Abzan with displacers seems good on paper with Shaman, Visionary, and Dwynen's as etb targets; however, adding colorless will make GB/Abzan even more clunky given GB is already known for that.
I think TKS' best home is in a non-Gbx shell. Unless you take out shamans then maybe it can work with TS coming in from the side for more hand hate. The combination of both seems like a great strategy against fast decks (screw you Counters Company) and control.
Am I a madman for even considering GB with no Shaman?
I don't believe it's practical to jam TKs into Shaman lists simply because any more than 16-18x 3-4cmc spells will skew the curve. The UG list is plausible because it falls within this curve parameter.
That being said, I do like this idea of TKs being thrown in. The card is a powerhouse across the meta and is miles better than Sculler or Maggot.
[quote from="kavselj »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/tier-2-modern/767834-collected-company-elves?comment=1110"]
RE: Driven//Despair -
I played it for about 5 leagues on MODO before I found that it just wasn't impactful enough a lot of the time. There were games where it won me the game (one, to be precise), but there were many more times where I drew it on an empty hand, or I drew it facing down a Gideon Jura or other such nonsense.
On a side note, if anyone is curious, my MODO spreadsheet is here. It has my sideboarding + notes on each game, plus mull notes.
In those scenarios when it wasn't impactful, would a Lead have been strictly better? Were both sides weak compared to Lead?
I've been hopeful that it could work in a broad meta but maybe it's more of a niche pick than Lead. That being said I keep thinking about Despair's potential. I'll keep testing and come back to you guys.
Very nice pool of information you got there! I wish I had your patience to sit down and write notes after each game. Keep it up!
FNM Report: 1st place
2-0 Mono-Red Goblins: easy match up, no noticeable highlights with d/d.
2-1 grixis Death's Shadow: I went wide 1st game. 2nd game he had removal for dorks and I got manascrewed. 3rd game Colossus took it.
2-1 Naya burn: 1st game he kept a bunch of two drops then I resolved a T4 d/d discarding 3 of his cards. G2 searing blaze wrecked me. G3 he kept a one lander and got punished for it.
2-0 W D&T: Another easy MU. Driven/Despair resolved both games but they were overkill.
Monday Cash: Drop
2-0 4c Shadow: 1st game he made me go into top deck mode and I got a driven / despair. He was at 10 life with an untapped goyf and 2 DS. I had 10 power on the field, used d/d, drew 4 cards, he discarded 2 bluff cards (land+TS), he took 8, and I played 2 dorks for blocks and a guaranteed win. 2nd game I resolved 2 company by T4 and won because of it.
1-2 Counters company: Definitely one of GB's worst mu. G1 he T3 combos me. G2 I resolved a T3 Thoughtseize getting chord, on his EOT I played company (he had eidolon), and won on my turn. G3 I t1 TS revealing 4 sb cards against me and I chose Mirran but I should've chose path and it cost me the game.
0-2 Counters Company: G1 T3 combo and G2 I t2 TS his Devoted druid. He had 2 lands total with a bunch of chord and companies. He top decks lands and I lose.
Recap on Driven // Despair:
It's good in MUs where Lead is good. Sometimes way better because of Despair's menace and discard. Worse when there's a weak board state. I think a split is optimal as they sorta work in conjuction with each other because Lead gets more Elves for D/D's maximum effect. As someone mentioned earlier, 1-2 seems to be the right number.
I will note that despair does offer some playability in G1 against fast MUs where Lead would be too slow.
For testing purposes, it sucks when I'm up against fast decks like Counters Company and I'm not running Chord. Hopefully I get some less fast MUs in the coming days. Thanks for reading.
As you say, it's a *****ty situation no matter what card the chord could be but what I've been trying to say is that with Despair I'll have some line of play vs no line of play.
Ultimately, only so much can be hypothesized so let me come back to you guys with actual results.
