Alright, I'm not actually recommending this, but a lot of your points feel like they match my Grimgrin deck, so I wanted to do some comparisons.
1) UB. You said you preferred it to be the core, which was why I thought Grimgrin fit in paricular for a comparison case.
2) No combat. Okay, fine my Grimgrin's casual goal is amass as many 2/2 Zombie tokens as possible (I collect those and had to use them somewhere) and theoretically you could just run all of them in combat, but let's face it's unrealistic primary plan. The actual plan is get as many of them as possible out at once and use Shepherd of Rot to win. But like all creature-reliant strategies, it's easily disrupted (but then again I'm in quite a fierce meta, almost anything can be disrupted anyway).
3) Oh boy, flavor-wise theft/clones are the theme of the deck (zombies are the functional half). I run thebigthree in the deck and even in the cases where there's nothing of value elsewhere to copy, Zombies is the one tribe that amplifies itself a whole more when multiplied. I generally resort my theft plans to be more of my answers to what the color combination has trouble answering past counters/bouncing though, using cards like Aura Thief for enchantments, since space gets tight once you squeeze zombies into the whole lot. As for drain, it's a side-theme at best (as mentioned, lack of space) that falls into the likes of Bontu's Monument and Gary. I do run Plague Belcher and Vengeful Dead and with Exquisite Blood you could turn it to drain, but I'd say the enchantment is too much of a trouble magnet for me to bother. I usually just run zombies into players/things with Whip of Erebos for lifegain separately.
4) Grimgrin is a sac outlet. Not the only one of course, but it's always more reassuring to have one in the Command Zone when relying on creature/token-based strategies. Zombie tribal recursion means it's often tempting to put him into the graveyard, but sometimes Rooftop Storm makes it preferable to just pay the tax only instead.
5) Well, I do have my sacrifice outlets to subvert anti-synergies from wipes (because cheaper wipes are almost always two-sided), but if one doesn't want to, we're in the colors of Cyclonic Rift, Plague Wind and In Garruk's Wake.
6) Here is where it digresses. UB alone isn't exactly the fastest of colors (you're going to need all the 2-mana rocks you can find basically for the color combination) and cheap mass removal as mentioned, isn't one-sided (but it'll hurt them more than you if they're aggro-fast anyway). Honestly, if you have elfball, ramp-eldrazi and chaos-crazy decks on the same table, it'll be nigh difficult to stay stabilized between all of them even with the tools packed into the decks since there's no guarantee you'll get to them in the correct phases... especially if you're the only answer on the board. You'll basically need to draw into early mass removal to cripple the elf decks early on and load up on counterspells to deal with the likes of ramping and chaos cards.
Just based on the digression on 6) alone I'd think one of those competitive Tasigur decks would work out better though. I'm no expert on the commander so I won't be recommending anything in particular (you can go find the Tasigur threads via the database instead), but I've witnessed variations of the decks in action myself that it feels like the correct choice here.
MLD has its reputation (and hence ramp is so popular generally) because people tend to prefer struggling completely futilely over being simply completely durdling. Throw in the fact people tend to be inadequately (or completely not) equipped to deal with MLD themselves, they direct their anger towards to MLD player instead ("you're losing either way" doesn't cut it to curb the anger because of my first sentence, people get angrier because they are denied their chance to struggle, even if said struggle was essentially worthless as well) and it forms a vicious cycle of people not playing MLD and not being prepared for it, which frees ramp. No one wants to play the "bad guy" in the social circle game and in groups that don't take feedback very well, honestly this cycle is pretty much unbreakable (chances are people would actually split instead).
How easy it is to fix the problem is based on how receptive the group is to feedback to deckbuilding (in terms of being prepared for deckbuilding) and playstyle ("not attacking the open player because he or she is just ramping" is a common mistake for beginners and well there are stubborn people out there). On a individual deckbuilding level you can only do so much if the social aspect of the problem is not fixed - no amount of MLD is going to magically fix these problems. As mentioned above, in some of the most stubborn groups, perhaps the only actual individualistic solution (without playing the "bad guy") is to outramp them all and win instead.
So (1) bring multiple decks and (2) communicate before you sit down.
If I found out I'd won a game because someone else was sitting at the table with a win in hand and didn't play it, I'd feel like my win was tainted and I'd never want to play with them again.
Same as above. Bring multiple decks. Communicate. Or just bring a sideboard to take in/out the combo stuff.
MJ isn't a good comparison because that's an innate ability. You aren't intrinsically bound to your deck. If MJ had a magic feather that made him good, and without it he'd be roughly equivalent to your skill, wouldn't you rather he just ditched the magic feather and tried his heart out, rather than kept it but played like crap on purpose?
Ah, but we did communicate - in fact what we presented to you is what came out of the communication, which is why I said it's a matter of perspective - there's no right or wrong, but the majority of the core group in my LGS agreed to this "inverse mantra". You could argue that perhaps intrinsically we are compromising and I won't deny that, but the "inverse mantra" was decided taking into account on how we would react to different newcomers to the LGS (not necessarily new players to the game/format overall, could be walk-in experienced player).
Using the MJ and his magic feather example, I would tell you that we wouldn't want him to ditch his magic feather so just we could have a "equal" match - it would be disrespectful to the fact he has the Magic Feather and we know he does. Just like you think us playing our 75% decks and lowering ourselves to 50% to match casual to disrespectful, we think if you could improve your deck with cards you have but you didn't because you outright wanted to "match" a lower tier, to us is no different from putting it into your deck and not playing it out - in my meta, deckbuilding criticism (the good kind) is no different from questioning move decisions in-game as well - "why you didn't play out the game-winning combo" is an equal question to "why didn't you put this fitting combo we know you own into your deck" and the same answer of "I didn't want to win too easily" is met with equal lack-of-approval.
