But the card I described DOES exist, given specific situations.
Pretend their is a copy of your deck sitting across from you every game as one of your opponents. Suddenly bribery is pretty much functionally equivalent to "search your library for a creature and put it directly into play"
A card that reads that for 5 mana would be banned in edh.
It leads to bad gameplay, having the card strength be so heavily determined by what people sleeved up, ranging from a ban worthy card to a dead card.
Once again, a hypothetical card in a made up situation. But sure, let's pretend there's mirror match and two blue decks with Bribery at the table. Bribery in that situation is still not ban-worthy.
Even in the specific case that you mentioned, Bribery still doesn't play like a functional tutor/tinker for the exact card that you want from your deck because,
1.) A 5 cmc tutor should get you exactly the card you want from your deck. Unless you know your opponents' hands, Bribery isn't a guaranteed tutor for what you want since they might already hold it in their hands.
2.) And if your Bribery choice gets bounced it doesn't go into your hand. It goes to your opponent's hand. So no, it's not a tutor
Bribery the way it literally reads in real life will never be banned in EDH. Bribery the way the card plays out in EDH will also never be banned in EDH.
Bribery does not lead to any worse gameplay than that creature just coming out anyway. There are ways less than 5 mana to cheat mana-costs in commander. Do you complain about every single one of those as well?
You are being extremely low on Bribery to call it "dead." Lots of cards' playability are determined by what opponents play. That doesn't mean a thing. A Golgari deck has a tough time vs Sword of Feast and Famine than an Azorius deck. That's just a part of the game. It's a feature not a bug.
If you could target your own deck with bribery, it would be banned.
You can get functionally equivalent to that if your opponents are playing similar targets to what you would target with bribery in your own deck.
So you have a card that would be banned if your opponents are playing certain decks.
Except, Bribery doesn't say you can target your deck. How does errata'd a card help your argument? You're basically upset about at a card that doesn't exist.
Any card is more powerful by changing certain words and numbers, you want to ban every card?
Which to be clear is my issue/reason for posting this thread. It isn’t because of bribery the card, exactly but the mindset that lays behind the defense of bribery. Essentially being “don’t run good cards”.
So I should instead run jank or interchangeable combo pieces. Perhaps every deck I build should have a concentrated theme with no truly good stuff creature that can work outside of that theme? But then what if I happen to really like Collossai or Eldrazi, should I instead run Hand of Emerakul, or the original Collossai which required 7 mana to untap itself?
Actually, the defense of Bribery is that it's just not a overly powerful card. It's even situational low in power and there's lots of ways to play through it.
I'd argue that Control Magic on a good threat can be even stronger than Bribery since it's actual card/tempo advantage.
You can get mad/upset at whatever you perceive to be feel-bad. However, that doesn't mean a card should be banned. Especially when most reasonable magic players would acknowledge that Bribery isn't a feel bad and could list other more pressing cards. If you think Bribery feels ban-worthy, you might also want to have a 200+ card banlist.
Interestingly enough, much like the Urza card is who he was before PW, Gerrard here is at the end of his career, so instead of being combat savvy he's the world-saving hero. I understand that they want to deviant from Boros-Combat from now on, but there's no deny that Boros IS very good at combat, I was hoping Gerrard would be better at that spectrum. Of course, Gerrard pretty much reverse the death of your army against board wipe with his own death, that part is definitely Boros.
That said, boy, Gerrard is a combo enabler, and likely the first of Boros to do that. Red and white have always been good with artifacts but there weren't enough legends with artifact synergy outside of combat, so it's refreshing to see. Memory Jar comes to mind, allowing you to draw 7 new cards to play with, twice in one turn. And... hello, Mindslaver? Greater Gargadon?
Once again, if he's old, then why does he have first strike? I don't know, make him a 1/4 to show that's he's gotten old and soft. Or give him an ability that let's him tap permanents other than himself to show that he needs help to get around.
I've been playing for a long time, and it feels like they just messed the character up again. But what else should I expect?
This is the same issue as every other sideboard card. Cards that are broken or bad depending on what your opponent sleeved up are bad for the game. Are you a better player because you put boil in your deck and your opponents happened to be blue? What about the next game when you are sitting with the same card dead in your hand against 3 non-blue decks? It's not good for the game at all. Nothing but feel bad situations.
I know you want to make a point, so of course you pick out a card like Boil to compare Bribery to. Yeah, some people don't like MLD, but that has nothing to do with Bribery.
Bribery is not a color-hoser like Boil. It's not a sideboard card you bring in to hose anyone. Resolving Bribery does not stop players from playing. So, let's stay on topic about Bribery and not go off about Boil or any other card you might have a problem with. I know that you don't like many, many cards. I also know you're smart enough not to die on the hill of Bribery being too op/horrible.
