Is Staff of Completion a Good Replacement for Temple Bell?
General forum
Posted on July 16, 2024, 8:48 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Some users here have stated that I should consider a replacement for Temple Bell in some of my EDH decks, so I need to find a card that is very similar to replace it, and I think that Staff of Compleation is a suitable choice; the staff does require payment of life, so I shall be able to put it only in decks that have methods of reliably gaining life, and its other abilities shall certainly make up for that, as well.
What does everyone else say about this subject? Is Staff of Compleation a good replacement for Temple Bell?
DemonDragonJ says... #3
wallisface, I like Temple Bell, because it can be put into any deck, requires no additional mana after its initial cost, can be used as an instant, and can be used repeatedly; how many other cards in the game fulfill all of those criteria?
July 16, 2024 10:24 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #4
wallisface, also, I do have several decks that would benefit from the prolierate ability of the staff, so I feel that the staff shall work well, in those decks.
July 16, 2024 10:26 p.m.
DarkKiridon says... #5
Just replace them with a mana rock or something. By glancing at your Atraxa deck you could use an Arcane Signet.
Also just spitballing here but... Otherworld Atlas is terrible.
July 16, 2024 10:45 p.m.
wallisface says... #6
DemonDragonJ there are hundreds of cards with the criteria of ”requiring no additional mana after its initial cost, can be used as an instant, and can be used repeatedly” - but those traits alone don’t make a card any good. The effect of Temple Bell is absolutely terrible.
July 16, 2024 10:58 p.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #7
I think Staff of Compleation is a strong usage for the slot, but as others have said, there's also some other cards that are direly needed, like the aforementioned Signet.
July 17, 2024 1:52 a.m.
RiotRunner789 says... #8
There's nothing wrong with liking a generic artifact you put into most of your decks. Without knowing your decks, I would take staff over bell because of the added versatility. It helps their the same mana value but beware the life loss from the staff can add up.
However, most decks would benefit from a synergistic draw source rather than a generic one-size-fits-all card. Such as adding Well of Lost Dreams in a life gain deck or Idol of Oblivion in a token deck.
A lot of this can also be meta dependent. Going with some generic cards will also tend to lower the power level of your decks (which can be a good thing).
July 17, 2024 7:43 a.m.
Temple Bell does have an additional cost - giving your opponents cards. That additional cost of giving your opponents resources is often far more expensive than something like mana or life.
Personally, I would run neither. Temple Bell is bad, Staff of Corruption is not much better (unless you have a way to really take advantage of proliferate). Instead of looking for one card you can universally add to a lot of your decks, use the slot currently occupied by Temple Bell to add something specifically designed to improve that individual deck.
July 17, 2024 10:17 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #10
What does everyone here think about Archivist? Four mana for a 1/1 creature with no protection is rather risky, but it requires no additional investment of mana, can be used as an instant, and can be used repeatedly, and benefits only its controller.
wallisface, what criteria should I use to search for those cards on Scryfall?
RiotRunner789, several of my decks could actually use Staff of Compleation, such as my Jenara, Asura of War EDH deck, my Marath, Will of the Wild *f-etch* EDH deck, and my Liesa, Shroud of Dusk EDH deck, all of which have sufficient amounts of lifegain to be able to pay the costs of the abilities of the staff and all of which could actually benefit from the proliferate ability. Unfortunately, my Liesa deck is the only deck of mine that can gain life reliably enough to justify the inclusion of Well of Lost Dreams, and I definitely like Idol of Oblivion, but the only deck of mine in which that card would be reliable is my Ghired, Conclave Exile
EDH deck, and I am not certain what card I would remove from that deck, to make room for the idol.
DarkKiridon, I am almost afraid to ask, but why do you dislike Otherworld Atlas?
July 20, 2024 1:06 a.m.
wallisface says... #11
DemonDragonJ your criteria appears to be “has a tap ability which doesn’t include a mana cost or active-only-as-sorcery”. That’s a massive selection of cards. I’m not sure what that search criteria would be but it’s surely far too vast to be useful.