Would they really attack and leave themselves open knowing despair is in the yard? They have perfect information and you should assume your opponent is competent. And why would they take driven//despair with thoughtseize when it forces you to cast it and either make an unprofitable attack or no attack just to get it in the yard. They'll keep taking your threats and removing your board making driven//despair a dead card or at least less potent. If you get in to top deck mode, lead seems much better since you don't have to rely on having a positive board state for it to be effective.
He was putting me on a clock each turn by attacking and so I eventually had to make the decision to block anyways. If he didn't discard Driven and I attacked with 5 elves and both modes, I would lose one attacking creature to two of his blockers and net 6 cards (3 draw/3 discard), I'd say that's totally profitable.
If he didn't choose to continuously attack, that means Despair is threatening enough to change his line of play. That means I wouldn't have to chump block to survive big goyf/flayer hits. That means I would have survived more turns to hopefully draw into a company. In my situation, Lead in my opener remains inferior to Driven // Despair for all these reasons.
I won't deny that with a weak board state and if my opponent has at least 4 untapped creatures, Lead is no doubt the better top deck.
Before I continue, let's not dismiss the fact that you're both disregarding Driven // Despair's discard effect which is always relevant in midrange/control matchups. It's straight value which is what makes Lead good against these decks in the first place. However, unlike lead I'm not only filling up my hand but disrupting theirs as well.
You're both also completely disregarding Despair's menace effect. Here's a fresh reminder. Menace (This creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.)
With this information in mind, let's go back to my example but this time with a little more detail.
His T1: Thoughtseize>Archdruid
My T1: Dork
T2: Flayer
T2: Dork+Visionary
T3: Goyf + Thoughtseize>Archdruid
Atks with flayer for effect
T3: Dwynen's Elite, chord in hand
T4: Shambling + Goyf
Atks with Flayer + goyf, 1 mana up
T4: Keep drawing into lands, save mana for chord. He decides to do nothing.
T5: Siege Rhino, 1 mana up
Attacks with both Flayer and Goyf
I chord for ezuri, he paths
Now let's say I had Lead in my opener instead of chord, he'd obviously discard it right? If I top decked it, it'd be a great opportunity to refill my hand no doubt about it but so would Driven.
If I had Driven // Despair in my opener it'd be a tougher choice for him. He'd probably go for Driven even if it has aftermath. Abzan doesn't like us drawing cards. Now I have despair in the gy. Could he have played his turns differently with despair in my gy? Probably. Let's assume he didn't though. We go back to T4.
T4: Shambling + Goyf
Atks with Flayer + goyf, 1 mana up
T4: I cast despair, creatures get menace + discard effect. He has one blocker and path in hand. With path I have 4 creatures left. That's 4 of his cards discarded, and 4 damage to his life. At this point I can cast my archdruid next turn with no fear of it being killed because he is likely in top deck mode.
I still think both modes of Driven // Despair have potential in Elves. We can at least agree that in certain cases like mine, Chord is inferior to it. Ultimately, Lead vs Driven // Despair needs more comparative testing but I remain a believer. In any case, I'll have more information after tonight.
Thanks for reading - sorry if it's a lot - and thanks for poking my mind.
I'm not sure this is what we need. If you are just attacking with a few elves and the opponent has any type of board presence the trample is irrelevant and you're probably just making a bad attack since most elves will die from a slight gust of wind. Lead the Stampede is just a better option as you can still cast this on turn 3 to draw 3-5 cards without relying on your opponent to have absolute nothing on board. Also, casting both modes on T3 means you're removing an attacker from combat lessening the strength of Driven//Despair.
I'm not too sure that it's all that great against decks with discard either. If they T1 IoK or Thoughtseize you, they'll grab a mana dork which makes Drive//Despair weaker as you need a board presence for it to be effective, or they grab something even more powerful like Chord or Collected Company.
I should state I have done zero testing with this card and this is just my initial opinion. Definitely try out the card if you think it has a shot at doing something productive!
