Zoo deck is about controlling the board through efficient trades and shadowflame does not fit into this theme, hence it is not included in most builds. The only time it is useful if your enemy is flooding the board as well and you will have the chance to clear at least 3 minions. How many times do you find yourself in this position? If the answer is a lot, then it is a useful card, if rarely, it is just a waste of card in the deck.
This post is contradictory. You say zoo is about controlling the board through efficient trades, but then argue that's why they shouldn't include shadowflame? Lol. Sacrifice 1 minion for there entire board and that's about as efficient a trade as you can get. Even a 1 for 3 trade is generally pretty damn good. Zoo isn't always dominant at board control.
The reason most Zoo decks don't play the card (and you certainly can play it, it's not like it's bad) is because it doesn't mesh all that well with the general strategy of the deck, which is to pressure with efficient minions and keep the board as clear as possible. Shadowflame can help with keeping the board clear, no doubt, but the deck doesn't usually need a card like that to help do it. Usually, what Zoo does is try to put itself in a position where your hero power is going to let you play two minions a turn, and so it doesn't play cards that interfere with that plan. You make early trades, grind both players' resources, then just start tapping and playing dudes.
The point of this game plan is you don't want to give your opponent a chance to recover, and that means you really need to be tapping and playing minions every turn, and drawing a Shadowflame can cause a hiccup in this plan, giving your opponent the window they need to get back in it.
Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, but usually you just want cards that fit the aforementioned plan.
Zoo deck is about controlling the board through efficient trades and shadowflame does not fit into this theme, hence it is not included in most builds. The only time it is useful if your enemy is flooding the board as well and you will have the chance to clear at least 3 minions. How many times do you find yourself in this position? If the answer is a lot, then it is a useful card, if rarely, it is just a waste of card in the deck.
This post is contradictory. You say zoo is about controlling the board through efficient trades, but then argue that's why they shouldn't include shadowflame? Lol. Sacrifice 1 minion for there entire board and that's about as efficient a trade as you can get. Even a 1 for 3 trade is generally pretty damn good. Zoo isn't always dominant at board control.
There is no contradictory in what I wrote. If your gameplan goes well, you have the board control and the opponent usually only plays a minion or two at a given turn. To clear that, you do not need shadowflame.
All the reasons posted in this thread as to why people don't run Shadowflame in Zoolock are shitty excuses, the truth is they are not running it because the popular netdecks don't have it. And yes, it's a great card to use in Zoo, as it helps a ton against difficult matchups such as midrange Paladin (once you start losing the board), Handlock (if you have PO + Shadowflame you can actually keep up with Handlock's big tempo turns), and Dragon Priest.
For example, the argument about consistency is not valid, because Zoolock is inherently consistent as is almost any Warlock build thanks to the Hero Power.
Another shitty excuse about not running Shadowflame in Zoo that was posted is that if you lost the board you did something wrong, which is such a bad argument it doesn't even need any refute.
I was going to provide a thoughtful reply but, I can see you aren't actually asking "why" shadowflame isn't included in some zoo decks, you want to rant about netdeckers on a netdecking website.
I actually really like this idea. While zoo is in fact good at maintaining board control it does really struggle at coming back from behind on board. You can't just assume that a "board control aggro deck" will always actually have board control, and this might actually do some work.
There is no contradictory in what I wrote. If your gameplan goes well, you have the board control and the opponent usually only plays a minion or two at a given turn. To clear that, you do not need shadowflame.
You said it was about controlling the board efficient trades. No, you don't need shadow flame to do that. Except that it's more efficient clear. Arguably the most efficient clear in the game. I get that this assumes the enemy board is not empty and has multiple minions on it. But against some opponents and certain match ups, this will be the case. You can't guarantee board control with zoo.
The reason why I think it's so good is because it counters the top two decks: secret pally and patron warrior. Shadowflame has won me plenty games against secret pally. Seriously, nothing makes me happier than to beat a secret pally.
I prefer a single Hellfire in zoo. If you don't have a body on the board you can't AOE unless you play a minion first and sometimes the body you do have to sacrifice is too weak. Plus Hellfire pops your eggs.
