Check Lands or Slow Lands?
General forum
Posted on July 1, 2022, 1:59 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
I have the shock lands in all of my decks (both EDH and 60-card), since they are the best dual lands available, given that the original dual lands are insanely difficult to obtain, and I also have the "check lands" (i.e., Glacial Fortress, Isolated Chapel, and so forth) in all of my decks, as well, because they are possibly the third-best cycle of dual lands in the game (although I feel that the "filter lands" may be a competitor for that title). For two-colored decks, the check lands will consistently enter the battlefield untapped (I honestly cannot recall the last time that they entered the battlefield tapped), but, in decks of three or more colors, they are less consistent; I would say that they enter the battlefield untapped anywhere from seventy-five to eighty percent of the time, but the few time that they enter tapped have proven to be very disadvantageous to me.
Therefore, with the printing of a new cycle of dual lands in the third Innistrad block, which most players are calling the "slow lands" (i.e., Shattered Sanctum, Deathcap Glade, and so forth), I am considering replacing the checklands in my decks with three or more colors with those new lands, since I feel that they are a better option.
What does everyone else say about this? Should I replace the "check lands" with the "slow lands?" Also, as long as I am asking that, it is obvious that the "filter lands" (i.e., Cascade Bluffs, Rugged Prairie, and so forth) are great for two-colored decks, but how are they in three-colored decks (I do not have them in my four- and -five colored decks)? What are your opinions on this matter?
I've been running both slow and check lands in my 3 color decks if I have all of them. I do think that the check-lands are a lot worse if you're only running a handful of cards with a basic land type, but if you're running a good number of basics they are pretty great and I only occasionally see them come in untapped. I really like the slow lands in a 2 or 3 color deck. You'll almost always have two other lands to play before them.
So my answer is run both!
I only really like the filter lands in a 3-color deck if my manabase is really good so I'll always have one of the appropriate colors.
Regarding not running any land that enters tapped. I think that is entirely meta and budget dependent.
July 1, 2022 3:30 p.m.
If you have a lot of basics and shocks I'd use the check lands over the slow lands. But I'd put the filter lands above both
July 1, 2022 3:33 p.m.
"slow lands" are not as slow as advertized :) I've been through the debates on here before on why they are really good in all but the most cEDH environments. I've personally never ran into the situation where I even worry about them as a tapped land... That would usually mean I feel I have to be ridiculously far ahead by turn 2 or I would have kept a 2 land hand with 2 tap-lands where I couldn't just play the slow land as a tap-land on turn 1?
July 3, 2022 8:56 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #7
For those users who are suggesting that I use the "pain lands" (i.e., Battlefield Forge, Caves of Koilos, and so forth), I will not use those lands in the majority of my decks, since most of my decks cannot afford the constant damage/loss of life; I will gladly take the (minuscule) chance of my lands entering the battlefield tapped over the constant danger of hurting myself when I need mana.
July 3, 2022 11:54 a.m.
DemonDragonJ, your point about not wanting pain lands because they don't work with your deck or your play-style is a good point. Honestly I think that a lot of general discussion around lands in particular ends up being more 'absolute' than it should be. The reality is that the right choice for any card in your deck depends on many factors:
- What your deck is trying to do.
- Your play-style.
- Your budget.
- Your meta.
I think its almost always wrong to say that you should never use a card or that one card is strictly better than another. It all depends on the context.
Anyways, sorry to hijack the thread.
July 3, 2022 8:40 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #9
Yeah, slow lands aren't all that slow and checks come in untapped in the vast majority of situations. In my greediest mana base that runs a total of 6 basics in a 3-color deck there are still 19, 17, and 16 "turn 1 hits" respectively for the three checks to come in untapped turn 2.
FWIW I run 2 checks, 2 slow lands, and 3 Lorwyn/Shadowmoor filters in that particular 3-color deck. Filters are great but they are not risk free. You have to be pretty confident that you will be able to pay into them.
July 3, 2022 10:20 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #10
Strictly basics with no fetches.
The way God intended. Lol.
July 3, 2022 10:21 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #11
Abaques, that is no problem, at all, since you made an excellent point; I have a copy of Silent Clearing in an EDH deck with Liesa, Shroud of Dusk as the general, because that deck has such a great amount of life gain that the payment for using the land is almost inconsequential (plus, the deck also contains a Chromatic Lantern, which allows the land to produce mana without paying life), but not all of my decks would be able to continually pay life to produce mana.