Archivist reads as being an incredibly slow card. Yes in commander interaction is scarce so it’ll likely stick around… but it’s mana cist is just soo high for such a slow/durdly/weak return.
Otherworld Atlas falls into that same bucket of being extremely slow/durdly/weak, except that it’s even worse in that it’s helping your opponents, so is actively terrible for you in the same way Temple Bell is… Otherworld Atlas is even worse as it has all the same problems as Temple Bell while costing twice as much mana and generally being far more inefficient (on the plus side its high mana cost means it’ll take longer to start giving your opponents cards)
The barrier for including Staff of Compleation in a deck shouldn't be whether you can scrape together enough lifegain to offset it (lifegain in general is a weak/terrible strategy you should generally avoid, especially so in a format that’s starting you on an absurdly high 40 life). The barrier to include the card should be “does activating this 2-3 times win me the game?” - if your deck can’t profit immensely, rapidly, and reliably from the card, it’s more effort than it’s worth running
July 20, 2024 2:55 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #12
wallisface, that certainly makes sense, so what about Loran of the Third Path as a replacement for Temple Bell? She is less expensive than is Archivist, has higher power, has a triggered ability, and benefits only a single opponent, which allows her controller to gain favors with other players.
Also, the three decks that I mentioned in my previous post can easily make use of Staff of Compleation, since two of them have a strong focus on +1/+1 counters and my Liesa deck weaponizes gaining life.
July 20, 2024 9:22 a.m.
Archivist is a too slow a card. Imagine a casual game that ends on turn 8. You play archivist on turn 4, have to wait until turn 5 to use it, and only get 3 cards out of it. M
You would pretty much be better off with Finale of Revelation at that point -Finale would give give you two cards immediately, instead of three cards starting a whole turn later.
Now, I am not saying “throw Finale in e every deck.” The 4-mana and later point of the game can be critical to winning, and spending an entire turn to draw cards and do nothing else can put you a bit behind. Finale works best in a deck with a lot of ramp, where you can sink ten mana into it, get a bunch of cards, and untap five lands so you can immediately use some of those cards.
That is what I meant when I earlier said look at your deck and decide what the deck needs. If you have a deck where you can reliably cast Finale for X = 10+, go for it. But in a deck where it will just be casting if for 2-3? Find a different card that works with that specific deck.
July 20, 2024 9:31 a.m.
DarkKiridon says... #14
wallisface explained Otherworld Atlas perfectly.
Temple Bell and Otherworld Atlas, in my honest opinion, only belong in Group Hug shells. Any other decks I don't see them in. Take your Atraxa, Praetors' Voice deck for example. Most of those decks, if not all, (with that commander) want to smash face. Not give your opponents resources or make friends for a turn. There are 2 Atraxa decks I have to play against in my group. One is a Walker deck which plays a crap ton of free counterspells and protection spells and the other plays with their +1/+1 counters. Both decks annoy the crap out of me but they are completely different from one another. Not one runs the aforementioned cards we are talking about which is NOT a stab at you DemonDragonJ but I digress.
Staff of Compleation is not a bad card I think and if it fits within the decks you are talking about then that's OKAY. :)
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Temple Bell is BAD. Loran of the Third Path is a solid replacement if that is what you are set on. Never hurts to playtest.
Replace Otherworld Atlas. Every time I see it I throw up. ;)
July 20, 2024 12:13 p.m.
DarkKiridon says... #15
I should retract my one statement and point out that not just group hug decks, but decks like Nekusar, the Mindrazer among others.
July 20, 2024 12:17 p.m.
DarkKiridon - Temple Bell is a bad card in Nekusar. The small amounts of incremental damage it provides are not enough to justify giving every opponent an additional card to stop your strategy. You are much better off running something like a Wheel, Counterspell, or removal.
July 20, 2024 3:06 p.m.
wallisface says... #17
DemonDragonJ Loran of the Third Path is certainly better than pretty-much everything else you’ve suggested. I still have concerns that you’re just trying to throw “generic” cards into a deck without any thought to the decks strategy.