Driven // Despair has good synergy in a shaman build imo. It does everything the deck wants. Like you pointed out, its weakest application is trample but that's not where its strength lies. It gives card draw (more creatures for shaman and even gets CoCo unlike Lead), gives elves menace (wincon that can finish Shaman's job and makes it difficult for opponent to block), and strips his hand (hopefully removing any counterplay to our strategy).
When against discard and removal, Chord is comparitevly weaker. It becomes an expensive spell unlike either mode of Driven and has no counterplay against discard (no aftermath).
When things are going BAD, you have hardly any board presence. How is Driven // Despair in this situation? Horrific.
Therefore, Driven // Despair is INDISPUTABLY a win-more card.
That's not necessarily true. Take for example my game against Abzan Midrange yesterday. I start off with a decent hand, 2 lands, 2 dorks, 1 archdruid, 1 visionary, and 1 chord. He is on the play and thoughtseizes my archdruid then I play dork. He plays Grim flayer then I play dork and visionary drawing into archdruid. He plays another Thoughtseize with goyf and gets my 2nd archdruid then I play dwynen's elite.
So now I still have chord in hand with 5 Elves and 3 lands on the field. The path he eventually used would make any chord target an instant Exile. Enter Driven, if he chose to discard it I'd have an archdruid on the field and a threat to his hand and life. If he didn't choose to discard it I'd come ahead in value from both modes.
When is Lead a better card? Like you mentioned, when I draw it with little to no Elves on the field. That being said, Driven offers a more proactive approach in drawing ahead of time for only two mana or better yet, discarding their lands needed to cast Damnation. If I'm lucky I can discard their whole hand.
I'm not convinced yet that Driven // Despair is a winmore card. I'll take what you both have said into consideration while at FNM playtesting a set in GB Elves tomorrow.
What was the consensus for Driven // Despair? Seems pretty bonkers if both modes are used by T4 and is resilient against discard because of aftermath. Best case scenario would be to cast both modes t3 and attack with 4-5 Elves which is pure value.
Could someone tell me some of the advantages of running a couple copies of Lead the Stampede over Chord of Calling? I understand that it's better recovery and a little less versatility for instant speed answers, but wouldn't you want to run 4 of 1 of them and just completely ignore the other based on your build? What's the argument for splitting them? Which of them is "better" for a chord list, which is better for a vizier list, and which is better for a straight aggro list? Thanks ahead of time, I really appreciate the input.
With the exception of the combo variant, I believe two factors play a role when deciding to play both Lead and Chord. Your playstyle and the meta.
When it comes to playstyle, certain elf players like the pseudo glimpse of nature results from Lead. Not only does it tackle our difficult control/midrange matchups but it plays perfectly with Shaman of the Pack. In certain cases it can be just as fast as Chord though less consistent. With Chord you can tackle fast matchups consistently and by running both the former and the ladder the deck becomes adaptable.
Imo Lead is well positioned right now in a meta full of Grafdigger's cage and DS. With the former, nobody likes losing to one card which I know is ironic considering we run silver bullets. Power to Elves!
By running the vizier combo, you sorta concede to wanting a fast win and Chord offers that. 0/2 mana dorks and a terrible standalone non-elf have no business in a long game which eliminates the need for Lead.
If you want to win through straight beat down you can't go wrong with either. As I keep saying, it mostly falls back to your playstyle and meta. Lead generates more bodies for you to go wide with although at the risk of tapping out on your turn. Chord nets you an instant speed wincon/silver bullet that's less readable and faster through convoke.
but if you happened to draw 4 of your 4 fetches by turn 4 you are probably dead. the same problem, btw, would happen if you drew all the basics first and only then your fetches. The solution in my opinion is to not care about there possibilities, because in those situations you are already in big trouble (for instance, ghost quarter in elves is not that problematic, while path is bad regardless of the fact you get your land or not - obviously in a meta like that I would suggest a fetch-shock manabase with as many basics as possible).
