not to mention frequent thanks to the four copies of Char in the build) and that play involves only two of your twenty burn effects. Not hitting creatures is fine — you have sixteen other spells fulfilling that role. The life gain clause itself can be highly relevant, especially given how good Loxodon Hierarch is against this deck, in addition to the presence of Faith's Fetters; Miren, the Moaning Well; and Kokusho, the Evening Star in the format. All this for only three mana, and at instant speed, makes the spell arguably one of the best in the deck.

3) The lack of maindeck Umezawa’s Jitte, but a sideboard devoted to it.

The former may or may not be controversial — it probably depends who you are — but I think the reasons for Jitte's absence are compelling. Referring back to my previous article, the equipment is simply awful in terms of tempo and just doesn't fit, in any way, the deck's gameplan. Hear me out on this one. In the best-case scenario (i.e. where you get to cast and equip the Jitte in the same turn, whilst not losing either the equipment or its wearer before combat), you are spending four mana for an effect that wont do anything relevant in this deck for at least a turn (the life-gain will be irrelevant given that you are always the aggressor, the power/toughness boost will only assist your strategy in your next attack, as will the -1/-1 effects when they remove any potential blockers). Not only that, you are giving about the best opportunity possible for your opponent to destroy your tempo advantage — by killing the equipped creature — effectively Time Walking you. More than any of that, however, is the fact that by the time Umezawa's Jitte comes online, your gameplan no longer involves combat: it involves burning your opponent out. Indeed, the most compelling reason to maindeck this card is to exploit the Legend rule, but given how many ways you have of dealing with Jitte's wearer anyway, plus the general absence of the equipment from the currently control-ridden Standard format (see the matchup analysis below if you don't believe me)... I think it becomes extremely difficult to justify such a significant interference with the consistency of the deck.

Sideboarding, however, is an entirely different proposition. The problem that Sligh has in the mirror match, or against any aggro deck that can deploy creatures such as Burning-Tree Shaman, Loxodon Hierarch, or Rumbling Slum quickly, is that its tempo advantage evaporates. You can race with your burn, but that just isn't a strategy you can consistently rely upon here. Furthermore, you have to expect that your aggro opponent is running Umezawa's Jitte himself, and if he is playing anything with greater toughness than three, you will lose that match. Here, you have to retune the focus of the deck, abandoning your aspirations of exploiting tempo, and turning instead to the most powerful card in Standard. Once you no longer care about tempo, Jitte recovers all of those traits that make it so powerful: the ability to turn every creature you draw into a one-man army, trading with creatures twice their size, dodging burn with ease, and accruing massive card advantage. Of course, in order to win with Jitte you have to not lose to it yourself first, and then make sure that yours sticks. That requires a lot of sideboard space, but fortunately the deck's design leaves little which can actually be added to the control matchups so it is quite possible to justify the skew. The equipment itself and the Tin Street Hooligans then are self-explanatory in this regard. However, they never feel enough: the best you can expect out of them is Jitte parity. In order to gain Jitte superiority you need to draw more copies of the equipment than your opponent. It is a crying shame that Steelshaper's Gift no longer resides in Standard, but Godo, Bandit Warlord certainly gets the job done. The obvious hindrance is the mana cost — hence lands twenty-two and twenty-three. It would usually be a problem for a deck fighting a war of attrition to actually reduce its spell count post-board, but Jitte is just so dominating that if you are winning that particular battle it becomes a moot point.

4) The inclusion of Demystify in the sideboard

Demystify is the anti-control card of choice for this deck, as many of the biggest problems you are likely to encounter against control are enchantments. Threads of Loyalty is public enemy number one, as three mana for a two-for-one trade (the stolen creature plus a removal spell to deal with it) is backbreaking — especially in multiples or in tandem with Boomerang (which, when cast on the enchantment with combat damage on the stack, effectively acts as Threads five through eight). Ivory Mask and Form of the Dragon from Enduring Ideal are equally dangerous if the game can't be put away on the spot or in the next turn whilst hitting Faith's Fetters from that same deck can also be hugely effective. Finally, the deck absolutely needs a solution to Glare of Subdual as that card is not only a wrecking ball in its own right but it also shuts off the rest of your sideboard plan. Demystify is run in preference to Kami of Ancient Law because 95% of the time you don't want to expose your only answer to opposing removal (you'll feel kind of stupid if your opponent Threads the Kami). Being one mana cheaper and an instant is relevant a large amount of the time, especially in the case of Threads of Disloyalty, where having one White mana open at end of turn allows you to attack with the reclaimed creature.

