Pain Lands vs. Gain Lands: Variety vs. Consistency in the Standard Meta-Game
Standard forum
Posted on Feb. 5, 2015, 1:06 a.m. by Lauretano
Hey guys and girls, this is my first post ever. I am not a professional or even semi-pro within magic, but I have started to open my eyes to the intricacies of the game and in turn become and much smarter and overall better player.
As I have started to grow as a player within the current KTK standard meta game, the emergence of tri-color clan based decks have become the norm that many players conform to, and for good reasons. Powerful cards such as Abzan Charm, Savage Knuckleblade, and Jeskai Charm are rampant throughout the current meta game due to their versatility and game winning capabilities.
In this, it is obvious as to why players are choosing to play these tri-color decks. Power and Versatility will win you many a match, especially if you are a long time and talented magic player, however, versatility comes with a price: your life total, something that only professional and semi-professional players understand when it comes to its utilization as a resource.
Tri-colored clan associated tap lands were printed as a mana fixer so that mana would not be an issue and players would be able to play cards like Savage Knuckleblade on turn two or three as they would want to. Although this addition to a players mana base helps, three colors is a lot to manage, and any clan based deck is almost mandated to have a playset of their tri-land.
If you take a look at common decklists within the meta-game, you can quickly come to the conclusion that these tri-color mana fixers are simply not enough. For example: If a player does not have access to their Frontier Biviouac on turn one, the chance of having mana issues skyrockets. A turn four Savage Knuckleblade is significantly worse than one cast on turn two or three with cards like Hero's Downfall and Murderous Cut running rampant in standard.
So the answer to these cumbersome mana fixers? Pain Lands! They come into play untapped, give you two different colors of mana, and all the player needs to do to make up for the lack of speed in their mana fixers is run between six and eight of these bad boys, whether it be Mana Confluence, Llanowar Wastes, or Shivan Reef. What many people have forgotten to notice is that these versatile lands are called "Pain Lands" for a reason: They Hurt.
When a game is tight, pain lands could be the defining factor in you winning that game. Whether it's a PTQ, SCG Open, or just FNM, losing always sucks, and it especially does if you did upwards of five damage to yourself simply to cast the spells in your hand.
The solution has been a simple one, and I have found great success with magic by simply giving up on the clans and moving to dual color decks. Firstly, I have replaced tapped tri-lands with dual flavored scry lands which not only allow me to filter through my deck early, but are a much better draw later than any of the tapped tri-lands would be.
Secondly, dual color decks rarely ever have mana issues, and if they do it is most likely because you are getting mana flooded or starved, which can happen to any magic player, and any with deck with lands in it. This means 90% of the time you are going to be able to keep the first seven cards that you draw, once again leaving you with the advantage.
Thirdly, casting cards on time and curving out is huge in this slow meta with "aggro" lists running plenty of three and four drops rather than curving out at two. When you are able to have two or three threats on the board by the time that your opponent running a tri-color deck casts his first major threat, you are already winning that game by a large margin, and being ahead is alot easier than being behind.
Last but not least, rather than naughty pain lands that talk back to you, you get to run happy "Gain" lands that not only give you access to two colors, but gain you a life when they enter the battlefield! Playing cards like Rugged Highlands on turn one and bumping yourself up to 21 while your opponents combinations of fetch lands and pain lands are a guaranteed loss of life puts you in another winning position and can make the clock tick that much faster in your favor.
Closing out my arguement is another reason why dual color decks trump tri-colored decks in the current meta, Mulligans. Much of the reason that a player needs to mulligan playing a three color list is because of a potential mana issue. A player doesn't necessarily want to keep a hand with only pain lands because "OW", nor does a player necessarily want to keep one with only tap lands because most of the time in this meta people are going to be playing "Aggro" and want to kill you before you can cast your Crux of Fate, End Hostilities, or that super threatening turn four Savage Knuckleblade.
If you have been going to events and participating within the competitive magic scene and have had satisfactory results running a tri-color deck, try knocking out one of the colors for the sake of consistency. Although versatility may be lost, the loss in negligible when you take into account the consistency and overall power gained via that consistency.
Thanks for letting me share what I have observed over the past few months as I've grown as a player, feel free to leave comments and speak your mind because I am open to all voices. I still have a lot to learn about Magic, especially from a technical standpoint, and therefore would love to see what other great magic minds can muster.
omnipotato says... #3
I disagree. Pain lands shouldn't affect an aggro deck because they're concerned about the other player's life total more than their own. And in a midrange or control deck, you're not too worried about getting your best cards out on turn 3 or 4 because the real game-winning cards in your deck come out turn 5-7. Certain 2-color strategies can be great like U/B Control or R/W Aggro, but I think for the near future the clans are going to see more play and for good reason.
February 5, 2015 1:19 a.m.
Hjaltrohir says... #4
Actually, in modern some junk decks start off with:
Verdant Catacombs - untapped Overgrown Tomb - Thoughtseize leaving you at 15 life on turn one.
I also think that pain lands are very good for an agggro deck as they provide quick mana of both of their colors for a small life amount. This is important for aggro as omnipotato said, as they are concerned about your life total, not their own.