I actually really like this idea. While zoo is in fact good at maintaining board control it does really struggle at coming back from behind on board. You can't just assume that a "board control aggro deck" will always actually have board control, and this might actually do some work.
and this is what happens when you're are learning to play zoo. You start off true zoo (minions everywhere, depend on board control, win on turn 7), then when you get frustrated by losing some of the longer games, you say "dang, i was behind, if only i could get back". Then you start moving your zoo deck into the more mid-range-y style. Maybe add in a sylvanas, void terror, eventually a jaraxxas or Mal'ganis. Then you're certainly into the midrange or even demon-zoo style deck.
So, it all depends on what you want to do. Pure wind by turn 7 or 8 zoo wouldn't play a shadowflame. Hellfire would often be preferred for it's finisher properties, and it's easier to repopulate your board after since it's one less mana (matters a lot in zoo). So as you move away from pure zoo, shadowflame becomes more useful.
I actually really like this idea. While zoo is in fact good at maintaining board control it does really struggle at coming back from behind on board. You can't just assume that a "board control aggro deck" will always actually have board control, and this might actually do some work.
and this is what happens when you're are learning to play zoo. You start off true zoo (minions everywhere, depend on board control, win on turn 7), then when you get frustrated by losing some of the longer games, you say "dang, i was behind, if only i could get back". Then you start moving your zoo deck into the more mid-range-y style. Maybe add in a sylvanas, void terror, eventually a jaraxxas or Mal'ganis. Then you're certainly into the midrange or even demon-zoo style deck.
So, it all depends on what you want to do. Pure wind by turn 7 or 8 zoo wouldn't play a shadowflame. Hellfire would often be preferred for it's finisher properties, and it's easier to repopulate your board after since it's one less mana (matters a lot in zoo). So as you move away from pure zoo, shadowflame becomes more useful.
I love it when people just assume that everyone who disagrees with them is a noob. Midrange-ish zoo has been popular for a while because the lower curve zoo lists didn't really work as well for anyone, not just people bad at playing creature decks.
-"Shadowflame is not good in zoo because your gameplan is to always make efficient trades, therefore you're not supposed to be behind and in need of it." Sure, because you're never gonna play a mirror-match nor will you ever draw a mediocre starting hand.
-"Shadowflame is awesome everytime i draw it, it won me so many games." This is either selective memory, or you're doing something wrong. In a zoo deck the shadowflame should be 'meh' most of the time.
The truth is that Shadowflame is a fine tool and it has been prominent from time to time, but it certainly is not an auto-include. The question we should be asking is, what would you replace with a shadowflame? Nowadays the majority of zoo decks like running Voidcallers, Mal'Ganis, Sea Giant, Void Terror, maybe a second owl. These are all situational cards that could get stuck in your hand, therefore you cannot include too many of them in your deck and you have to choose what you cut to keep your deck consistent.
The real question I have is why people think Hellfire is better than Shadowflame. They cost the same, and more or less are in different tiers. Hellfire generally clears your entire board while Shadowflame only sacrifices one of your minions. The only advantage to Hellfire is that it's more damage to the face. Even then, I'd rather keep the rest of my board because chances are they will hit for more than 3 damage.
The real question I have is why people think Hellfire is better than Shadowflame. They cost the same, and more or less are in different tiers. Hellfire generally clears your entire board while Shadowflame only sacrifices one of your minions. The only advantage to Hellfire is that it's more damage to the face. Even then, I'd rather keep the rest of my board because chances are they will hit for more than 3 damage.
If you're in a position that you need to Hellfire while playing as Zoo then you probably either have crappy minions on board or have nothing on board to begin with. It also has synergy with nerubian egg and can be used to reach lethal.
Is it worth considering for the reasons the people in the "pro" camp have listed? Yes. Is it an auto-include because of the reasons the "con" camp have listed? No.
It's a tech card, maybe a 1-of, if you're losing the board versus something like secretdin, but it's going to be bad in some matchups and in the matchups it's good it might still be bad in any given situation.
Zoo thrives on consistency and Shadowflame isn't going to be a consistently strong card for them - it's going to be either really good or really terrible.
The real question I have is why people think Hellfire is better than Shadowflame. They cost the same, and more or less are in different tiers. Hellfire generally clears your entire board while Shadowflame only sacrifices one of your minions. The only advantage to Hellfire is that it's more damage to the face. Even then, I'd rather keep the rest of my board because chances are they will hit for more than 3 damage.
