I wasn't even siding with one or the other in my comment, but rather simply replying to the previous comment questioning why ZC was considered to be "vastly superior in multiplayer" versus BA. It seemed as though that user simply missed the ".. each player loses" versus ".. target player loses". Calling me out for an opinion that I did not provide was in my eyes, rude (because that's just presumptuous).
If you want my opinion, it is this: ZC is easier to build around if your sole purpose is to combo off and defeat all opponents regardless of what your opponents are playing. For example, if your opponents are playing decks that have minimal creatures (i.e. more mid-range or control oriented), then ZC is clearly better than BA purely in terms of the math. In fact, almost any way you put it, ZC is always going to be better than BA UNLESS your opponents are swarming the board early on (turns 1 through 6). This is simply due to the fact that with ZC, all damage from your creatures are multiplied by the number of opponents present, whereas with BA, damage has no multiplication factor. To clarify, here's an example. Say you have 2 opponents that each have 20 life. That means you will need 40 points of life loss to win the game. In one instance, you have 1 ZC, and in the other, you have 1 BA. With the ZC instance, you* need 20 triggers to win. In the other instance, the board* needs to have 40 triggers AND you need a board wipe (likely another turn to play it) to complete the move. If you're relying on your opponents to provide you the bulk of the creatures, your deck probably isn't that consistent. A further point is that it's easier to have more triggers through sacrificing your own creatures. For example, being able to sacrifice creatures that have multiple lives (such as Blisterpod, etc.) is more efficient that destroying one of your opponent's since you are limited to only one trigger per creature.
3ld3r, that's a great looking list! You're right in thinking that you should get a playset of Elvish Archdruid; it's probably one of the most powerful elf creatures - it ramps well, and pumps your creatures. I would definitely consider adding 2-3 Overrun as well since it's general a win now card. I would replace 2 removal spells, and probably 1-2 Might of the Masses for them.
Hey, I like what you're trying to do here. I personally wouldn't worry about card draw that much since as you stated, you want to kill your opponent (while only lightly disrupting them) before they can stabilize. To this end, I would probably replace Aven Squire with Akrasan Squire since the latter is faster. I would definitely consider dropping Castigate for Duress or something since the 1-mana reduced cost is such a big deal with respect to your overall goal (speed). I would also replace Apostle's Blessing for Emerge Unscathed since the latter is more cost efficient (and can be used two turns in a row). Lastly, I would consider using some cheap equipment to bank on your Mirran Crusader or unblockable creatures to really push through damage. Bonesplitter is a decent budget option, and low-costing.
Remember. At the end of the day, you need to take risks by playing cards that have a high risk but even higher reward if you want to defeat decks that use cards that are simply "better". Hope this helps!
I think it's because this deck wants to be a lot more explosive (i.e. Steppe Lynx, the combination between Ball Lightning and Boros Charm, and Ranger of Eos searching up a Goblin Bushwhacker), which is different from Burn, which wants to apply a steady pressure (i.e. the perfect place for Eidolon of Great Revel). This is not to say that the Eidolon is not good, but rather that it doesn't fit the job description as well as Ball Lightning per se.
I'm not sure if you guys discussed this tournament result yet (if you guys did, you forgot to give him credit), but Fabio Bueno placed Top 4 at a PTQ with Boros with 218 attendees. It's really well-structured, and I like it. Here it is:
Quite interesting, no serum visions and only 22 spells.
I really like this list. One of the main reasons why I get so stumped with modifying RUG Delver is that the structure is already so well built. In general, a lot of the key cards in the deck constrain what can be added while maintaining a optimum build: Delver of Secrets requires you to keep the non-instant/sorcery spells at a minimum, Vedalken Shackles requires you to maximize the number of islands in your deck, and Blood Moon stops you from straying too far from the MonoU core. All these factors especially make sideboarding more complicated than you'd think, since siding in Blood Moon, Threads of Disloyalty and or any number of Thrun, the Last Troll screws around with everything mentioned above. This guy says, heck with this, I'm going to sacrifice the power of Vedalken Shackles and Blood Moon to have a smoother transition into the sideboarded games, and with his mana-base, he can sustain all of it. His deck honestly looks like UWR Geist Midrange, but of course, a lot more tempo oriented.
Will I follow suit with this build? Maybe, maybe not. But I will keep in mind the possibility of removing key cards in the current stock list to see what modifications it would allow, while still remaining optimal.
If you drop some creatures and go a little heavier on the discard, you could squeeze in any number of The Rack and or Shrieking Affliction to provide reach. These would work just fine against Ensnaring Bridge.