That's pretty much it for the build analysis, then, so on to the matchups. I'll note at this point the lack of any expected win/loss percentages below. I have never understood how knowing whether a matchup favors you by 55% or 65% is actually going to make a difference to each round you play in a given tournament. All you need to know is what the key cards are at both ends, how to play the match, and whether it is favorable or not so that you can determine whether the deck is a good choice in your expected metagame.

Mono Blue Control/Bob the Builder

I include these two decks together because although they operate slightly differently the two matchups play out in a very similar fashion. The games against these two control decks are just about favorable to you but tend to fall at one extreme or the other — you either win, and win quickly, or you lose having done very little at all. The reason is twofold. First, the dice roll is hugely important. Being able to slip a one-drop then a two-drop into play before Mana Leak and Remand come online makes every difference. Second, there are two cards that the Blue mage must see over the course of the game in order to win: Disrupting Shoal and Threads of Disloyalty. The first negates reason one, and the second is crucial for stalling the game until Meloku or Keiga can be deployed. I have yet to lose a game to either deck where neither of these cards were drawn. You could possibly include Quicksand in this category of cards but it only actually kills seven of the deck's nineteen creatures, whilst forcing your opponent to stumble on his mana development.

I said that the matchups favor you and the reason is this: Although the Blue mage has some very effective answers the Zoo deck puts them under an immense amount of pressure. Not only does it force them to have the necessary answers right away, it forces them, at some point, to tap out. If you have just one creature chipping away every turn your opponent can't wait for a billion mana to drop Meloku or Keiga with counterspell backup; they have to stem the bleeding. This moment gives you the perfect opportunity to unload your burn spells, finishing the job that your creatures started. It is too difficult, under normal conditions, for the opponent to dictate the pace of the game and that makes your burn very much more effective. Of course, the game is infinitely harder when you are on the draw (though again, the blue mage is forced to have a very strong opening hand) and this accounts for the overall matchup being only just above favorable. Obviously, if your opponent only runs Threads of Disloyalty in the sideboard, game 1 improves vastly for you — on the play or draw.

Sideboarding is relatively simple here and requires little additional explanation to that already given:

+3 Demystify / - 3 Shock

URzatron

This matchup is similar to the above but with some crucial differences: you are unlikely to have concern for either Disrupting Shoal, or maindeck Threads of Disloyalty. This is huge because although the URzatron deck is more intrinsically powerful than either Mono-Blue or Bob the Builder, that power comes from a land base that is going to be incredibly difficult to assemble consistently by turns 5 or 6. The pressure applied by Zoo forces your opponent to have a really good draw because he has virtually no fallback plan for this matchup. Of course, the flipside is that sometimes you will just lose to fortuitous draws but the consistency of your deck in carrying out its gameplan relative to that of your opponent in the same time frame means you are certainly the favorite for this match — more so than above. Again, play around opposing counterspells by waiting for your opponent to tap low on mana before offloading your burn. This will be easy to do as your deck dictates the pace of play and will ensure maximum impact out of each of your cards.

Sideboarding here is tricky because there is much less chance that your opponent actually runs Threads of Disloyalty at all. If he does, though, then you definitely want an answer to it. My advice is that, if you don't know, leave the deck as it is. The fact that you are favorite means you can afford the gamble and you wont necessarily lose even if they bring it in — they have to draw it at any rate and it has to have an overbearing impact on the game.

Eminent Domain

This matchup heavily favors you. Their whole deck is geared around mana denial (a strategy that starts at four mana!), which is just awful against aggro. Wildfire, their signature spell, is about as bad for them as it is for you given that your mana curve stops at three. With three lands in play you can hold additional supplies in reserve and rebuild as fast as your opponent, except you will be dropping lands and threats right away. Pyroclasm hits only seven creatures, there are typically only four counterspells to trouble you (meaning that your burn goes pretty much uncontested) and they only run five or so threats to apply any real pressure.

Sideboarding for the moment is straightforward as (for some reason) I have yet to see a Domain deck running Threads of Disloyalty in the maindeck or the sideboard. This means you don't have to play a guessing game regarding Demystify. Of course, if the Zoo deck has a real impact on the metagame this is likely to change so your sideboarding strategy will obviously need adapting. One thing is for certain, though, with eight signets in the opposing deck Tin Street Hooligan becomes an all-star.