If you're in a position that you need to Hellfire while playing as Zoo then you probably either have crappy minions on board or have nothing on board to begin with. It also has synergy with nerubian egg and can be used to reach lethal.
Fair enough. But most of the time zoo decks have plenty of synergy with the Nerubian Eggs without it, particularly if running Power Overwhelming. I have experienced games won with the 3 extra damage, but generally you do more than 3 damage if you keep your board, even if that board is crap. Having no board as zoo these days is unlikely with all the deathrattle.
I actually really like this idea. While zoo is in fact good at maintaining board control it does really struggle at coming back from behind on board. You can't just assume that a "board control aggro deck" will always actually have board control, and this might actually do some work.
and this is what happens when you're are learning to play zoo. You start off true zoo (minions everywhere, depend on board control, win on turn 7), then when you get frustrated by losing some of the longer games, you say "dang, i was behind, if only i could get back". Then you start moving your zoo deck into the more mid-range-y style. Maybe add in a sylvanas, void terror, eventually a jaraxxas or Mal'ganis. Then you're certainly into the midrange or even demon-zoo style deck.
So, it all depends on what you want to do. Pure wind by turn 7 or 8 zoo wouldn't play a shadowflame. Hellfire would often be preferred for it's finisher properties, and it's easier to repopulate your board after since it's one less mana (matters a lot in zoo). So as you move away from pure zoo, shadowflame becomes more useful.
I love it when people just assume that everyone who disagrees with them is a noob. Midrange-ish zoo has been popular for a while because the lower curve zoo lists didn't really work as well for anyone, not just people bad at playing creature decks.
I'm not referring to people who are bad at playing creature decks. You are actually validating what I'm saying, you play pure traditional "zoo" for a while, get frustrated with it's weaknesses, swap out cards one at a time and eventually you've got a mid-range deck. traditional zoo hasn't really been popular for a while now (and shadlowflame doesn't really have a place in that deck), but the OP was asking why Shadowflame isn't popular in "zoo". Really, by definition the more spells you put in (exception imp-losion) the less zoo-y the deck is.
So, OP should be asking, why isn't shadowflame an auto-include in madrange/demon warlock?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This post is contradictory. You say zoo is about controlling the board through efficient trades, but then argue that's why they shouldn't include shadowflame? Lol. Sacrifice 1 minion for there entire board and that's about as efficient a trade as you can get. Even a 1 for 3 trade is generally pretty damn good. Zoo isn't always dominant at board control.
The reason most Zoo decks don't play the card (and you certainly can play it, it's not like it's bad) is because it doesn't mesh all that well with the general strategy of the deck, which is to pressure with efficient minions and keep the board as clear as possible. Shadowflame can help with keeping the board clear, no doubt, but the deck doesn't usually need a card like that to help do it. Usually, what Zoo does is try to put itself in a position where your hero power is going to let you play two minions a turn, and so it doesn't play cards that interfere with that plan. You make early trades, grind both players' resources, then just start tapping and playing dudes.
The point of this game plan is you don't want to give your opponent a chance to recover, and that means you really need to be tapping and playing minions every turn, and drawing a Shadowflame can cause a hiccup in this plan, giving your opponent the window they need to get back in it.
Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, but usually you just want cards that fit the aforementioned plan.
Nothing doing, traveler.
I've been playing it in my mid-range Zoo for ages. Solves so many problems
There is no contradictory in what I wrote. If your gameplan goes well, you have the board control and the opponent usually only plays a minion or two at a given turn. To clear that, you do not need shadowflame.
this single post here basically explains the whole thread
Mage is 4 chumps
I was going to provide a thoughtful reply but, I can see you aren't actually asking "why" shadowflame isn't included in some zoo decks, you want to rant about netdeckers on a netdecking website.
Ok, please continue.
I actually really like this idea. While zoo is in fact good at maintaining board control it does really struggle at coming back from behind on board. You can't just assume that a "board control aggro deck" will always actually have board control, and this might actually do some work.
You said it was about controlling the board efficient trades. No, you don't need shadow flame to do that. Except that it's more efficient clear. Arguably the most efficient clear in the game. I get that this assumes the enemy board is not empty and has multiple minions on it. But against some opponents and certain match ups, this will be the case. You can't guarantee board control with zoo.