Perhaps saying "Build competitively, play casually" as the inverse mantra is not correct - the correct order is "play casually, build competitively". Our roots lie in managing the way we play so that it doesn't cause players to outright have to divide their decks (or even worse, only have 1 deck (especially newer players) and effectively have to sit out games) into distinct competitive and/or casual decks, we seek to improve all our decks over time still. Building is primarily individualistic process (even if we do give out criticism to assist), but the playing style is a whole lot interweaved between all active players of the group. Telling a player to build a whole another deck of a different tier is a whole lot less productive than telling them our playstyle and have them try to adapt to it. Sure both require change, but we have enough proof over the years to see which one has a better retaining rate.
Some decks just aren't for some kind of players. If you can't think in advance Burn isn't for you, if you can't hierarchize threats Draw Go isn't for you. The same is true of some cards like Engine, Armageddon, Cyclonic Rift, etc. They can be solid pillars of particular deck archetypes, they can be inexperiencedly durdled with by players who genuinelly want to learn the correct way to play them, or they can be played with the explicit intent of ruining the game for everyone. It's time we stop blaming the inanimate objects for the malice of toxic people within our playgroups.
Sheldon did say "The secret of this format is in not breaking it." and I'd say its applicable to every individual card as well, but the RC has to observe that on a global scale. Many cards are powerful, and many of those are also easily breakable by individuals for want to break them for the intent but at the same time can be used "fairly". The RC has to analyze how responsibly we (as a whole) use each card and that is not an easy metric to measure.
Not a lot of cards invoke enough "malice" across enough of the entire playerbase to get the hammer. Primeval Titan is the poster card that fell into this category and it took a very, very long time before the RC confirmed the hammer because it wasn't easy to accurately assess the data and attribute it to this factor (it was a relatively recent card between its time of print and ban).
There are many other factors that come into play for different cards (Leovold I would attribute to how-easy-it-is-to-fall-into-said-malice instead of the typical "malice-measurements" across the board, especially due to its Commander status and Prophet is a mix of the two - too powerful to be used as an absolute staple, resulting in "fell-into-unintended-malice-of-the-masses" instead) but many of the commonly complained-about cards seem to currently fall on the safer-end of this factor.
They also say the grass is greener on the other side and two greencards which once stood on opposite fields of grass have proved that. Both could be used irresponsibly by the entire masses like Titan was if we somehow so desired and agreed to do so, but clearly they never reached that level (and in a fit of irony the less potent-one when used fairly was the one hammered down). The RC feared Hulk more because on the basis it was easier for people to abuse it (and hence more people will) due to it being a creature but since its release turns out not a lot of people really wanted to do that (and as a result I actually see less Hulks than TNs around since Hulk was bluntly put just underwhelming when used fairly, even if it was easier to activate).
As mentioned in the post above - EDH is MTG D&D, the RC/Banned List is not even the DM, they're the base guideline rulebook whose changes are dependent on how well the global playerbase is behaving in regards to each individual card.
I've seen this inversion of the EDH mantra a couple times and it really bothers me. It's supposed to be "build casually, play competitively", not the other way around.
Mostly I just don't understand how people could have fun following the inverted mantra. The reason the EDH mantra works is that competition is FUN. Trying your best to win at a game is a pastime that's provided enjoyment for humans since time immemorial. And as long as everyone is playing toned-down decks that don't have easy "I win" buttons, it's a good, satisfying game. I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have any fun playing a deck that I knew I could win with, but intentionally held back.
I've used this analogy in the past and I think it's apt - playing a (powerful) combo deck and holding back is like bringing a NASCAR racer to your buddy's homemade go-kart competition and trying to match your speed. It's condescending, it makes the competition feel meaningless, and I don't understand how it could possibly be fun for you. I'd much rather bring the slowest go-kart of the bunch, and have to fight tooth and nail in order to stand half a chance.
Not to say that "playing competitively" means you're acting like it's day 2 of a GP or something. Take-backsies as long as no hidden info from your opponents was revealed, etc. is all fine. I just mean that I'm always trying to find the best play. It still doesn't need to be taken super seriously when all is said and done.
It's all a matter of perspective. The most important thing to note about "75% / build competitively, play "casually"" (I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I guess there's some common baseline at least with others with similar mentalities) is that the primary win-con is usually by nature a casual win-con (or at least reasonable in the realm of casual) and the "competitive half" (which amounts to pretty much a couple of insta-win combos and tutors) is an adaptation tool to the competitive side of the LGS's meta. "As long as everyone is playing the same something" is not a luxury the flexible LGS walk-in scene can afford, even with core groups in the LGS tilting towards either side of the meta.
On the "mathematical" surface level, you can say that we're not trying our best based on our decklists solely, but the 75%/inverse mantra in by itself is a social agreement within the LGS/group - we are all aware that we're playing with the primary objective of winning with methods that don't really match cEDH standards and may be higher than the typical casual standard (but can be reasonably stopped in the dimension).
Perhaps the gap between competitive and casual isn't as wide in your meta, but 75% isn't exactly "flip a switch - I'm competitive now" - by the time you analyze that your primary plan isn't going to work, resorting to the "competitive half" is already "fighting tooth and nail to win" against decks of the same or higher caliber. Any less than this baseline, you'll be either conceding or passively doing so by durdling (or worse, kingmaking), in which by itself leaves a bad taste.