Why does your deck need these card draw effects? Is it because your cards aren’t providing enough value? Then maybe it’s more important to increase card quality instead of drawing through more jank. Is it because you’re unable to assemble a coherent plan? Then it’s probably the case the deck needs more focus and clear-direction, and less cards that are “off-topic”.
Card draw is powerful, but it’s not appropriate/reasonable for a lot of builds, and people desperate to add it are often missing the bigger problem in their deck. As Caerwyn mentioned above, you want to assume a casual commander game lasts 7-8 turns, and plan accordingly. Taking entire turns off to draw cards is a big risk when you could instead be setting up your board-state to actually win.
July 20, 2024 3:56 p.m.
DarkKiridon says... #18
Caerwyn Truuuuue. Guess I was just trying to justify an inclusion. :D
July 20, 2024 4:08 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #19
wallisface, each of my decks definitely has sources of card advantage that suit that deck's theme, but I chose Temple Bell because EDH was still a relatively new format at the time that I built many of my deck, and it seemed to eb a good card, to me, for the reasons that I have previously mentioned, but I hope that you can appreciate the fact that I now am asking for cards with which to replace it, as that shows that I have realized that Temple Bell may not be the best card for every deck; do you recall that I previously had a copy of The Immortal Sun in the majority of my EDH decks, and I replaced those copies with cards that better suited those decks? I am now doing the same with Temple Bell, as well.
DarkKiridon, I have several cards in mind for replacing Otherworld Atlas, so I shall make a separate thread to discuss that topic.
July 20, 2024 4:25 p.m.
wallisface says... #20
DemonDragonJ yes and what i’m trying to illustrate is that you don’t need to confine yourself to replacing it with a card that does a similar thing.
July 20, 2024 4:48 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #21
wallisface, yes, that makes sense, since I replaced The Immortal Sun with cards that were very different from it.
July 21, 2024 2:27 p.m.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say cards like Temple Bell and by extension Horn of Greed are not bad cards and they're perfectly fine to run in non-group-hug // non-wheel decks.
I see the argument that one card for you is collectively three cards for your opponents, but last I checked, hardly ever do all three of those cards get aimed at you to begin with unless you're running a tier 0 meta-deck against a group of casuals who already see you as the archenemy. Do you want to know what is also one card for you, three for your opponents? The draw steps taken by you and all your opponents, so by the same logic it would imply you already start off with a massive disadvantage the moment you start any game which is just silly. Like, how could a seven-card hand ever beat a collective 21-card hand that is your opponents'?
Let me put it another way, if my opponent plays a Temple Bell by the same logic for every one card that Temple Bell gives me, it's collectively giving three cards to my opponents. When applied by that perspective doesn't that not make Temple Bell sound like a serious threat of a card to my game plan? Well, it's not. The logic just doesn't hold when put to practice.
Now look, if there was another card with the same CMC that had "{T}: Draw a card." Then yes, that would be serious leagues better than Temple Bell. If something like that exists for you to slot in definitely make the cut or hell, why not run both? Both is fine in my opinion.
My analysis on Temple Bell is that it is mostly good, not amazing, but definitely serviceable. Its only con is that you're using up a card to effectively double the number of draw steps for everyone. If this was a 1v1 format having a one-card disadvantage just to alter the flow of the game is just gimping yourself for a loss unless you have some serious payoff tied to both you and your opponent drawing extra cards. In a multiplayer format where wins and losses can be heavily dictated by how much the table wants to gang up on someone Temple Bell's drawback is incredibly negligible when compared to the forces that are beyond your control. (Though if you wanted to, you could argue giving your opponent's extra cards can have some political sway over how much they would be willing to team against you which can be a pro in of itself, but I digress.)
Temple Bell has two pro's that I'd argue make it worth it over its one con, but the trade-off is very debatable so let your preferences be the deciding factor here.