Also, with more than 3 or 4 basics the problem isn't there (if your ratio is 7/8 or 8/7 the difference isn't much. so your argument is valid when playing few basics.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying it's detrimental if you draw into 4 fetches with basics already in your hand or field because that goes without saying. I'm saying that if you open with a shock/4 fetchables, you will now have 4 fetches with only 3 fetchables left in your deck. Decks that run path tend to go long and it makes that 5th fetchable extremely valuable. For example, your odds of casting ezuri and overrunning in the same turn increases with more land.
Super disagree that you need that many fetchable lands with only 4 fetches. Maybe it's just because I play a lot of legacy but 4 fetchables with 4 fetches is an above average rate even in modern too I'm pretty sure. If you run out of fetchable lands ever chances are the extra land wouldn't matter anyways. I would run more fetches in 3color than most people to be honest because running only ~8 white sources (which most do) is sooooo shaky to me. But that's not popular opinion from most lists I've seen so maybe I'm wrong.
You're not taking into account the popularity of Path to Exile and the rising popularity of Ghost Quarters (thanks, death & taxes) in Modern. In legacy you don't deal with either because Swords to plowshare and wasteland are strictly better.
If you get pathed or gqed even once, your ratio will go from 4:4 to 4:3. If your opening hand has a basic or shock, your ratio will also lower. If both of these scenarios happen, any fetches you draw into will risk being a dead draw. That being said, in a meta where you're not dealing with either path or gq, 4:4 will work.
You're right in that Shaman is overkill sometimes. Other times it gives you another angle when your combo gets disrupted. That being said I don't think abzan is that strong mainly because I need a painful manabase for black's noncreature spells. Too much affinity and burn running around in my meta. Back to GW.
Glad the numbers are there. In practice 17 lands have been performing and its mostly thanks to devoted druid. Adding a 3rd visionary in place of the 18th land seems good. Maybe cutting 1 dwynen's for the 4th visionary is something to consider as well.
You're right about abzan's expensive casting requirements. Having the 18th land seems like a must. Another reason why abzan seems slightly inferior to GW.
My main reason to ever run Shaman of the Pack was to get around Ensnaring Bridge. Devoted Druid can do that on it's own though.
My manabase for Abzan was actually less painful of a manabase than my GW version. I didn't run fetches or shocks in Abzan, but I'm running a Temple Garden and 2-3 fetches for GW. May cut back to just more forests with move Visionarys though. I am still on the mainboard Essence Warden train that I would highly recommend if fast decks, especially Burn, are prevalent in your meta.
I am glad to hear that 17 lands is working out for you. I haven't noticed a difference in my testing with 17, which is exactly what I'd like to see.
I've stolen some games against bridge that way and it's a great feeling. I hate bridge so much haha.
In order to run black noncreature spells I'd need at least 8 sources, preferably 9. I don't see how it's possible not to run fetches and shocks.
This would be the most optimal manabase for my playstyle of black noncreature spells and white toolbox creatures in the sb. Main board essence warden is a good suggestion and I'll keep it in mind if I rebuild abzan. Not willing to run a list without 4 canopy just yet though.
Do you think 17 lands can afford to run a colorless land? I'm leaning towards a no but that's just me not wanting to increase the mulligan rate.
Thank you for the reply. Trying to figure the better option for meta of : Tron, Merfolk, Jund, Abzan Company, Burn and Goblins.
It all depends on your playstyle and what you want in the sb.
GW has two paths, one in beat down and one in combo. Running 4 canopy is a must imo. A little more consistent because all your creatures are green in the mb - can't cast shaman off of heritage. Mb has a lower cmc on average. For the sb, GW has the best silver bullet creatures and the best noncreature spells.
GB gives you a nice alternate wincon in the form of shaman of the pack. It's probably the best list to run Lead the Stampede in if chord of calling isn't your thing. You'll have access to some of the most popular cards in modern like Fatal Push and Thoughtseize which are well positioned in the meta. Lastly, Ewits are really good in this style of elves.