To put it bluntly, the "competitive backup plan" is essentially us "conceding" in a twisted, yet gracious way - we admit that we aren't going to win with our preferred way, but at least we aren't to just leave abruptly or go down as puppets or kingmakers (especially considering the politics of multiplayer combined with resources of the game) and we're going to throw what is admittedly "more boring combos" as the last wall for you to overcome. Perhaps to you (and people with the same opinions), a clean concede would be neater and more polite, but from our perspective, denying our opponent the chance to play out their strategies or practically staying there as a goldfish is also disrespectful in its own way.
Mana Crypt. Same status as Sol Ring - banned in Legacy, restricted in Vintage. It was fair to dangle it as a carrot in EMA and as a Masterpiece for Vintage players because it was rarer than Sol Ring due to its unique origin status, but Vintage is such a narrow market comparatively to EDH I'd say it's unfair to dangle the regular versions any longer (since the Masterpiece exists).
If the hint from upcoming Modern products indicates they're diversifying to really focus on their target markets of each group, I'd daresay Vintage is too small for most considerations and cards like Crypt should have "Commander-targeted" as their main demographic instead.
Before anyone screams it'll aggravate the fast-mana "problem", I'd say the EMA print-run already initiated an arms race from what I saw. If it's really a problem curbed by price barriers (since EMA didn't exactly make it "cheap", just "cheaper" on the technicality), I'd rather it do a run like Sol Ring so we can properly assess how harmful is the whole situation. While Ring remains free (and has its complaints), cards like Primeval Titan did prove there is ultimately a line drawn. In fact, I'd feel a long-term "imbalance" caused by the EMA print run is more disturbing (and less likely to invoke actions since perceived barrier is no longer an active consideration of removal from the format) than if we let Sol-Crypt run amok for a while to make a proper assessment, especially now that the RC has introduced the CAG as more points of observation.
You can feel free to disagree (and I'm sure someone will), but I won't touch on the topic here further, the statement was just a preemptive reply because I know my choice of a needed reprint is bound to lead to someone raising this particular issue and I'm just planting my opinion here beforehand - some changes require statistical motivation beforehand (as Titan proved) and I think at this point of time, Crypt is definitely one of them, regardless of which side of the argument of whether it should go you stand on. As Masters have ended and I don't see Vintage having a chance of getting the treatment Modern is hinted to get at all, I'd say it's now a bonafide Commander-focused card for WotC to reprint.
It depends on the deck build - how confident am I that the deck's primary win-condition(s) (yes sometimes they have several) can fully execute their job. If I'm confident they can finish it by themselves, I'm less inclined to include infinite combos and vice-versa. For example, in Karador I roughly consider Jarad with Lord of Extinction to be my primary finisher despite not being infinite (and easily reduced/countered via gravehate) because generally I see Kokusho doing its midrange grinding effectively enough. Meanwhile, Alesha's equipment smashing / aristocrat drain themes often don't seem to finish their jobs even when combined, so there's like 4 infinite combos of varying levels of assembly difficulty to close the game so I won't be left durdling - but I noted to make sure the individual components of said combos also play into the main themes and I don't really keep them in-hand for the purposes of combo-ing until it's made clear I can't win traditionally, so many of my "combos" invalidate themselves by use through the game.
In decks that rely on combos to finish the job, the active effort is there not to tutor for them for said purpose. I don't shy away from tutors either, because I find them necessary to seek answers so I can actually get the main plan moving and not just roll over to the first competitive move made in some games I encounter and even in more casual games they're used to find my card advantage generators instead to get the plan moving reasonably faster and my reliance of getting combo pieces will more often fall to these generators than tutors. That being said, my primary LGS playgroup is 75% tilting slightly towards the competitive side (but not wholly outright cEDH either), so I don't feel particularly ashamed of Tooth and Nailing into-win in a game where I fought off several other similar attempts earlier along with the knowledge there would be more coming if I don't perform one myself either. In the rarer occasions when I play with the more casual groups (due to timings of when I visit the LGS), I adjust my playing style accordingly.
The RC advocates "Build casually, play competitively", but I find that only works within the same tier of "Built Casually" and in a vacuum of the LGS (even with a core pool of regulars), those don't align as well. There are enough "flexible" cards in "competitive tier" that I personally adopted a "Build nearer-competitively-than-casually, then play according to the group in question" and that reflects in my choice of cards like Tooth and Nail over Protean Hulk (TN can bring about legitimate non-infinite threats in casual settings while generally Hulk feels underwhelming when not combo-ed, but that's based on my own decks only, though the idea I'm trying to convey is still there).
In the strictest, most methodical/mathematical way, the format can actually be "solved"... except with the caveat that there are "brain-dead" restrictions placed on some decision maneuvers and the acceptance that the end result of any given simulation via such a restriction is essentially utterly useless since the restriction by itself outright goes against the real-life unpredictability of an actual player's reaction. Yeah, that also means it should be entirely computer-operated, since I would't trust any group of Magic players to consistently remember which creature to Dismember based on a myriad of decisions made earlier by all parties involved (alongside with or without prior deck knowledge) in order to maintain the restriction for data collection.
Long story cut short, it is technically possible, but it's also bluntly speaking a pointless quest for a pointless result. Even if we stopped taking into account new cards from today onward, it would take more than a lifetime to gather accurate data at all - for all tournament reports and forum discussions are essentially worthless to a concentrated data collection program based on certain restrictions... and that's assuming the dedicated group doesn't make the occasional mistake that renders an entire game moot in terms of data collection.
I'm not versed enough in technology to figure out whether it's possible to code a program within a lifetime that can calculate that instantly afterwards (with the same caveat of no new cards onward), but even if it's possible, it changes nothing that the generated result would be worth less than an individual's personal analysis and adaptation of his or her own meta. In fact, it takes one curveball of a player acting out-of-the-ordinary to throw the later's analysis to be "roughly invalid" already, let alone a computer-generated result that probably can't grasp the rough range to begin with.