(1) One pro to consider is, if you play a game of EDH and in this scenario everyone's decks were perfectly balanced such that those decks could consistently win by turn 8 always, then the player with the best chance of winning in that scenario would likely be whoever started the first turn of the game as that player would reach their 8th turn before everyone else could take their own 8th turn. Your odds of being the first player is not favorable and if the probability of drawing something game changing is what your deck is banking on for a win, then Temple Bell changes the dynamic almost as if you were the player that had started first. That is to say if it is turn 7 and you're going last you can tap Temple Bell to draw your eighth card on turn 7 and while this will also give your opponents their eighth card at the same time, it will be during your main phase while everyone else will have to wait for their main phase after yours before they can use any sorcery speed card they may have drawn. Keep in mind this only impacts effective turn order where card draw is concerned as it doesn't affect other aspects such as additional land drops and additional combat steps. Also keep in mind Temple Bell benefits you only every other card drawn such as in this scenario your opponents will still draw their 9th card before you, but you'll still be able to effectively draw and use your 10th card before them and so on. Do note this is still much better than having your opponents always drawing and using their Xth card before you do without Temple Bell in the same scenario. And in scenarios where you're the player who goes first where your draw step always comes before everyone else's draw step, having Temple Bell effectively double up on your draw step which only furthers the advantage of going first. These are advantages you wouldn't get with Howling Mine and Font of Mythos and is why Temple Bell and Horn of Greed should be seen as a serious upgrades from those cards.
(2) The other pro is that giving your opponents more cards in situations where one of your opponents is in the lead makes it much easier for the table to gang up on them and set them back, and in situations where you're in the lead you can simply choose not to ring the bell just to maintain your advantage. You can make the counterargument of what good is a card if it has no use under a given scenario, but the only scenario where it doesn't have a use is if you already happen to be winning. Would you really scrap a card that could save a game you would have lost if it can't be counted as a win-more type card? At worse it will definitely prolong games, but I'd hardly ever say it hands a win to an opponent on a silver platter. If an opponent was able to power through three opponents that had extra card fodder to throw at them then it likely wasn't a game you were going to win without the Temple Bell anyway. This is one advantage I'd give Temple Bell over Horn of Greed, but if your deck has a means of removing the horn easily when you're ahead then they'll both work great especially if you're operating a deck that can easily fly under the radar of your opponents.
To conclude this massive word wall I want to restate, Temple Bell is a serviceable card. Not amazing and not bad either. As always, if you can find a similar replacement that gives only you card draw with negligible drawback, that should always be the better pick, but again there's also nothing wrong with running both. If a card isn't breaking anything in your deck, then why make an excuse to fix it?
July 23, 2024 2:18 p.m.
wallisface says... #23
StopShot I heavily disagree with this synopsis.
Yes you and your opponents are all drawing cards equally, bit you’ve cost yourself a card and a chunk of your turn to do this, putting yourself behind in resources and tempo.
To your first “positive” point, you’ll never be in a situation where you’ve effectively gained yourself an extra card over your opponents, as you will have always spent a card to cast the Bell. At best, you can get to a point on your turn where the bell-draw has recouped the card you’d lost from casting Bell, while you’re opponents have gained a card they can’t yet use (assuming they’re tapped out, and that their not running any of the plethora of free-spells the game offers).
Your positive point #2 reads as if you’re planning to both be-behind in board, but also that you’ll have to ability to deal with problems as they arise yourself. This is putting a lot of reliance on the rest of your pod, in a format that actively discourages bothering with interaction.
It feels like your wall of text is trying very hard to justify a bad card, and i’m really not buying the pitch.
July 23, 2024 5:28 p.m.
StopShot - I second wallisface’s analysis and want to add an additional point.
There is an old saying - you should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. A lot of your analysis is based on hoping for the best while writing off the worse case situation.
When evaluating a card, it is important to look at its floor - what the worst thing that could happen might be. For Temple Bell and similar cards, the floor is that you give your opponents something that stops you - a pretty disastrous floor that could cause you to lose the game.
You write that possibility off as “they might not use the cards against you” - but that is looking at the best case situations while ignoring the distinct chance it makes the game worse for you.
While one can imagine situations where Temple Bell might help you win, there are also lots of situations where it helps your opponent win. That makes it a bad card.