Bribery most definitely is not a feel bad card 100% of the time, not even close. For the instance where you opponent bounces the creature you bribe, I don't think that's actually a legitimate "feel's bad" for any player. That's just a good play, one of the type of plays that only happens in EDH. I simply wanted to point out that even in the instance where you bribe the best possible threat that you possibly can, your opponent can still maneuver around it. So how exactly does Bribery even approach ban worthy? Once again, you do post about banning a lot of cards.
Can you explain how someone resolving Bribery on you and the decks that you play specifically is "nothing but feel bad situations"?
when gerrad dies you may exile it return all artifacts and creatures that were put into your graveyard this turn
This dude literally fought Urza in combat. Therefore, I'm not surprised that he's horrible in combat. Even if they wanted a non-combat oriented commander, they still could have but respectable stats on him...:sigh:
First strike is one of the worst EDH combat abilities, even vigilance would have been better.
I don't particularly like bribery, because the card ranges from banworthy to useless depending not on your own deckbuilding ability, but on the random chance of what your opponents are playing.
Would bribery be legal if you could search your own deck? Almost certainly not. The card would be broken, letting you cheat out any creature for 5 mana that's in your deck.
So if your opponents have the creature you would search out in their decks, you are playing a card that would never be allowed in the format.
It's like a sideboard card that hates against part of what makes edh fun.
Not a fan, wouldn't mind seeing it gone, but that list of cards is pretty big nowadays.
"What if" none of your opponents play any creatures? Would Bribery be ban worthy?
You being upset about the variance of Bribery is the entire point of the card. It being 100% awesome or 0% sucks and everything in between is a feature of the card, not a bug.
Bribery only searches your opponents deck and that is a huge difference. Even if you're playing a mirror-match, you still don't know what's in your opponents' hands and what's left in their libraries?
There's also the HUGE drawback of your opponents being able to answer the creature with a bounce spell. Then you essentially spent 5 mana and tutored a creature for your opponent....yeah, the feel bads for Bribery can run both ways.
I play nine different decks and all of them have problems with Yarok. For example I have a Saffi Eriksdotter combo deck full of spot removal but I can't run the anti-ETB cards because I depend on ETBs myself. It's easy to say "Oh just run answers" when for 4 mana (Venser) the Yarok player can repeatedly answer your answers. Eventually the Yarok player gets out Panharmonicon so that's two things that demand an answer, in a deck that runs blue packed with counterspells.
Yeah the Yarok player has two or three opponents, but they get two or three turns for each turn their opponents get. It focuses the game to be entirely about keeping Yarok off the field. Last I checked that's ban criteria.
So you're playing Saffi, a combo deck with a combo piece in the command zone and you're having a problem with Yarok (a Panharmonicon in the command zone)?
How come you view one as an issue and not the other? It really just seems to me that you don't like or can't/won't accept losing games.
Yes, it's easy for others to say you should run removal because Yarok is a 5-cmc that generates ZERO value on his own. If a player can loop Venser over and over for 4 mana each time, that also doesn't really seem impressive either. That's a 4-cmc counterspell that isn't even an actual counter. It bounces back to your hand and you can just target Yarok again.
If someone was able to achieve that, it seems like an epic & memorable play. It's also imminently stoppable. And if you do it once, the salt-level would probably get you hated out of doing anything for the rest of the day.
If someone won with a Craterhoof (btw, winning a game is more productive and actually easier than stopping others from winning the game), the salt-level is no where near the same as with the Iona scenario. And even if you did it again and again, what are your opponents going to do about it? Countering ETB's is tougher than removing a creature.
Slamming Paradox Engine doesn't win the game. But neither does having infinite mana. Infinite mana doesn't literally "win the game," but c'mon.
Dramatic Scepter is a higher investment than Paradox Engine. It's 2 cards.. How can you say it's a "much smaller mana investment" when it's only one mana less. 1 mana less vs. 2 cards. I know which cost has a bigger impact.
Paradox Engine is never the focus of a deck. But that doesn't mean it's OP. If you remove Paradox, it doesn't lead to a good deck failing. Paradox Engine does not require a lot of setup. If you have a Sol Ring in play, it basically splices Dark Ritual onto all 1 cmc cards. And a player is likely to have much more than just Sol Ring in play.
Your group might not be like Menery's. But your group would have to be "not like" any group for Paradox Engine to be anything other than ridiculous.
Duplicat, spine, ugin, all is dust, etc all see play in my area, while iona was always considered too slow.
Llawan represents a single card + commander that prevents people from playing their commander and a fraction of their deck, hyper early in the game, until an answer is found. And if that answer isn't krosan grip it can be countered.
Not all decks rely on creatures but if they rely on something like reclamation sage then they are doomed.