Is there a consensus on which is better...Shaman (GB) Elves or the Vizier (GW) Elves? I keep seeing people talking about the Vizier deck, but not seeing it doing well. Sorry, just a little confused on which direction to take.
Historically, the GW version has had more success in large scale tournaments. To further explain, the combo version placed in a GP recently. Before that it was straight GW beat down that placed in GPs. Not to disregard GB's power, maybe the deck just hasn't found the right pilot.
I think TKS' best home is in a non-Gbx shell. Unless you take out shamans then maybe it can work with TS coming in from the side for more hand hate. The combination of both seems like a great strategy against fast decks (screw you Counters Company) and control.
Am I a madman for even considering GB with no Shaman?
That being said, I do like this idea of TKs being thrown in. The card is a powerhouse across the meta and is miles better than Sculler or Maggot.
In those scenarios when it wasn't impactful, would a Lead have been strictly better? Were both sides weak compared to Lead?
I've been hopeful that it could work in a broad meta but maybe it's more of a niche pick than Lead. That being said I keep thinking about Despair's potential. I'll keep testing and come back to you guys.
Very nice pool of information you got there! I wish I had your patience to sit down and write notes after each game. Keep it up!
4 Blooming Marsh
2 Cavern of Souls
3 Forest
4 Gilt-Leaf Palace
2 Horizon Canopy
1 Overgrown Tomb
2 Windswept Heath
// Creatures
4 Dwynen's Elite
4 Elvish Archdruid
4 Elvish Mystic
4 Elvish Visionary
2 Ezuri, Renegade Leader
4 Heritage Druid
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Nettle Sentinel
4 Shaman of the Pack
4 Collected Company
2 Driven
2 Lead the Stampede
2 Chameleon Colossus
2 Choke
2 Collective Brutality
2 Dismember
2 Fracturing Gust
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Thoughtseize
FNM Report: 1st place
2-0 Mono-Red Goblins: easy match up, no noticeable highlights with d/d.
2-1 grixis Death's Shadow: I went wide 1st game. 2nd game he had removal for dorks and I got manascrewed. 3rd game Colossus took it.
2-1 Naya burn: 1st game he kept a bunch of two drops then I resolved a T4 d/d discarding 3 of his cards. G2 searing blaze wrecked me. G3 he kept a one lander and got punished for it.
2-0 W D&T: Another easy MU. Driven/Despair resolved both games but they were overkill.
Monday Cash: Drop
2-0 4c Shadow: 1st game he made me go into top deck mode and I got a driven / despair. He was at 10 life with an untapped goyf and 2 DS. I had 10 power on the field, used d/d, drew 4 cards, he discarded 2 bluff cards (land+TS), he took 8, and I played 2 dorks for blocks and a guaranteed win. 2nd game I resolved 2 company by T4 and won because of it.
1-2 Counters company: Definitely one of GB's worst mu. G1 he T3 combos me. G2 I resolved a T3 Thoughtseize getting chord, on his EOT I played company (he had eidolon), and won on my turn. G3 I t1 TS revealing 4 sb cards against me and I chose Mirran but I should've chose path and it cost me the game.
0-2 Counters Company: G1 T3 combo and G2 I t2 TS his Devoted druid. He had 2 lands total with a bunch of chord and companies. He top decks lands and I lose.
Recap on Driven // Despair:
It's good in MUs where Lead is good. Sometimes way better because of Despair's menace and discard. Worse when there's a weak board state. I think a split is optimal as they sorta work in conjuction with each other because Lead gets more Elves for D/D's maximum effect. As someone mentioned earlier, 1-2 seems to be the right number.
I will note that despair does offer some playability in G1 against fast MUs where Lead would be too slow.
For testing purposes, it sucks when I'm up against fast decks like Counters Company and I'm not running Chord. Hopefully I get some less fast MUs in the coming days. Thanks for reading.