Instead of playing a card that might help someone else win, that card slot should go to something which always helps you win.
July 23, 2024 5:57 p.m.
@wallisface, Caerwyn, I get the criticisms, most of it is exactly why you wouldn't run Temple Bell in a 1v1 format and if the discussion was for its use in a 1v1 format I wouldn't be advocating for it at all. Do those same factors in 1v1 not exist in multiplayer? No, tempo and card parity are still there and relevant. My stance is that they aren't as relevant in multiplayer settings which is where I split and why I feel Temple Bell's usefulness is based more on personal preference as well as our own individual experiences at playgroups. (That's not to say I don't care about tempo or card parity either when it comes to deck building, I merely put less stress on it than I would in a 1v1 format.)
For me at least EDH is like a break from the 1v1 mindset rather than just another outlet for it. As for my own experiences, even if decks aren't running interaction, extra cards lets other opponents develop their boardstates better which has always had a higher aptitude of creating longer combat stalemates and prolonging games which has always served my decks well that prefer longer drawn out games rather than fast ones, and I like that more than simply running a prison deck for the same reason you wouldn't want to bring removal to this format.
I think it's also nihilistic to "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." I mean, (unless my deck's power level is absurdly cracked over all my opponents,) if all my opponents decide to go after me in a game, I'm going to lose no matter what I put in my deck, and that's okay. It's unreasonable to build a deck that's meant to consistently beat three other random decks that target yours at the same time. The games you're going to win are the ones where that doesn't happen and it's those games that I build my deck around. Maybe I could win a few more of those games if I put more thought into tempo and card parity, but then again, I wouldn't get to experience the other tactical wins I've won. If my opponent draws that one thing that they needed to survive something lethal the game prolongs and that buys me extra turns I wouldn't have had. (As in if that opponent was KO'd the one that did the finishing blow would likely go for me next, but if the KO'd opponent survives or resists the push, that same opponent may become hesitant on attacking me if it leaves them open to being attack by the opponent they would have KO'd.) And thus, the cards I run in my own deck capitalize off of this prolonged state better than my opponents cards that would have wished to have ended the game much earlier.
Regardless though, this is comment and my previous comment are both just part of my deck building ideology. If you think my approach is dumb because it's playing too much with factors that are harder to control and not enough on the factors that are easier to control such as more focus on tempo and card parity that's cool. There is enjoyment and practicality in building decks that way, so don't get the impression I'm telling you you're playing the game bad because I'm taking a different approach. I stand by my views on Temple Bell because my own experiences reflect what I've said on it, and perhaps your own experiences with it are also reflected by what you've had to say on it. I'm just here to provide my perspective since I didn't see it here anywhere on this thread. If my words don't hold up for those reading them, that's fine, I'm not advocating Temple Bell is universally good for all decks, but that its value lies in preference and those that share similar preferences should consider it and those that don't need not give it a second thought. For me it sounded like the OP was okay with having Temple Bell in their deck up until the point enough people told them it was bad, which is why I feel so strongly about leaving my thoughts on the matter here.
July 24, 2024 11:25 a.m.
Temple Bell is fine depending on your personal strategy as a player. If you build a lot of versatility & durability into your decks then a small amount of "benefit for all" is fine. Basically, in a 4-player (+) game, if you know you barely ever are the archenemy role & giving everyone potential "solutions" is just fine because what are they really "solving" on your side of the board? this is fine. I play so many group slug - "death by 1,000 cuts" decks, the commanders are rarely the main show, & I rarely have any one lynchpin to be "solved". I often play a lower single-target removal volume & more wipes & mass-durability cards because the more midrange the game & the more parity & "solutions" everyone has, the more single-target removal starts to become too "small fry" when every other player is the next big threat.
Now, if none of that describes your playstyle & you play more commander-centric deck & you don't tend to use your opponents as resources.. then I'd say to use a more me-centered card.
I play a ton of Descent into Avernus & regularly kick butt with it because I have years of deckbuilding & playstyle directed at building for durability & a mindfulness that I am not the only priority at the table. Players will have to address each other if they are constantly dropping the next big bomb. Of course this can be a little dependent on an opponent making a rational decision from their point of view, which can be tricky.