What if the painter deck resolves douse or ugin? Sounds like a good fun time.
All of the reasons that you're using to say Painter's should stay ban, would also apply to banning Iona as well. So I think you should explain it some other way.
Look, whatever reason is keeping Panoptic Mirror banned is basically the same reason Paradox Engine is banned. Paradox Engine is essentially the cEDH version of Panoptic Mirror (i.e. an engine that turns into a perpetual motion machine too easily and too accidentally with cards everyone already has in every deck).
If people wanted to color hack before Painter, it was possible but very inefficient (e.g. Glamerdye, Swirl The Mists). Unbanning Painter allows for people to color hack/hose at an efficient rate. If people enjoy doing that, so be it. Unbanning cards is awesome. More players get to do what they want.
Iona is one of the only "casual/Timmy" lock pieces that actually exist. How can one reason that Iona should be banned when more powerful hosers exist? Being stopped from playing spell is an "undesirable" board state, I get it. I think Braids, Erayo, Leovold are all correctly banned. There are colorless cards at about 33% the cmc that do much worse (i.e. hinder all players regardless of their colors).
Disregarding the combo with Painter, what color can you name? Name white to stop ***'s and step's, you get it Control Magic'd. Name blue, it gets Murder'd. Name any color, it gets Oblivion Stone'd... Banning Iona so people can play Painter leaves a lot left to be said, especially since Painter + Ugin, the Spirit Dragon is very similar.
Tidespout Tyrant is one the strongest permanents you can untap with. His ceiling is broken. Oketra's ceiling is ~Avenger of Zendikar?
It goes infinite with many mana rocks. When it's time to close out a game, you start bouncing lands. However, Tidespout does incentivize playing/building a certain way (i.e. low cmc) which many decks already strive to do.
Once again, a hypothetical card in a made up situation. But sure, let's pretend there's mirror match and two blue decks with Bribery at the table. Bribery in that situation is still not ban-worthy.
Even in the specific case that you mentioned, Bribery still doesn't play like a functional tutor/tinker for the exact card that you want from your deck because,
1.) A 5 cmc tutor should get you exactly the card you want from your deck. Unless you know your opponents' hands, Bribery isn't a guaranteed tutor for what you want since they might already hold it in their hands.
2.) And if your Bribery choice gets bounced it doesn't go into your hand. It goes to your opponent's hand. So no, it's not a tutor
Bribery the way it literally reads in real life will never be banned in EDH. Bribery the way the card plays out in EDH will also never be banned in EDH.
Bribery does not lead to any worse gameplay than that creature just coming out anyway. There are ways less than 5 mana to cheat mana-costs in commander. Do you complain about every single one of those as well?
You are being extremely low on Bribery to call it "dead." Lots of cards' playability are determined by what opponents play. That doesn't mean a thing. A Golgari deck has a tough time vs Sword of Feast and Famine than an Azorius deck. That's just a part of the game. It's a feature not a bug.
Except, Bribery doesn't say you can target your deck. How does errata'd a card help your argument? You're basically upset about at a card that doesn't exist.
Any card is more powerful by changing certain words and numbers, you want to ban every card?
Actually, the defense of Bribery is that it's just not a overly powerful card. It's even situational low in power and there's lots of ways to play through it.
I'd argue that Control Magic on a good threat can be even stronger than Bribery since it's actual card/tempo advantage.
You can get mad/upset at whatever you perceive to be feel-bad. However, that doesn't mean a card should be banned. Especially when most reasonable magic players would acknowledge that Bribery isn't a feel bad and could list other more pressing cards. If you think Bribery feels ban-worthy, you might also want to have a 200+ card banlist.
Once again, if he's old, then why does he have first strike? I don't know, make him a 1/4 to show that's he's gotten old and soft. Or give him an ability that let's him tap permanents other than himself to show that he needs help to get around.
I've been playing for a long time, and it feels like they just messed the character up again. But what else should I expect?
I know you want to make a point, so of course you pick out a card like Boil to compare Bribery to. Yeah, some people don't like MLD, but that has nothing to do with Bribery.
Bribery is not a color-hoser like Boil. It's not a sideboard card you bring in to hose anyone. Resolving Bribery does not stop players from playing. So, let's stay on topic about Bribery and not go off about Boil or any other card you might have a problem with. I know that you don't like many, many cards. I also know you're smart enough not to die on the hill of Bribery being too op/horrible.
Bribery most definitely is not a feel bad card 100% of the time, not even close. For the instance where you opponent bounces the creature you bribe, I don't think that's actually a legitimate "feel's bad" for any player. That's just a good play, one of the type of plays that only happens in EDH. I simply wanted to point out that even in the instance where you bribe the best possible threat that you possibly can, your opponent can still maneuver around it. So how exactly does Bribery even approach ban worthy? Once again, you do post about banning a lot of cards.