+ 4 Tin-Street Hooligan / - 4 Shock

Enduring Ideal

This is a tough matchup. I can't say for certain whom it favors but I think you certainly need to win the dice-roll before you can begin to be considered favorite. Here, as with the Blue control matchups, the focus is on a few key cards. Wrath of God and Faith's Fetters are the vital ingredients to your opponent's stalling plan, which actually makes your gameplan simpler. Wrath of God encourages you not to overextend, whilst Faith's Fetters encourages you to leave mana open for Flames of the Blood Hand. This is a somewhat fortuitous interaction for you and reduces the impact of these problem cards a little. However, your opponent will be adept at digging for these answers, what with Sleight of Hand and Telling Time so you will have to expect to run into them on a more frequent basis. The flipside to this is that you don't need to worry about any other disruption (save an Ivory Mask ripped from the deck), which, again, really forces your opponent to get a good draw. One other thing to consider is that Enduring Ideal itself offers you a reprieve. The first enchantment fetched will only deal with one problem: creatures or direct damage. This often gives you a one-turn window in which to finish the game. Given how reliant you are on tempo advantage, this can be massive, and thus a resolved Ideal can very well be inadequate to seal the game.

This matchup really allows the Demystifies in your sideboard to shine and should certainly tip the scales in your favor. Being able to “counter” Enduring Ideal, even if only for one turn, is immense, whilst freeing a Watchwolf or Scab-Clan Mauler from Faith's Fetters can really disrupt your opponent's strategy. Tin Street Hooligans again come in and can be absolutely back-breaking when your opponent is relying on hitting four mana by turn 3. This configuration should put you firmly in the driving seat for games 2 and 3.

+3 Demystify, + 4 Tin-Street Hooligan / - 1 Savannah Lions, - 1 Scab-Clan Mauler, -1 Volcanic Hammer, - 4 Shock

Gifts Ungiven and Greater Gifts

As with the other control matchups, these favor you overall... though much more so on the play than the draw (where you are looking at just above a 50% win ratio). I usually dislike generalising about matchups, but it really seems that the games all revolve around Wrath of God as your Gifts opponent will almost never win without it. The reason is that there is so little additional disruption in their deck (Putrefy is removal, sure, but it is grossly inefficient compared to your threats). Whilst they can accelerate into their Dragon Legends to hold the fort, you will still be able to force damage through with multiple attackers. It is typically the case that when a Dragon enters play your opponent will be at about twelve life. An end of turn Char, followed by an attack with any three creatures, then another Char or Flames of the Blood Hand will end the game there and then. Often this isn't strictly necessary, and you can just burn your opponent down over the course of two or three turns while his oversized walls stall the red zone. Flames of the Blood Hand can be particularly brutal should your opponent sacrifice a Kokusho to Greater Good or Miren, the Moaning Well in an attempt to buy some time or dig for answers. One other thing to note is that their manabase is actually shakier than yours (given all their double-colored spells), and thus the amount of early pressure your deck puts on them can quite easily steal a game whilst they flounder.

Sideboarding is a little rough, as Hokori's absence (due to the more generally effective Demystify and the necessary Jitte plan) leaves you with little to bring in for this matchup while your opponent will doubtlessly have access to Loxodon Hierarchs and possibly Last Gasp. Umezawa's Jitte, however, provides a good addition for the matchup. Your biggest problems are mass removal and creatures that are bigger than yours. Jitte provides very effective answers to both of these, in addition to lifegain that should hopefully prevent any double Kokusho shenanigans. Not an easy matchup at all (you will come to dread your opponent's forth land drop), but certainly favorable.

+ 4 Umezawa's Jitte / - 4 Shock

Ghazi-Glare

This is a pretty awful matchup. Game 1 is virtually unwinnable, as your opponent's creatures deprive you almost entirely of your tempo advantage whilst they have access to such insanity as Umezawa's Jitte, Loxodon Hierarch, and Glare of Subdual. The only positives about the situation are that your opponent has roughly five dead cards in his deck (Pithing Needles and Seed Sparks) and the fact that direct damage answers both problems one and three if your draw goes well. You might even get lucky and be able to respond to Loxodon Hierarch with a Flames of the Blood Hand, though admittedly, you still have a 4/4 to contend with.

After sideboarding, everything comes in and you play the game of “who gets to abuse the best card in Standard.” With Godo batting for your team the answer on paper should certainly be “you,” and if this turns out to be the case the game will be relatively straightforward. Overcoming that one-game deficit is going to be hard though, which means aggressive mulliganing might be in order if your average-to-good hand doesn't contain Jitte (or at the very least, an answer to it). Overall, this certainly isn't the deck for a Ghazi-Glare heavy metagame.