The reason why I think it's so good is because it counters the top two decks: secret pally and patron warrior. Shadowflame has won me plenty games against secret pally. Seriously, nothing makes me happier than to beat a secret pally.
Yea but so does PO and owl... but thats staple now
One day the prince will return...
I prefer a single Hellfire in zoo. If you don't have a body on the board you can't AOE unless you play a minion first and sometimes the body you do have to sacrifice is too weak. Plus Hellfire pops your eggs.
and this is what happens when you're are learning to play zoo. You start off true zoo (minions everywhere, depend on board control, win on turn 7), then when you get frustrated by losing some of the longer games, you say "dang, i was behind, if only i could get back". Then you start moving your zoo deck into the more mid-range-y style. Maybe add in a sylvanas, void terror, eventually a jaraxxas or Mal'ganis. Then you're certainly into the midrange or even demon-zoo style deck.
So, it all depends on what you want to do. Pure wind by turn 7 or 8 zoo wouldn't play a shadowflame. Hellfire would often be preferred for it's finisher properties, and it's easier to repopulate your board after since it's one less mana (matters a lot in zoo). So as you move away from pure zoo, shadowflame becomes more useful.
Shadowflame and hellfire both cost 4 mana
One day the prince will return...
I love it when people just assume that everyone who disagrees with them is a noob. Midrange-ish zoo has been popular for a while because the lower curve zoo lists didn't really work as well for anyone, not just people bad at playing creature decks.
-"Shadowflame is not good in zoo because your gameplan is to always make efficient trades, therefore you're not supposed to be behind and in need of it."
Sure, because you're never gonna play a mirror-match nor will you ever draw a mediocre starting hand.
-"Shadowflame is awesome everytime i draw it, it won me so many games."
This is either selective memory, or you're doing something wrong. In a zoo deck the shadowflame should be 'meh' most of the time.
The truth is that Shadowflame is a fine tool and it has been prominent from time to time, but it certainly is not an auto-include. The question we should be asking is, what would you replace with a shadowflame?
Nowadays the majority of zoo decks like running Voidcallers, Mal'Ganis, Sea Giant, Void Terror, maybe a second owl.
These are all situational cards that could get stuck in your hand, therefore you cannot include too many of them in your deck and you have to choose what you cut to keep your deck consistent.
The real question I have is why people think Hellfire is better than Shadowflame. They cost the same, and more or less are in different tiers. Hellfire generally clears your entire board while Shadowflame only sacrifices one of your minions. The only advantage to Hellfire is that it's more damage to the face. Even then, I'd rather keep the rest of my board because chances are they will hit for more than 3 damage.
If you're in a position that you need to Hellfire while playing as Zoo then you probably either have crappy minions on board or have nothing on board to begin with. It also has synergy with nerubian egg and can be used to reach lethal.
Is it worth considering for the reasons the people in the "pro" camp have listed? Yes. Is it an auto-include because of the reasons the "con" camp have listed? No.
It's a tech card, maybe a 1-of, if you're losing the board versus something like secretdin, but it's going to be bad in some matchups and in the matchups it's good it might still be bad in any given situation.
Zoo thrives on consistency and Shadowflame isn't going to be a consistently strong card for them - it's going to be either really good or really terrible.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
Fair enough. But most of the time zoo decks have plenty of synergy with the Nerubian Eggs without it, particularly if running Power Overwhelming. I have experienced games won with the 3 extra damage, but generally you do more than 3 damage if you keep your board, even if that board is crap. Having no board as zoo these days is unlikely with all the deathrattle.
I'm not referring to people who are bad at playing creature decks. You are actually validating what I'm saying, you play pure traditional "zoo" for a while, get frustrated with it's weaknesses, swap out cards one at a time and eventually you've got a mid-range deck. traditional zoo hasn't really been popular for a while now (and shadlowflame doesn't really have a place in that deck), but the OP was asking why Shadowflame isn't popular in "zoo". Really, by definition the more spells you put in (exception imp-losion) the less zoo-y the deck is.
So, OP should be asking, why isn't shadowflame an auto-include in madrange/demon warlock?