And all of that above is based on a traditional criteria of winning, which many have pointed out is pretty much a "brain-dead" restriction of its own to begin with. (Which means like-wise, I suppose if you add-in a different restriction of "knowing what your opponents want to achieve" instead you can run another grand simulation of actively "winning by denying them that" and come up with a computer-generated result of optimal decklists for each given set of opponents, but it'll also still be less useful than the playmat an actual game is on.)
EDH is the D&D of MTG. Trying to "solve" it is akin to trying to solve D&D, generally you're better of with the "default in-a-social-vacuum solution" of trying to min-max for your meta and hope for the best.
Riftbreakers' PushXW Instant (U)
Rally (Any number of players can pay up to X of this spell's cost)
Any number of target players reveal their hands, then put up to X permanent cards that were put there from the battlefield onto the battlefield. The unnatural disaster cleared, revealing an army triggered into entering the battlefield.
I based the color decision on Faith's Reward since I think the bounce requirement makes the "sneaking" irrelevant to the color pie as opposed to the "response to mass-removal" part. The hand-reveal part was honestly just to ease confusion during the whole process. Made it to scale instead of "all permanents" so that it can be used not as just an answer, but for combo-ideas and threw in a dialed-up version of Assist because it's pretty obvious what this card was originally planned to hose.
Even after reading the recent article, I'm still skeptical on the whole idea... in a few different ways. Having read it, I'm aware the whole thing just started and has nothing practical to show for it, but the skeptical part of me cannot stop murmuring "it's merely a formality", but not the in the "RC is in an echo chamber and made it larger" way, but in the "RC is already listening to the community from many online resources, how does the entire concept itself particularly change anything to begin with" way.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
The banlist lets you go to any shop in the country and get a decent game of EDH if you're playing a deck that is in between CEDH and Trash. That's been my experience. There is no additional "social contract" required here, there's just a banlist that encourages the type of play that would align with a social contract were there one (e.g. you're playing with your buddies).
It's not perfect. But it does a damned good job. Something about the varied level of power of the cards on the banlist just seems to get people building tuned decks but not too crazy.
The EDH banlist is kind of like a really good baseline framework for the social contract to fill out.
I understand all the arguments people make but perhaps rather than the Calvinball analogy, consider Dungeons and Dragons - there's a baseline ruleset of D&D that tells you how stuff works, you can go and play literally anywhere and join any playgroup. But you're going to get a different experience every time, because each group has a different cooperative social contract.
Because one GM has house ruled something doesn't mean you go to Wizards and tell them to eliminate that rule entirely and let people figure it out on their own.
Example: GM says they want a gritty game so they halve the amount you heal as you rest. Player response is not to call Wizards up and say "listen can you just delete all the rules about healing so we can figure it out on our own?" There're baseline rules.
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
its plausible, but i dont see it as likely. all those other blocks dont have a second visit yet. ravnica has 3 whole blocks, and a guild system that fits perfectly as a unifying theme.
that isnt to say that wizards wont be diversifying how they can get reprints out there, because i truly believe we are going to be seeing innovation on that front in the near future.
Actually I think these decks should actually replace the Duel Decks (I know those are already gone, but just saying...), just release a set of 5 decks a year with 5 decently built decks each representing a faction/plane (mixed, they don't necessarily have to be all related) with some decent reprints and snazzy new art for the face card (like Duel Decks). Unlike Duel Decks, 5 individual decks allow for more mix-and-matching immediately between newer players and while I'm aware that Commander Decks are technically this system, somehow I feel that there's more cohesiveness when they outright do casual 60-card decks instead.
It's like taking the best aspects of guild kits, duel decks, the bolas archenemy thing/the battle kit thing and commander decks and putting them as a yearly introductory product that has some value to older players (but not enough for us to rush it like sharks and wipe the whole supply like we do with some Commander decks...) and I think it's a winning formula. I'm sure MTG has enough history in its 25 years to run this gauntlet for say, at least 5 years or so and they can theme with Standard Sets if they happen to meet like Ravnica now (not all Duel Decks were thematically on time anyway).
As someone trying to stick with foil-only, it'll probably be just a Reserved List card with a foil, like Survival of the Fittest, Gaea's Cradle and Grim Monolith are the ones I immediately thought of, in that order.
Just as an extra, if I had to choose a nonfoil card instead, I'd probably just go for a Alpha Gauntlet of Might for my Ryusei deck. Yes, I know Timetwister is P9 and powerful, but there's something about playing Gauntlet in a Mono-Red deck that appeals to me more than just throwing a powerful P9 card into utility use if I had to pick 1 nonfoil after all.
That being said, if we go the absurd mile, if I could wish for Shichifukujin Dragon to play in Ryusei instead of the Gauntlet (or anything above, actually) I definitely would, just the sheer reputation of getting to actually play that card would be worth the any loss of power-level in the deck. I mean everything else above has "inferior/budget" options to go by, but nothing is more unique than getting to play a 1-of card in the entire game.
Thing is, PbtE isn't just about price, it's about price combined with ubiquity, or rather the idea that the only thing that would restrict the ubiquity of the card would be its astronomical price. Even if Tabernacle, for instance, cost less than $10, it wouldn't be ubiquitous, and you can see that on mtgo. Timetwister is, I think (I haven't checked the price lately) like a $5 card online. Many blue decks don't play it. I'd argue that more should, as it's still really good even if the deck isn't built around wheels as a way to just refill your hand and recycle your gy, though if you need access to your graveyard or your deck doesn't empty its hand then it's not going to do much for you.
That is why PBtE is "half-botched" to me - it was, bluntly put, applied so badly at the start that it looked like it was solely based on price and now that has locked its reputation along with the RC's, even if the whole criteria was scrapped later on. Price should not have been the factor from the start.