Ultimately, only so much can be hypothesized so let me come back to you guys with actual results.
He was putting me on a clock each turn by attacking and so I eventually had to make the decision to block anyways. If he didn't discard Driven and I attacked with 5 elves and both modes, I would lose one attacking creature to two of his blockers and net 6 cards (3 draw/3 discard), I'd say that's totally profitable.
If he didn't choose to continuously attack, that means Despair is threatening enough to change his line of play. That means I wouldn't have to chump block to survive big goyf/flayer hits. That means I would have survived more turns to hopefully draw into a company. In my situation, Lead in my opener remains inferior to Driven // Despair for all these reasons.
I won't deny that with a weak board state and if my opponent has at least 4 untapped creatures, Lead is no doubt the better top deck.
You're both also completely disregarding Despair's menace effect. Here's a fresh reminder. Menace (This creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.)
With this information in mind, let's go back to my example but this time with a little more detail.
His T1: Thoughtseize>Archdruid
My T1: Dork
T2: Flayer
T2: Dork+Visionary
T3: Goyf + Thoughtseize>Archdruid
Atks with flayer for effect
T3: Dwynen's Elite, chord in hand
T4: Shambling + Goyf
Atks with Flayer + goyf, 1 mana up
T4: Keep drawing into lands, save mana for chord. He decides to do nothing.
T5: Siege Rhino, 1 mana up
Attacks with both Flayer and Goyf
I chord for ezuri, he paths
Now let's say I had Lead in my opener instead of chord, he'd obviously discard it right? If I top decked it, it'd be a great opportunity to refill my hand no doubt about it but so would Driven.
If I had Driven // Despair in my opener it'd be a tougher choice for him. He'd probably go for Driven even if it has aftermath. Abzan doesn't like us drawing cards. Now I have despair in the gy. Could he have played his turns differently with despair in my gy? Probably. Let's assume he didn't though. We go back to T4.
T4: Shambling + Goyf
Atks with Flayer + goyf, 1 mana up
T4: I cast despair, creatures get menace + discard effect. He has one blocker and path in hand. With path I have 4 creatures left. That's 4 of his cards discarded, and 4 damage to his life. At this point I can cast my archdruid next turn with no fear of it being killed because he is likely in top deck mode.
I still think both modes of Driven // Despair have potential in Elves. We can at least agree that in certain cases like mine, Chord is inferior to it. Ultimately, Lead vs Driven // Despair needs more comparative testing but I remain a believer. In any case, I'll have more information after tonight.
Thanks for reading - sorry if it's a lot - and thanks for poking my mind.
Driven // Despair has good synergy in a shaman build imo. It does everything the deck wants. Like you pointed out, its weakest application is trample but that's not where its strength lies. It gives card draw (more creatures for shaman and even gets CoCo unlike Lead), gives elves menace (wincon that can finish Shaman's job and makes it difficult for opponent to block), and strips his hand (hopefully removing any counterplay to our strategy).
When against discard and removal, Chord is comparitevly weaker. It becomes an expensive spell unlike either mode of Driven and has no counterplay against discard (no aftermath).
That's not necessarily true. Take for example my game against Abzan Midrange yesterday. I start off with a decent hand, 2 lands, 2 dorks, 1 archdruid, 1 visionary, and 1 chord. He is on the play and thoughtseizes my archdruid then I play dork. He plays Grim flayer then I play dork and visionary drawing into archdruid. He plays another Thoughtseize with goyf and gets my 2nd archdruid then I play dwynen's elite.
So now I still have chord in hand with 5 Elves and 3 lands on the field. The path he eventually used would make any chord target an instant Exile. Enter Driven, if he chose to discard it I'd have an archdruid on the field and a threat to his hand and life. If he didn't choose to discard it I'd come ahead in value from both modes.