+ 4 Umezawa's Jitte, + 4 Tin-Street Hooligan, + 2 Godo, Bandit Warlord, + 1 Karplusan Forest, + 1 Brushland, + 3 Demystify

- 4 Flames of the Blood Hand, - 4 Volcanic Hammer, - 4 Savannah Lions, - 1 Scab-Clan Mauler, - 2 Char

Critical Mass Update

Critical Mass offers your second most feared matchup. Sakura-Tribe Elder and Wood Elves really wreck your tempo advantage. Not only do they accelerate your opponent into his huge creatures, but they also prevent damage going through while they are at it. Unlike other matchups where your opponent's deployment of a Dragon or a Meloku gives you the perfect opportunity to offload your burn, here you have the problem that your initial offence is likely to have been stalled considerably. It is not inconceivable for a Kodama of the North Tree, or a Keiga, to enter play for your opponent whilst above fifteen life, and this causes real headaches. Add in the fact that they are running Umezawa's Jitte, and you undoubtedly have an unfavorable matchup on your hands. The biggest positive in this matchup again stems from the fact that as you are so aggressive your opponent is forced to have a good draw. If he lacks the mana accelerants, or otherwise stumbles on his mana development, or only has a Meloku to top the curve, your deck is very well suited to exploiting these weaknesses. You will also fare considerably better on the play than on the draw, and this can itself often be enough.

Sideboarding again brings the Jitte plan into play, though its efficiency seems somewhat muted in this matchup. Your opponent has Sensei's Divining Top to look for his own Jittes, as well as Putrefy and counterspells to deal with yours. Threads of Disloyalty only rubs further salt into the wound.

+ 4 Umezawa's Jitte, + 4 Tin-Street Hooligan, + 2 Godo, Bandit Warlord, + 1 Karplusan Forest, + 1 Brushland

- 4 Flames of the Blood Hand, - 4 Volcanic Hammer, - 2 Savannah Lions, - 2 Scab-Clan Mauler

White Weenie and the Mirror Match

I include the last two decks of the general metagame again under the same category because although one matchup is more favorable than the other, the two matches play out in a very similar fashion. In the former case you need to understand that whilst your creatures are bigger and you pack more removal, Umezawa's Jitte is simply a wrecking ball. Glorious Anthem is much less so, because at best it allows their 2/2s to trade with your 3/3s that didn't require an additional 3-mana investment. At worst it does very little at all because 12 of your removal spells will still kill all of the their guys (with Shock continuing to have effect against Suntail Hawk, Lantern Kami, and Savannah lions). Fortunately, Jitte shouldn't often be difficult to contain. The fact that your build dominates combat will usually put you in firm command of the game by turn 4, leaving you able to keep enough mana open to kill any creatures to which Umezawa's Jitte might become attached whilst still winning the damage race.

In the latter matchup, the strategy is exactly the same but harder to implement. If they are running a card-for-card copy of the deck you can use experience to simply outplay your opponent (practice with the deck is vital for knowing when to burn creatures and when to save the direct damage for your opponent), though luck of the draw will be a significant factor. The matchup deteriorates, however, the more your opponent decides to run by way of Burning-Tree Shaman, Rumbling Slum, or Loxodon Hierarch. These cards will secure a lot of card advantage for your opponent — forcing you to commit two resources to deal with them — making the games that much harder.

Sideboarding in all cases, however, undeniably puts you favorite to win the match. You essentially play a war of attrition, holding the fort until you can establish Jitte superiority. At that point your opponent is forced to rip both an answer to the equipment, and enough gas to turn the game around. Use your burn much more as removal post-board; your objective is now to overpower your opponent, not to burn him out. If you save the removal for his creatures, you are much less likely to lose to Jitte yourself whilst buying more time to bring your own gameplan online.

+ 4 Umezawa's Jitte, + 4 Tin-Street Hooligan, + 2 Godo, Bandit Warlord, + 1 Karplusan Forest, + 1 Brushland

- 4 Flames of the Blood Hand, - 4 Volcanic Hammer (against WW) OR — 4 Shock (against Zoo), - 2 Savannah Lions, - 2 Scab-Clan Mauler

Conclusions

Petting Zoo seems like a fine choice of deck in the current metagame. Its beauty lies with its efficiency, and the fact that direct damage is currently so effective — every deck has answers for your creatures, but few can handle the instants and sorceries. This allows you to steal a huge number of games where your opponent has total board control but no way of protecting his life total: the deck, in other words, has an inherent “oops, I win” quality very reminiscent of Affinity. It may also be commented that pre-Hawaii Standard is/was very control-laden, and therefore reactive, which plays well into your aggressive strategy which is simply more effective than your opponents' countermeasures.

Of course, however, Standard is in a state of flux at the moment. The addition of Guildpact to the mix will undoubtedly cause a metagame shift, if not in the actual decks played, then at least in their composition, in order to deal with new contenders such as Zoo. How long the deck remains as playable as it appears now remains to be seen, although Pro Tour Honolulu has provided a good indication of the viability of the aggro archetype. For the time being you can certainly enjoy crushing your opponent under an avalanche of tempo and burn.

Thanks as before for reading; I look forward to your comments!

Iain Bain