The one and most unique aspect of the RL is all cards on the list can technically be considered "not possible for it to become ubiquitous" regardless of power or price. Therefore PBtE should have had the first priority of identifying cards that would in normal circumstances become ubiquitous, but it's not actually possible to become so simply due to being on the RL. Needless to say, powerful cards that will become ubiquitous due to said power like the Moxen and Time Walk will make the list instantly, but this would cover cards like the Duals (which would no doubt be ubiquitous if they were cheap unlike Tabernacle) while leaving out cards that aren't so, like Tabernacle/Library and so on...
As I mentioned before, I cannot blame the RC for not having the foresight (especially when I'm here with all of the hindsight) back then, but PBtE as it was when they implemented was ridiculously a short-sighted criteria they set for the format... arguably the name itself might have blindsided them to mostly thinking about "new players would be frightened to see a $2000 card not banned in the format" rather than "Let's reinforce that this $2000 card is actually not all that useful in the format for most decks and that $200 land may not have be as expensive but is banned because it's ubiquitous but WotC won't ever make enough copies for it be actually so and the rising prices as a result will scare even more players later on."
That's the problem with the RL cards in the format, generally speaking - cards like Duals should simply be banned not because they are too powerful, but because they are cards that should be ubiquitous but aren't allowed to due to reasons (well, basically just the RL itself) other than price.
EDIT: To sum it up, in normal circumstances, a "fair" card (power-wise) that is ubiquitous should be free, but that cannot apply to RL cards because the nature of the RL makes it "unfair" for cards on it to even be ubiquitous regardless of its power and over time the nature of the Secondary Market would also cause its price to only go up - that is what I think PBtE should have set its criteria as.
Yeah, they would probably lose most of their credibility they have with the community, and quite possibly lose some standing with Wizards.
They sort of locked themselves in with that decision, in a way. What I really dislike about their current position is that it feels like a halfway-botched job. They selected only a tiny part of Reserved List to fall under the PBtE section back then and as time passed (along with the format's popularity and the general attitudes regarding the RL and Secondary Markets) it becomes more and more paramount to feel that they can never touch anything in the list (be it ban or unban) because it'll be awfully easy to accuse them of market manipulation.
I mean even a card like Palinchron which we all can agree is pretty much "unfun" and while it doesn't show up all the time enough to be an actual problem, it is the kind of card no one will miss when it's gone, the RC needs to take into account that it's a RL card to begin with, so unless it somehow becomes an actual problem in the format (which ironically the RL does inhibit to some degree), the incentive is for the RC to not ban the card since the risk of wrecking their reputation is greater than erasing the tiny amount of damage the card is inflicting to the format right now.
There's this weird threshold the RL sets causing reputation to be part of the equation that makes the scenario uncomfortable to me. I'm not accusing the RC of anything and I doubt even they had that far of a foresight when the format just begun, but I really wonder had the PBtE RL cards were not banned from the very start when people weren't as concerned about the RL... how much incentive would there be for the RC now to ban the more problematic cards on said list (especially considering how huge the damage some of them would wreck versus their no doubt significantly higher prices).
Sometimes I think cards like Thunder Spirit should just carry the sins of the RL and we all should treat the RL as a single unit - as long as 1 card is considered too powerful and must be banned, the whole list dies along with it. As stupid as that sounds, it's also quite true to some degree the RL is sort of an integrity promise that binds all those cards regardless of their individual power levels and while the RC didn't make that promise, the Secondary Market would not let them free of it.
But with that being said, it's also arguably too late to even try it, since even that decision will be hit by the full force of market manipulation accusations. So basically the only opportunity was the same window the RC had back then when they started the format and while I cannot blame them for not having the foresight (and me now and here having the hindsight), it will remain the half-botched job sore spot of the format to me.
1) UB. You said you preferred it to be the core, which was why I thought Grimgrin fit in paricular for a comparison case.
2) No combat. Okay, fine my Grimgrin's casual goal is amass as many 2/2 Zombie tokens as possible (I collect those and had to use them somewhere) and theoretically you could just run all of them in combat, but let's face it's unrealistic primary plan. The actual plan is get as many of them as possible out at once and use Shepherd of Rot to win. But like all creature-reliant strategies, it's easily disrupted (but then again I'm in quite a fierce meta, almost anything can be disrupted anyway).
3) Oh boy, flavor-wise theft/clones are the theme of the deck (zombies are the functional half). I run the big three in the deck and even in the cases where there's nothing of value elsewhere to copy, Zombies is the one tribe that amplifies itself a whole more when multiplied. I generally resort my theft plans to be more of my answers to what the color combination has trouble answering past counters/bouncing though, using cards like Aura Thief for enchantments, since space gets tight once you squeeze zombies into the whole lot. As for drain, it's a side-theme at best (as mentioned, lack of space) that falls into the likes of Bontu's Monument and Gary. I do run Plague Belcher and Vengeful Dead and with Exquisite Blood you could turn it to drain, but I'd say the enchantment is too much of a trouble magnet for me to bother. I usually just run zombies into players/things with Whip of Erebos for lifegain separately.
4) Grimgrin is a sac outlet. Not the only one of course, but it's always more reassuring to have one in the Command Zone when relying on creature/token-based strategies. Zombie tribal recursion means it's often tempting to put him into the graveyard, but sometimes Rooftop Storm makes it preferable to just pay the tax only instead.
5) Well, I do have my sacrifice outlets to subvert anti-synergies from wipes (because cheaper wipes are almost always two-sided), but if one doesn't want to, we're in the colors of Cyclonic Rift, Plague Wind and In Garruk's Wake.