Not that I am saying one strategy is better than the other, just that I don't like when people say "hug" cards are outright bad. That being said, I don't play a lot of true "hug" either.
July 24, 2024 12:30 p.m.
wallisface says... #27
StopShot, Gleeock if Temple Bell were even remotely as powerful as you two describe, you’d see it showing up in competitive edh decks… or semi-competitive edh decks… or even strong-casual edh decks. Or even casual decks. But you don’t, because outside of some extremely niche/narrow deck-builds, it’s just not doing enough to ever warrant being in the 99.
The stats speak for themselves. On edhrec it’s showing up in less-than 1% of decks. I imagine the vast majority of those decks are “grouphug”, with the remainder being a deckbuilding mistake.
July 24, 2024 3:44 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #28
The only reason I remember Temple Bell as a card is because I saw a Zurzoth, Chaos Rider player activate it trying to sneak in some extra devil tokens precombat (Anger in the graveyard, it made sense to try) while saying "What's the worst that could happen?" hinting at the disadvantage of giving your opponents extra cards. But by doing so, miracled an opponent into Devastation Tide, answering their own question while they took at least 20 devil tokens back to hand without the death trigger.
Very memorable game, horrible advertisement for the use of Temple Bell.
July 24, 2024 5:19 p.m.
wallisface I don't believe I stated that the card was powerful. As far as <1% on EDHrec, I have played plenty of cards that help me on my way to winning in less overt ways & they probably show up in a low % decks as well.
Again, I don't really play Temple Bell, nor do I play traditional "hugs". But, I have seen specialist players be pretty effective at that playstyle. As far as: not EVER doing enough in the 99 I say "Never say Never" in a game with this much choice, variety, strategy, & personal preference. Your playstyle is not everyone elses' playstyle, even if it is the majority playstyle.
July 24, 2024 9:04 p.m.
wallisface says... #30
Gleeock I don’t think we’re ever going to see eye-to-eye here.
This thread was built around the OP asking for deck-building optimisation in a vacuum… i strongly feel that suggesting Temple Bell as a reasonable option in that regard is both incredibly misleading, and doesn’t help the OP in future card-assessment.
July 24, 2024 10:25 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #31
Temple Bell is a bad card. There are reasons to play bad cards and playing a bad card (with a good reason) doesn't make you a bad player, especially in EDH. Most of the cards in my Jodah, the Unifier deck are bad, but they are cheap legendary creatures. So they just turn into insanely large beaters, which is what the deck wants to do. Shrieking Drake is an objectively bad card. It is a Flying Men with downside. But that doesn't stop it from being played in a cEDH deck.
July 25, 2024 5:49 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #32
I have four planeswalkers in my Elsha of the Infinite EDH deck, three of whom are in the deck specifically for their emblems, so I believe that Staff of Compleation would help with those planeswalkers accumulating sufficient loyalty to generate their emblems; what does everyone else say about that?
July 25, 2024 9:07 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #33
Since all your PW are red, consider Chandra, Acolyte of Flame as a multitool that also boosts their loyalty. It's also virtual card draw since you can recast some stuff from your graveyard.
July 26, 2024 6:29 a.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #34
sergiodelrio, that is a very good suggestion, so I shall keep her in mind; thank you, very much.
wallisface says... #2
i’m not sure why you were including Temple Bell to begin with - the card looks actively bad as it’s helping 3 opponents just as much as it’s helping you. Unless you have some serious buildaround payoffs (grouphug?) it’s just terrible.
i’m not sure why you’re looking to replace a bad card for another card that’s just doing generic things. Why aren’t you swapping it out for a card that specifically helps the strategy of the deck(s) you’re constructing?
I’m not sure why you’re trying to compare two very different cards in a vacuum, when either card would likely only be remotely-viable in very-specific kinds decks. I would suggest using cards that help proactively advance whatever game-plan your deck aims to achieve, instead of either of these.
July 16, 2024 9:17 p.m.