July 3, 2022 11:03 p.m.
wallisface says... #12
From a modern perspective, i’d defo be advocating basics over taplands.
If your budget can’t accomodate better lands than taplands, i’d honestly just suggest playing basics and sticking to 1-2 colours.
I feel like that ethos should probably apply to most formats also… i can’t see how effectively being a turn behind has any merit, when you could instead be playing “on-curve” with a more conservative deck-building approach.
I also think the painlands are a great choice 90% of the time. Life often matters waaay less than people think it does. Unless your playgroup is big on burn/lifedrain/aggro, your lifetotals probably not in any real danger (and in fact probably better-protected by having a stronger boardstate)
July 4, 2022 4:43 p.m.
Pain lands are the best of the three being discussed, I agree. I also agree that the absolute best choice is to run some amount of all three. But, in regards to the pain lands, consider that you should only need to use them for colored mana in early turns, which is when it's most important for them to enter untapped. Late game, if the rest of your land base is assembled correctly, you'll often be able to use the pain lands for generic mana, and therefore won't take the damage from them.
I'd choose check lands over slow lands, but only if you have enough of the basic land types amongst the other lands in the deck. In other words, if you have a large number of nonbasic lands without basic land types, then the slow lands have a better chance of entering untapped.
All of this is if you're playing 3 or fewer colors. If you're playing 4 or 5 colors, you should definitely have a decent number of Triomes and fetch lands. In which case, pain lands are still a good thing to include, but also the check lands are even moreso a better choice than slow lands, since you'd surely have a lot of shock lands in addition to the Triomes, both of which have basic land types.
Having said ALL of this, by turn 4 or 5, it's pretty much a moot point, regardless of how many colors you're playing. Again, unless your land base includes mostly nonbasics without basic land types, they're pretty much equally likely to enter untapped at that point.
July 5, 2022 11 a.m.
DemonDragonJ: As your decks get faster, the problem of life loss becomes less of an issue. Most of your decks have very high mana curves and not a lot of low end ramp, meaning that the deck ends up needing a few additional turns to set up what it's trying to do. This in turn costs you more life (as well as potentially making you a target for more players to attack as there are just more attack phases). As you bring the curve of your deck down more (as well as increase both the amount of ramp and more importantly low end ramp), the negative effects of life loss for mana become much less relevant compared to drawing tapped lands.
The other thing is that you should look at the colour distribution in your deck. Just applying a blanket rule of "I run the full cycle of each of these" isn't going to help you as much as leaning into the particular colour combinations that the deck needs the most. So if you have a five colour deck but it heavily leans on green/blue, then you might find that you run 5-6 different green blue dual lands, but you don't even run a Sacred Foundry for example, as you're not anywhere near as focused on those two colours.
July 6, 2022 1:30 a.m.
for check lands, I would only use them in decks where the likelihood of you putting them in tapped is extremely low. say in a 3 color deck, if your colors are all equal, then I'd say no. but if your deck is say 60% of 1 color and the last 40% is split between the other 2, I would put in only the ones that check for that 60% of mana. this does mean only 2 of them, but if you want to mitigate them entering tapped, I see it as the best possible outcome.
The slow lands I would probably use in colors that you don't have a high need for. Say your spells cost 60% white, 25% green, and 15% blue. I'd run a blue green slow land, and a white green and a white blue check land. You'll be in no hurry to get that slow land out since it isn't the focus color of your deck, but the check lands can come out just fine (so long as you have the plains out.
I am also a fan of the pathways, but I tend to use them more in my dual colored decks.
I own maybe 2 shocklands, 1 or 2 pain lands, 1 or 2 check lands, I try to not go overboard on my mana base, but I understand my decks suffer a bit because of it.
July 6, 2022 2:30 p.m.
Check lands typically do me bad more often than the "slow lands", I play so many utility lands & filter lands without the needed land types that I tend to miss more on those. I like my Field of the Dead..etc... I play heavy aggro or group slug, so I am using those pain lands pretty infrequently except corner cases because the cumulative cuts actually add up in my death by 1,000 cuts meta add that to the fact that I have a lot of utility lands that don't always add the necessary color & you can see why I don't love them. Though, I am thinking of making a Bhaal, Lord of Murder suicide Jund deck that would probably love them.
Ojallday says... #2
I wouldn't go with any land that enters the battlefield tapped. Better options for you would be pain lands, battle lands or gold lands even if ttey cost life since they color fix so well in every deck.
July 1, 2022 3:28 p.m.