Also, i should mention that you forgot to talk about fetchlands, arguably the second best non-basic land cycle in the game.
February 5, 2015 1:52 a.m.
i play a r/w aggro deck with 4 battlefield forge, 4 bloodstained mire and 4 flooded strands and consistently do well.
soulfire grand master made my deck even better now.
February 5, 2015 2:03 a.m.
Souljacker says... #6
As said, aggro decks don't care about life total, because if your opponent has brought you down to 6 you're losing anyway so might as well be at 1 at that point.
Midrange decks like Abzan can afford to run an extra color and take the pain because of the powerful cards that are unlocked by adding the 3rd color. Siege Rhino on his own can make up for the lost life. If the cards you unlock by adding a 3rd color can provide extra damage, they make up for the lost life by the pain/fetch lands.
Of course, your arguments for consistency still hold, and it's not just versatility that is gained by an extra color but moreso just raw power. Then the balance is between power and consistency, and arguments can be made both ways. However, I think if you're in it to win it all, you need to go for the highest peak to trump all others. I rather end up top 4 or not top 8 at all than consistently getting knocked out once I reach top 8. That can be a personal preference though, what I'm trying to say is both 2 and 3 color decks have their strengths and both are viable.
February 5, 2015 4:12 a.m.
GeeksterPlays says... #7
I prefer 2 colour decks as the OP says, but I do run a 3-colour Temur deck purely because the access to powercards like Sagu Mauler and Surrak Dragonclaw are too good not to have for sake of including a little blue in the Gruul mix.
I've been playing Magic for about 14 months now, in that time I've seen 3-colour decks ruin everything at an FnM and go unbeaten, I've played mono-colour decks that have starved me of mana at a crucial time costing my a Top 4 spot, I've seen 2-colour fly crazy fast in aggro and I've seen it be ultra-controlling and slow but steady.
Consistency is about what you build and how, not just the number of colours in the deck. Even in my 2-colour decks I run Fetchlands and Painlands instead of Gainlands, because I want access to my mana now, not next turn.
As for the tri-colour mana, I don't use them at all, and haven't had any issues with it. When my opponent drops a Frontier Bivouac or Opulent Palace within the first 2-3 turns of the game I am usually relieved, as I figure they've not got anything worth playing out to the field this turn and/or they are running slow enough that I don't care... either way, I'll happily pay 1 life to crack a Fetch and get my Stormbreath Dragon out on T3.
February 5, 2015 7:15 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #8
I'm going to disagree with you here. Pain lands are good and you can easily run 4 color mana bases in Standard.
I've been playing R/W Aggro in tournaments recently. In order to shore up some it's worse matchups I splashed black without damaging the mana base and won a PPTQ.
February 5, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #9
For the issue of ETB-tapped lands vs. pain lands: it really all depends on how fast the deck wants to be. No given type of land is inherently "the best" across the board. It's all contextual.
A deck that wants to jam Savage Knuckleblade on turn 3 and start swinging should try to limit ETB-tapped lands as much as possible, because it can't afford to have its curve interfered with. A deck that wants to be very fast should also probably try to stick to 1-2 colors as described in the original post, maybe only splashing a very small number of cards in a 3rd color if they're really really good.
A slower deck that's content to wait a few more turns to play End Hostilities and follow up with Elspeth, Sun's Champion to slowly start taking over the game would much rather have scry lands and "gain lands", since they provide greater long-term benefits. A deck like this can also afford to be 3+ colors without too much disadvantage (when the lands in the format allow for it), since its game plan is to make the game last long enough that there will be plenty of lands on the board to pick from.
February 5, 2015 9:44 a.m.
You're clearly not a black player. :p As long as we still have 1 life when the game is over...we still win. Haha. That being said, there is something to be gained in both directions. The color scheme is important...but ultimately you can do most of the things you need to in any given color. I run two decks currently in Standard. U/B Control, and Mardu Aggro. Mardu is more fun to play against for my opponent because the games go quicker and it occasionally get down to the wire. Haha. My U/B control list is not something I am allowed to play at my LGS very often...it is kind of referred to as the Super-Douche deck. With the mana base I have set for either of them I very rarely need to muligan except in those rare instance I draw 1 mana hands. I am also lucky that I pulled most of the lands I needed to do this, A good mana base is an investment, and a necessary one. The good news is that lands are virtually always playable. So they are rarely a bad investment.
February 5, 2015 9:48 a.m.
There's another school of thought that goes something like this: What sort of deck should I play given the lands available to me (budget-, color-, or format-wise.)
If circumstances allow me to have many colors of mana quickly (fetch + abur duals or shocks) I should take advantage of the by building more aggressively. More colors means more kinds of threats and answers. If most of the lands available are slower, I should build slower decks, maybe focus on a main color and "splash" into others for bombs.
The speed of your mana curve and the colors available actually dictates how you can play the game. Trying to play aggro with gainlands and clanlands is self-defeating. Trying to play monocolor control leaves blindspots in your threats and answers.