When is Lead a better card? Like you mentioned, when I draw it with little to no Elves on the field. That being said, Driven offers a more proactive approach in drawing ahead of time for only two mana or better yet, discarding their lands needed to cast Damnation. If I'm lucky I can discard their whole hand.
I'm not convinced yet that Driven // Despair is a winmore card. I'll take what you both have said into consideration while at FNM playtesting a set in GB Elves tomorrow.
With the exception of the combo variant, I believe two factors play a role when deciding to play both Lead and Chord. Your playstyle and the meta.
When it comes to playstyle, certain elf players like the pseudo glimpse of nature results from Lead. Not only does it tackle our difficult control/midrange matchups but it plays perfectly with Shaman of the Pack. In certain cases it can be just as fast as Chord though less consistent. With Chord you can tackle fast matchups consistently and by running both the former and the ladder the deck becomes adaptable.
Imo Lead is well positioned right now in a meta full of Grafdigger's cage and DS. With the former, nobody likes losing to one card which I know is ironic considering we run silver bullets. Power to Elves!
By running the vizier combo, you sorta concede to wanting a fast win and Chord offers that. 0/2 mana dorks and a terrible standalone non-elf have no business in a long game which eliminates the need for Lead.
If you want to win through straight beat down you can't go wrong with either. As I keep saying, it mostly falls back to your playstyle and meta. Lead generates more bodies for you to go wide with although at the risk of tapping out on your turn. Chord nets you an instant speed wincon/silver bullet that's less readable and faster through convoke.
How do you like to play and how's your meta like?
You misunderstand, I'm not saying it's detrimental if you draw into 4 fetches with basics already in your hand or field because that goes without saying. I'm saying that if you open with a shock/4 fetchables, you will now have 4 fetches with only 3 fetchables left in your deck. Decks that run path tend to go long and it makes that 5th fetchable extremely valuable. For example, your odds of casting ezuri and overrunning in the same turn increases with more land.
You're not taking into account the popularity of Path to Exile and the rising popularity of Ghost Quarters (thanks, death & taxes) in Modern. In legacy you don't deal with either because Swords to plowshare and wasteland are strictly better.
If you get pathed or gqed even once, your ratio will go from 4:4 to 4:3. If your opening hand has a basic or shock, your ratio will also lower. If both of these scenarios happen, any fetches you draw into will risk being a dead draw. That being said, in a meta where you're not dealing with either path or gq, 4:4 will work.
I've stolen some games against bridge that way and it's a great feeling. I hate bridge so much haha.
In order to run black noncreature spells I'd need at least 8 sources, preferably 9. I don't see how it's possible not to run fetches and shocks.
4 Windswept heath
1 overgrown tomb
1 temple garden
4 gilt-leaf palace
3 Forest
1 Pendelhaven
This would be the most optimal manabase for my playstyle of black noncreature spells and white toolbox creatures in the sb. Main board essence warden is a good suggestion and I'll keep it in mind if I rebuild abzan. Not willing to run a list without 4 canopy just yet though.
Do you think 17 lands can afford to run a colorless land? I'm leaning towards a no but that's just me not wanting to increase the mulligan rate.
It all depends on your playstyle and what you want in the sb.
GW has two paths, one in beat down and one in combo. Running 4 canopy is a must imo. A little more consistent because all your creatures are green in the mb - can't cast shaman off of heritage. Mb has a lower cmc on average. For the sb, GW has the best silver bullet creatures and the best noncreature spells.
GB gives you a nice alternate wincon in the form of shaman of the pack. It's probably the best list to run Lead the Stampede in if chord of calling isn't your thing. You'll have access to some of the most popular cards in modern like Fatal Push and Thoughtseize which are well positioned in the meta. Lastly, Ewits are really good in this style of elves.
Historically, the GW version has had more success in large scale tournaments. To further explain, the combo version placed in a GP recently. Before that it was straight GW beat down that placed in GPs. Not to disregard GB's power, maybe the deck just hasn't found the right pilot.