Including the two in the deck and explore itself, there are up to 12 explore specific effects that I am aware of that are good. Why exactly 6? Why not 3, or 4, or 11, or 12? Why 2 Uro -the clearly more powerful of the 2? 2 vs 3 mana is clearly important (just like 1 vs 2 mana).
Fastbond has significant advantages. It’s a perfect card as a singleton. Much worse in multiples. I feel like the 1st Fastbond is probably better than the 6th explore.
We then have the pseudo-explores that are part of an engine, like Oracle of Mul Daya, and its many interactions. Is the 1st copy of an explore engine better than the 5th or 6th copy of explore? I think Uro being in the deck is probably good enough to not want this effect. But I would still consider looking into it.
Landing the first fastbond does not actually do much in this deck unless you are holding gush, because you want to cast the explore cards for cantripping. You take a lot of utility away from those cards if they just become expensive street wraiths.
I think the fastbond build is just a whole different animal. If i was trying to run fastbond I would very likely try and cut Uro for something else since he loses so much utility, and I would want to consider cards this list has completely forgone like Crucible of Worlds and stripmine.
The 2 snow covered lands did get me thinking though that if there isn't a build that uses Astrolabes over preordains and can then use an oko or 2 because it has animation targets. With enough snow Ice Fang starts to look very appealing too.
The explore effects cantrip which is a whole other level of utility over fastbond, plus spiral is dual pitchable so I imagine that is important as well.
Fastbond would give explosive turns but it does not seem like this deck would have a way to capitalize on it without more draw engines. The one Gush plus Mystic could lead to some strong loops with Fastbond but that feels more like a god hand scenario where as the explore effect make it play more like xerox. If you have fastbond then half of Uros utility is severly hampered.
I also imagine since the deck does not win on the spot the lifeloss is relevant untill uro comes on board, but then Uro is not great in a deck that wants to land a fastbond anyway.
Fair, but you can also look for non-blastable wincons too. I mean the deck is in an interesting place in that it is eschewing a lot of pretty typical cards, so some lesser used options come to mind.
True-Name Nemesis seems like a solid answer to issues you may have with other strategies.
How often do you find you lose to low threat count? You only have 4 wincons in the deck and sideboard, 2 of which are answerable with any creature removal and the other 2 which are also soft to graveyard hate. It feels to me like there may be some merit to adding a 5th wincon that attacks on a different vector, like a JTMS or Oko over the 4th preordain. Oko is probably particularly well suited for this list as it plays offense and defense and is pitchable to everything if needed.
I used Vector Asp for a long time and it did what it needed to do. Likewise in a more creature heavy meta Ichorclaw Myr was a total trap for my opponent. If they blocked with a chump like an elf or snapcaster I would be able to trample it and get that built in Bushido 2 so the opponents block would often wind up being the thing that gave me lethal. I don't think that paradigm holds here but being colorless is a big help.
I very much like the Green Black build of the deck more than any version I ever played with Blue. It was far more consistent a combo kill by using discard proactively where as with blue the games turn into chipfests. I do like the Probe for information in the deck and the single MM of course.
I wonder how great Hierarch actually is. The +1/+1 attack is important but I wonder how many games you are using her for mana 1 time in total, in which case having an off color mox or the ESGs may make more sense.
Forgot about blossoming, been a hot min since I played the list. I still think it's worth looking at the times when you cast vines on one and ask how often it happens. Defense also protects you against pyroclasm though it has not been relevant for some time.
I think my last legacy list was 17 lands and 2 of them were inkmoth so with moxen and lotus 20 does seem high. The list is super soft against wastelands and getting stuck on colorless sucks.
Cards I would consider, based on my legacy play
- Elvish Spirit guide - helps you get lethal on the turn that matters, and your deck really is not looking for long game. Like it over Lotus Petal because it can get around Null rods and COTV on 0. Also let's you surprise them from tapped out with vines which basically becomes force of will for green in a lot of cases.
- COTV - I see little reason not to run this at least in the side. On 0 it does not do much to you, and on 1 you still have threats to push through.
- Rangers Guile - Vines is typically better for combo kills, but I had some luck with this guy in games where I had to do chip damage. If you find that you never cast vines on 2 then this is obviously better.
Poison wins on a 3 card combo of 1 mana dork, berserk, Invigorate. It's a very low mana combo that is hampered that it needs more than 2 pieces and is affected by summoning sickness. It probably has some legs against some decks that are not prepared to fight over a one drop but also probably just dies to shops which can sphere it, ping it with ballista, or just put random 3 toughness dorks in front of it.
The creature selection in infect is not great either. For 1 drops you have elf and Asp, and the Asp is basically an installment plan 2 mana dork. At 2 mana you get 2 evasive dudes and ichorclaw who becomes much better with trample cards. If you want to try to play rituals or a lot of fast black mana you can also run Phyrexian Crusader which is a 2/2 with a lot of relevant protections (bolt, Swords, Mentor and Pyromancer tokens).
I still have my list together in legacy, I suspect it may be pretty decent in vintage because of the acceleration and fewer pieces of removal around, but I'm not sure it would be substantial enough.