6) Here is where it digresses. UB alone isn't exactly the fastest of colors (you're going to need all the 2-mana rocks you can find basically for the color combination) and cheap mass removal as mentioned, isn't one-sided (but it'll hurt them more than you if they're aggro-fast anyway). Honestly, if you have elfball, ramp-eldrazi and chaos-crazy decks on the same table, it'll be nigh difficult to stay stabilized between all of them even with the tools packed into the decks since there's no guarantee you'll get to them in the correct phases... especially if you're the only answer on the board. You'll basically need to draw into early mass removal to cripple the elf decks early on and load up on counterspells to deal with the likes of ramping and chaos cards.
Just based on the digression on 6) alone I'd think one of those competitive Tasigur decks would work out better though. I'm no expert on the commander so I won't be recommending anything in particular (you can go find the Tasigur threads via the database instead), but I've witnessed variations of the decks in action myself that it feels like the correct choice here.
How easy it is to fix the problem is based on how receptive the group is to feedback to deckbuilding (in terms of being prepared for deckbuilding) and playstyle ("not attacking the open player because he or she is just ramping" is a common mistake for beginners and well there are stubborn people out there). On a individual deckbuilding level you can only do so much if the social aspect of the problem is not fixed - no amount of MLD is going to magically fix these problems. As mentioned above, in some of the most stubborn groups, perhaps the only actual individualistic solution (without playing the "bad guy") is to outramp them all and win instead.
Ah, but we did communicate - in fact what we presented to you is what came out of the communication, which is why I said it's a matter of perspective - there's no right or wrong, but the majority of the core group in my LGS agreed to this "inverse mantra". You could argue that perhaps intrinsically we are compromising and I won't deny that, but the "inverse mantra" was decided taking into account on how we would react to different newcomers to the LGS (not necessarily new players to the game/format overall, could be walk-in experienced player).
Using the MJ and his magic feather example, I would tell you that we wouldn't want him to ditch his magic feather so just we could have a "equal" match - it would be disrespectful to the fact he has the Magic Feather and we know he does. Just like you think us playing our 75% decks and lowering ourselves to 50% to match casual to disrespectful, we think if you could improve your deck with cards you have but you didn't because you outright wanted to "match" a lower tier, to us is no different from putting it into your deck and not playing it out - in my meta, deckbuilding criticism (the good kind) is no different from questioning move decisions in-game as well - "why you didn't play out the game-winning combo" is an equal question to "why didn't you put this fitting combo we know you own into your deck" and the same answer of "I didn't want to win too easily" is met with equal lack-of-approval.
Perhaps saying "Build competitively, play casually" as the inverse mantra is not correct - the correct order is "play casually, build competitively". Our roots lie in managing the way we play so that it doesn't cause players to outright have to divide their decks (or even worse, only have 1 deck (especially newer players) and effectively have to sit out games) into distinct competitive and/or casual decks, we seek to improve all our decks over time still. Building is primarily individualistic process (even if we do give out criticism to assist), but the playing style is a whole lot interweaved between all active players of the group. Telling a player to build a whole another deck of a different tier is a whole lot less productive than telling them our playstyle and have them try to adapt to it. Sure both require change, but we have enough proof over the years to see which one has a better retaining rate.
Sheldon did say "The secret of this format is in not breaking it." and I'd say its applicable to every individual card as well, but the RC has to observe that on a global scale. Many cards are powerful, and many of those are also easily breakable by individuals for want to break them for the intent but at the same time can be used "fairly". The RC has to analyze how responsibly we (as a whole) use each card and that is not an easy metric to measure.
Not a lot of cards invoke enough "malice" across enough of the entire playerbase to get the hammer. Primeval Titan is the poster card that fell into this category and it took a very, very long time before the RC confirmed the hammer because it wasn't easy to accurately assess the data and attribute it to this factor (it was a relatively recent card between its time of print and ban).
There are many other factors that come into play for different cards (Leovold I would attribute to how-easy-it-is-to-fall-into-said-malice instead of the typical "malice-measurements" across the board, especially due to its Commander status and Prophet is a mix of the two - too powerful to be used as an absolute staple, resulting in "fell-into-unintended-malice-of-the-masses" instead) but many of the commonly complained-about cards seem to currently fall on the safer-end of this factor.
They also say the grass is greener on the other side and two green cards which once stood on opposite fields of grass have proved that. Both could be used irresponsibly by the entire masses like Titan was if we somehow so desired and agreed to do so, but clearly they never reached that level (and in a fit of irony the less potent-one when used fairly was the one hammered down). The RC feared Hulk more because on the basis it was easier for people to abuse it (and hence more people will) due to it being a creature but since its release turns out not a lot of people really wanted to do that (and as a result I actually see less Hulks than TNs around since Hulk was bluntly put just underwhelming when used fairly, even if it was easier to activate).
As mentioned in the post above - EDH is MTG D&D, the RC/Banned List is not even the DM, they're the base guideline rulebook whose changes are dependent on how well the global playerbase is behaving in regards to each individual card.
It's all a matter of perspective. The most important thing to note about "75% / build competitively, play "casually"" (I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I guess there's some common baseline at least with others with similar mentalities) is that the primary win-con is usually by nature a casual win-con (or at least reasonable in the realm of casual) and the "competitive half" (which amounts to pretty much a couple of insta-win combos and tutors) is an adaptation tool to the competitive side of the LGS's meta. "As long as everyone is playing the same something" is not a luxury the flexible LGS walk-in scene can afford, even with core groups in the LGS tilting towards either side of the meta.