So, to turn it back around again to the way we usually think: how do you like to play? Do you like quick and low-cmc zerg or voltron aggro? Do you like big critters and heavy burn? Do you like to deprive your opponent of their threats until you can drop one that wins the game in two turns or assemble a winning combo? Then determine what your mana curve should look like to achieve that goal, and see what colors you then get to play with. Alternately, you could say "I want Butcher of the Horde to win me games. With his colors and cmc, what is the best way to do this?" Mardu lands in standard seem more suited to control than aggro, so that might be the way to go...
February 5, 2015 11:14 a.m.
I think that the OP hit on some important points that some of the readers might of missed. In an Agro vs Agro match up, life total as a resource becomes more relevant than most other match ups. If a three color Agro deck is up against a 2 color or mono color Agro deck, the three color deck can run into problems like hurting themselfs overly too much while the two color and mono color decks never need to. As soon as you use about 4 or more of your health because of mana confluence or other pain lands you lose out on a turn. With that said I don't think three color Agro decks are bad I'm just saying I agree with the OP that 2 and 1 color decks allow for more consistence when you are on the Agro plan at least.
February 5, 2015 3:10 p.m.
I really enjoyed your writing. I wish people would do this more often on here, find a topic on how to get a slight edge on the meta and hopefully improve your game. Even if everything that is said is wrong it still insites discussion as seen above. (not to say you are wrong)
I am currently playing a temur tempo deck running Savage Knuckleblade, Goblin Rabblemaster and Courser of Kruphix as three drops. I have a playset of Elvish Mystics which can be devastating. With turn 1 mystic, turn 2 rabblemaster, turn 3 knuckleblade with haste (or keep up lightning strike (removal)/ temur charm (counterspell)), I find this to usually win the game as my opponent cannot deal with all of my threats and both rabblemaster and knuckleblade are capable of winning the game on there own. While this happens a decent amount of the time, as you say it is not consistent, but the raw power it brings wins games on its own. To help stay fast I do not run any Frontier Bivouac and only a few scrylands. This cannot always happen so my back up plan is to play Stormbreath Dragon or Polukranos, World Eater and sit back on stubborn denial.
Recently though I have become bored with this deck and have been considering new possibilities. I set my eyes on aggro as to not spend too much money on a new mana base. I have been brewing a G/W aggro deck using Spear of Heliod, Raise the Alarm and the great two drops, Seeker of the Way, Fleecemane Lion, Heir of the Wilds. In testing I find this deck to be just below the power level I wish as I can have a huge advantage, but the midrange/control decks cast one card and gain back the advantage and put me in a hole. While I can consistently have the same curve and always do well, the abzan/sultai whip decks can have a good draw and just decimate me.
I am currently looking at the Jeskai Ascendancy combo deck as many players no longer expect it and Refocus is just insane in the deck. I am still using green mana dorks as my engine. This deck has the worst land base of any deck in standard. I'm running 1 of each on-color fetchland, 4 Mana Confluence and 1 of each basic land and a few painlands and scrylands (17 lands in total). This mana base while painful is necessary for me to consistently go off turn 4/5 and I don't really care about my life total as i'm not playing for the long game.
I believe in the current standard a lot of decks are viable at varying power level and consistency, but to win with any deck requires relying on a little luck and a lot of expert deck building. There is no true best deck. It is important to know what you are going to play against and build a deck strong against all decks in the meta. In this current meta the land base is very important as you say. When one is building to beat the meta it is important to know what lands to run. If there is a ton of aggro pain lands are not very good but if control is what everyone is playing load up on painlands and cast as powerful threats as you can as fast as you can because they do not threaten your life total. Just focus more on what cards you want to play less than what colors you want to play, then build your land base to support those cards is my advice.
February 5, 2015 3:20 p.m.
I would have to agree that typically in Standard, you're going to want to play dual colors. Back before Khans, I strictly ran only dual and mono colored decks. They do indeed give you a much more reliable mana base and can get threats out faster. HOWEVER, in a meta where there are many synergies and dual lands, it can be beneficial to run the third color.
For example, my Alesha, Who Smiles at Death deck, Dude Looks Like a Lady, I use the green for Warden of the First Tree and Hornet Queen and red + white for Alesha, and in my Sultai control deck, Ugin Does Tarkir, Sultai Style, all of the colors give me the utility and wincons necessary for it to do well. They all have good synergies and would be drastically different if you would remove one of the colors, and they all run as many fast dual lands as possible without making fetches useless. As long as the deck is efficient, you won't have to worry about losing because they won't get enough damage through to make you lose.
You see, this Standard meta is entirely based on three colors, whether they be wedges or shards. You won't often get five, four, or even three colored decks in Standard, but when the sets give you cards that make multi-colored decks advantageous, the meta will shift accordingly.
Rocknj06 says... #2
Why not just knock the second color out. Completely? It's much more consistent!!!! But in all seriousness, being able to pilot a tri color deck consistently and winning takes skill. Play what your comfortable with. Personally, I play dual colors because I'm too cheap to fork up the money just on mana fixing.
February 5, 2015 1:18 a.m.