Can you explain how someone resolving Bribery on you and the decks that you play specifically is "nothing but feel bad situations"?
This dude literally fought Urza in combat. Therefore, I'm not surprised that he's horrible in combat. Even if they wanted a non-combat oriented commander, they still could have but respectable stats on him...:sigh:
First strike is one of the worst EDH combat abilities, even vigilance would have been better.
"What if" none of your opponents play any creatures? Would Bribery be ban worthy?
You being upset about the variance of Bribery is the entire point of the card. It being 100% awesome or 0% sucks and everything in between is a feature of the card, not a bug.
Bribery only searches your opponents deck and that is a huge difference. Even if you're playing a mirror-match, you still don't know what's in your opponents' hands and what's left in their libraries?
There's also the HUGE drawback of your opponents being able to answer the creature with a bounce spell. Then you essentially spent 5 mana and tutored a creature for your opponent....yeah, the feel bads for Bribery can run both ways.
So you're playing Saffi, a combo deck with a combo piece in the command zone and you're having a problem with Yarok (a Panharmonicon in the command zone)?
How come you view one as an issue and not the other? It really just seems to me that you don't like or can't/won't accept losing games.
Yes, it's easy for others to say you should run removal because Yarok is a 5-cmc that generates ZERO value on his own. If a player can loop Venser over and over for 4 mana each time, that also doesn't really seem impressive either. That's a 4-cmc counterspell that isn't even an actual counter. It bounces back to your hand and you can just target Yarok again.
Anyone gonna try out Golos for awhile?
Congrats for picking up $80 for cheap!
Berserk, Invigorate, Mutagenic Growtwh, Bounty of Might?
Emerald Medallion?
Zendikar Resurgent?
Nature's Revolt?
To be fair, there's a fair argument that Helm of the Host + Iona, Shield of Emeria is fun and games in and of itself.
If someone was able to achieve that, it seems like an epic & memorable play. It's also imminently stoppable. And if you do it once, the salt-level would probably get you hated out of doing anything for the rest of the day.
If someone won with a Craterhoof (btw, winning a game is more productive and actually easier than stopping others from winning the game), the salt-level is no where near the same as with the Iona scenario. And even if you did it again and again, what are your opponents going to do about it? Countering ETB's is tougher than removing a creature.
Dramatic Scepter is a higher investment than Paradox Engine. It's 2 cards.. How can you say it's a "much smaller mana investment" when it's only one mana less. 1 mana less vs. 2 cards. I know which cost has a bigger impact.
Paradox Engine is never the focus of a deck. But that doesn't mean it's OP. If you remove Paradox, it doesn't lead to a good deck failing. Paradox Engine does not require a lot of setup. If you have a Sol Ring in play, it basically splices Dark Ritual onto all 1 cmc cards. And a player is likely to have much more than just Sol Ring in play.
Your group might not be like Menery's. But your group would have to be "not like" any group for Paradox Engine to be anything other than ridiculous.
Paradox Engine is basically a cEDH vers. of Panoptic Mirror, but actually good.
All of the reasons that you're using to say Painter's should stay ban, would also apply to banning Iona as well. So I think you should explain it some other way.
Would have been a better announcement had they banned Paradox Engine and just unban Painter's Servant and keep Iona, Shield of Emeria around.
Look, whatever reason is keeping Panoptic Mirror banned is basically the same reason Paradox Engine is banned. Paradox Engine is essentially the cEDH version of Panoptic Mirror (i.e. an engine that turns into a perpetual motion machine too easily and too accidentally with cards everyone already has in every deck).
If people wanted to color hack before Painter, it was possible but very inefficient (e.g. Glamerdye, Swirl The Mists). Unbanning Painter allows for people to color hack/hose at an efficient rate. If people enjoy doing that, so be it. Unbanning cards is awesome. More players get to do what they want.
Iona is one of the only "casual/Timmy" lock pieces that actually exist. How can one reason that Iona should be banned when more powerful hosers exist? Being stopped from playing spell is an "undesirable" board state, I get it. I think Braids, Erayo, Leovold are all correctly banned. There are colorless cards at about 33% the cmc that do much worse (i.e. hinder all players regardless of their colors).
Disregarding the combo with Painter, what color can you name? Name white to stop ***'s and step's, you get it Control Magic'd. Name blue, it gets Murder'd. Name any color, it gets Oblivion Stone'd... Banning Iona so people can play Painter leaves a lot left to be said, especially since Painter + Ugin, the Spirit Dragon is very similar.
It goes infinite with many mana rocks. When it's time to close out a game, you start bouncing lands. However, Tidespout does incentivize playing/building a certain way (i.e. low cmc) which many decks already strive to do.