On the "mathematical" surface level, you can say that we're not trying our best based on our decklists solely, but the 75%/inverse mantra in by itself is a social agreement within the LGS/group - we are all aware that we're playing with the primary objective of winning with methods that don't really match cEDH standards and may be higher than the typical casual standard (but can be reasonably stopped in the dimension).
Perhaps the gap between competitive and casual isn't as wide in your meta, but 75% isn't exactly "flip a switch - I'm competitive now" - by the time you analyze that your primary plan isn't going to work, resorting to the "competitive half" is already "fighting tooth and nail to win" against decks of the same or higher caliber. Any less than this baseline, you'll be either conceding or passively doing so by durdling (or worse, kingmaking), in which by itself leaves a bad taste.
To put it bluntly, the "competitive backup plan" is essentially us "conceding" in a twisted, yet gracious way - we admit that we aren't going to win with our preferred way, but at least we aren't to just leave abruptly or go down as puppets or kingmakers (especially considering the politics of multiplayer combined with resources of the game) and we're going to throw what is admittedly "more boring combos" as the last wall for you to overcome. Perhaps to you (and people with the same opinions), a clean concede would be neater and more polite, but from our perspective, denying our opponent the chance to play out their strategies or practically staying there as a goldfish is also disrespectful in its own way.
If the hint from upcoming Modern products indicates they're diversifying to really focus on their target markets of each group, I'd daresay Vintage is too small for most considerations and cards like Crypt should have "Commander-targeted" as their main demographic instead.
Before anyone screams it'll aggravate the fast-mana "problem", I'd say the EMA print-run already initiated an arms race from what I saw. If it's really a problem curbed by price barriers (since EMA didn't exactly make it "cheap", just "cheaper" on the technicality), I'd rather it do a run like Sol Ring so we can properly assess how harmful is the whole situation. While Ring remains free (and has its complaints), cards like Primeval Titan did prove there is ultimately a line drawn. In fact, I'd feel a long-term "imbalance" caused by the EMA print run is more disturbing (and less likely to invoke actions since perceived barrier is no longer an active consideration of removal from the format) than if we let Sol-Crypt run amok for a while to make a proper assessment, especially now that the RC has introduced the CAG as more points of observation.
You can feel free to disagree (and I'm sure someone will), but I won't touch on the topic here further, the statement was just a preemptive reply because I know my choice of a needed reprint is bound to lead to someone raising this particular issue and I'm just planting my opinion here beforehand - some changes require statistical motivation beforehand (as Titan proved) and I think at this point of time, Crypt is definitely one of them, regardless of which side of the argument of whether it should go you stand on. As Masters have ended and I don't see Vintage having a chance of getting the treatment Modern is hinted to get at all, I'd say it's now a bonafide Commander-focused card for WotC to reprint.
In decks that rely on combos to finish the job, the active effort is there not to tutor for them for said purpose. I don't shy away from tutors either, because I find them necessary to seek answers so I can actually get the main plan moving and not just roll over to the first competitive move made in some games I encounter and even in more casual games they're used to find my card advantage generators instead to get the plan moving reasonably faster and my reliance of getting combo pieces will more often fall to these generators than tutors. That being said, my primary LGS playgroup is 75% tilting slightly towards the competitive side (but not wholly outright cEDH either), so I don't feel particularly ashamed of Tooth and Nailing into-win in a game where I fought off several other similar attempts earlier along with the knowledge there would be more coming if I don't perform one myself either. In the rarer occasions when I play with the more casual groups (due to timings of when I visit the LGS), I adjust my playing style accordingly.
The RC advocates "Build casually, play competitively", but I find that only works within the same tier of "Built Casually" and in a vacuum of the LGS (even with a core pool of regulars), those don't align as well. There are enough "flexible" cards in "competitive tier" that I personally adopted a "Build nearer-competitively-than-casually, then play according to the group in question" and that reflects in my choice of cards like Tooth and Nail over Protean Hulk (TN can bring about legitimate non-infinite threats in casual settings while generally Hulk feels underwhelming when not combo-ed, but that's based on my own decks only, though the idea I'm trying to convey is still there).
Long story cut short, it is technically possible, but it's also bluntly speaking a pointless quest for a pointless result. Even if we stopped taking into account new cards from today onward, it would take more than a lifetime to gather accurate data at all - for all tournament reports and forum discussions are essentially worthless to a concentrated data collection program based on certain restrictions... and that's assuming the dedicated group doesn't make the occasional mistake that renders an entire game moot in terms of data collection.
I'm not versed enough in technology to figure out whether it's possible to code a program within a lifetime that can calculate that instantly afterwards (with the same caveat of no new cards onward), but even if it's possible, it changes nothing that the generated result would be worth less than an individual's personal analysis and adaptation of his or her own meta. In fact, it takes one curveball of a player acting out-of-the-ordinary to throw the later's analysis to be "roughly invalid" already, let alone a computer-generated result that probably can't grasp the rough range to begin with.
And all of that above is based on a traditional criteria of winning, which many have pointed out is pretty much a "brain-dead" restriction of its own to begin with. (Which means like-wise, I suppose if you add-in a different restriction of "knowing what your opponents want to achieve" instead you can run another grand simulation of actively "winning by denying them that" and come up with a computer-generated result of optimal decklists for each given set of opponents, but it'll also still be less useful than the playmat an actual game is on.)
EDH is the D&D of MTG. Trying to "solve" it is akin to trying to solve D&D, generally you're better of with the "default in-a-social-vacuum solution" of trying to min-max for your meta and hope for the best.
Instant (U)
Rally (Any number of players can pay up to X of this spell's cost)
Any number of target players reveal their hands, then put up to X permanent cards that were put there from the battlefield onto the battlefield.
The unnatural disaster cleared, revealing an army triggered into entering the battlefield.