Demigod of Revenge plays differently than Obliterator to put it simply. The former is obviously a lot more aggressive and wants to end the game quickly whereas Obliterator attempts to force your opponent into submission.
Although plenty of people have included it in their 75, I'm trying my best not to give in. In general, I feel that for consistency, we should avoid spells requiring more than 1-G, which includes Scavenging Ooze since you want to pump him up. By the same logic, I'm thinking of keeping Thrun, the Last Troll out of my board, and perhaps just opt for some Huntmaster of the Fells.
EDIT: Today, I read Patrick Dickmann say that although Thrun is very strong in some matchups, he's often a non-factor in others. As such, he's opted for Huntmasters, which fair decently against a wider array of decks. Of course he's playing Tarmo-Twin, but the logic is the same.
I did some digging regarding Grim Lavamancer and according to Matteo Parisi, he followed the advice of Alessandro Portaro to include it in the SB verbatim and brings them in against Affinity, Melira Pod, Merfolk, and Infect.
If you want my opinion, it is this: ZC is easier to build around if your sole purpose is to combo off and defeat all opponents regardless of what your opponents are playing. For example, if your opponents are playing decks that have minimal creatures (i.e. more mid-range or control oriented), then ZC is clearly better than BA purely in terms of the math. In fact, almost any way you put it, ZC is always going to be better than BA UNLESS your opponents are swarming the board early on (turns 1 through 6). This is simply due to the fact that with ZC, all damage from your creatures are multiplied by the number of opponents present, whereas with BA, damage has no multiplication factor. To clarify, here's an example. Say you have 2 opponents that each have 20 life. That means you will need 40 points of life loss to win the game. In one instance, you have 1 ZC, and in the other, you have 1 BA. With the ZC instance, you* need 20 triggers to win. In the other instance, the board* needs to have 40 triggers AND you need a board wipe (likely another turn to play it) to complete the move. If you're relying on your opponents to provide you the bulk of the creatures, your deck probably isn't that consistent. A further point is that it's easier to have more triggers through sacrificing your own creatures. For example, being able to sacrifice creatures that have multiple lives (such as Blisterpod, etc.) is more efficient that destroying one of your opponent's since you are limited to only one trigger per creature.
Is this better?
And yes, I know that nuance. Still, you can kill all your opponent's simultaneously, rather than one at a time.
In fact, that is Patrick Dickmann!
Remember. At the end of the day, you need to take risks by playing cards that have a high risk but even higher reward if you want to defeat decks that use cards that are simply "better". Hope this helps!
5 Mountain
4 Sacred Foundry
4 Arid Mesa
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Mutavault
1 Plains
CREATURES (25)
4 Steppe Lynx
4 Goblin Guide
4 Vexing Devil
4 Ball Lightning
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
2 Grim Lavamancer
1 Soldier of the Pantheon
1 Ranger of Eos
1 Goblin Bushwhacker
1 Figure of Destiny
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Helix
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Searing Blaze
1 Path to Exile
3 Path to Exile
2 Stony Silence
2 Skullcrack
2 Combust
2 Rest in Peace
1 Burrenton Forge-Tender
2 Smash to Smithereens
1 Oblivion Ring
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=7892&d=245403&f=MO
I really like this list. One of the main reasons why I get so stumped with modifying RUG Delver is that the structure is already so well built. In general, a lot of the key cards in the deck constrain what can be added while maintaining a optimum build: Delver of Secrets requires you to keep the non-instant/sorcery spells at a minimum, Vedalken Shackles requires you to maximize the number of islands in your deck, and Blood Moon stops you from straying too far from the MonoU core. All these factors especially make sideboarding more complicated than you'd think, since siding in Blood Moon, Threads of Disloyalty and or any number of Thrun, the Last Troll screws around with everything mentioned above. This guy says, heck with this, I'm going to sacrifice the power of Vedalken Shackles and Blood Moon to have a smoother transition into the sideboarded games, and with his mana-base, he can sustain all of it. His deck honestly looks like UWR Geist Midrange, but of course, a lot more tempo oriented.
Will I follow suit with this build? Maybe, maybe not. But I will keep in mind the possibility of removing key cards in the current stock list to see what modifications it would allow, while still remaining optimal.
Demigod of Revenge plays differently than Obliterator to put it simply. The former is obviously a lot more aggressive and wants to end the game quickly whereas Obliterator attempts to force your opponent into submission.
EDIT: Today, I read Patrick Dickmann say that although Thrun is very strong in some matchups, he's often a non-factor in others. As such, he's opted for Huntmasters, which fair decently against a wider array of decks. Of course he's playing Tarmo-Twin, but the logic is the same.
I hope this helps!