I based the color decision on Faith's Reward since I think the bounce requirement makes the "sneaking" irrelevant to the color pie as opposed to the "response to mass-removal" part. The hand-reveal part was honestly just to ease confusion during the whole process. Made it to scale instead of "all permanents" so that it can be used not as just an answer, but for combo-ideas and threw in a dialed-up version of Assist because it's pretty obvious what this card was originally planned to hose.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
Actually I think these decks should actually replace the Duel Decks (I know those are already gone, but just saying...), just release a set of 5 decks a year with 5 decently built decks each representing a faction/plane (mixed, they don't necessarily have to be all related) with some decent reprints and snazzy new art for the face card (like Duel Decks). Unlike Duel Decks, 5 individual decks allow for more mix-and-matching immediately between newer players and while I'm aware that Commander Decks are technically this system, somehow I feel that there's more cohesiveness when they outright do casual 60-card decks instead.
It's like taking the best aspects of guild kits, duel decks, the bolas archenemy thing/the battle kit thing and commander decks and putting them as a yearly introductory product that has some value to older players (but not enough for us to rush it like sharks and wipe the whole supply like we do with some Commander decks...) and I think it's a winning formula. I'm sure MTG has enough history in its 25 years to run this gauntlet for say, at least 5 years or so and they can theme with Standard Sets if they happen to meet like Ravnica now (not all Duel Decks were thematically on time anyway).
Just as an extra, if I had to choose a nonfoil card instead, I'd probably just go for a Alpha Gauntlet of Might for my Ryusei deck. Yes, I know Timetwister is P9 and powerful, but there's something about playing Gauntlet in a Mono-Red deck that appeals to me more than just throwing a powerful P9 card into utility use if I had to pick 1 nonfoil after all.
That being said, if we go the absurd mile, if I could wish for Shichifukujin Dragon to play in Ryusei instead of the Gauntlet (or anything above, actually) I definitely would, just the sheer reputation of getting to actually play that card would be worth the any loss of power-level in the deck. I mean everything else above has "inferior/budget" options to go by, but nothing is more unique than getting to play a 1-of card in the entire game.
That is why PBtE is "half-botched" to me - it was, bluntly put, applied so badly at the start that it looked like it was solely based on price and now that has locked its reputation along with the RC's, even if the whole criteria was scrapped later on. Price should not have been the factor from the start.
The one and most unique aspect of the RL is all cards on the list can technically be considered "not possible for it to become ubiquitous" regardless of power or price. Therefore PBtE should have had the first priority of identifying cards that would in normal circumstances become ubiquitous, but it's not actually possible to become so simply due to being on the RL. Needless to say, powerful cards that will become ubiquitous due to said power like the Moxen and Time Walk will make the list instantly, but this would cover cards like the Duals (which would no doubt be ubiquitous if they were cheap unlike Tabernacle) while leaving out cards that aren't so, like Tabernacle/Library and so on...
As I mentioned before, I cannot blame the RC for not having the foresight (especially when I'm here with all of the hindsight) back then, but PBtE as it was when they implemented was ridiculously a short-sighted criteria they set for the format... arguably the name itself might have blindsided them to mostly thinking about "new players would be frightened to see a $2000 card not banned in the format" rather than "Let's reinforce that this $2000 card is actually not all that useful in the format for most decks and that $200 land may not have be as expensive but is banned because it's ubiquitous but WotC won't ever make enough copies for it be actually so and the rising prices as a result will scare even more players later on."
That's the problem with the RL cards in the format, generally speaking - cards like Duals should simply be banned not because they are too powerful, but because they are cards that should be ubiquitous but aren't allowed to due to reasons (well, basically just the RL itself) other than price.
EDIT: To sum it up, in normal circumstances, a "fair" card (power-wise) that is ubiquitous should be free, but that cannot apply to RL cards because the nature of the RL makes it "unfair" for cards on it to even be ubiquitous regardless of its power and over time the nature of the Secondary Market would also cause its price to only go up - that is what I think PBtE should have set its criteria as.
They sort of locked themselves in with that decision, in a way. What I really dislike about their current position is that it feels like a halfway-botched job. They selected only a tiny part of Reserved List to fall under the PBtE section back then and as time passed (along with the format's popularity and the general attitudes regarding the RL and Secondary Markets) it becomes more and more paramount to feel that they can never touch anything in the list (be it ban or unban) because it'll be awfully easy to accuse them of market manipulation.
I mean even a card like Palinchron which we all can agree is pretty much "unfun" and while it doesn't show up all the time enough to be an actual problem, it is the kind of card no one will miss when it's gone, the RC needs to take into account that it's a RL card to begin with, so unless it somehow becomes an actual problem in the format (which ironically the RL does inhibit to some degree), the incentive is for the RC to not ban the card since the risk of wrecking their reputation is greater than erasing the tiny amount of damage the card is inflicting to the format right now.
There's this weird threshold the RL sets causing reputation to be part of the equation that makes the scenario uncomfortable to me. I'm not accusing the RC of anything and I doubt even they had that far of a foresight when the format just begun, but I really wonder had the PBtE RL cards were not banned from the very start when people weren't as concerned about the RL... how much incentive would there be for the RC now to ban the more problematic cards on said list (especially considering how huge the damage some of them would wreck versus their no doubt significantly higher prices).
Sometimes I think cards like Thunder Spirit should just carry the sins of the RL and we all should treat the RL as a single unit - as long as 1 card is considered too powerful and must be banned, the whole list dies along with it. As stupid as that sounds, it's also quite true to some degree the RL is sort of an integrity promise that binds all those cards regardless of their individual power levels and while the RC didn't make that promise, the Secondary Market would not let them free of it.
But with that being said, it's also arguably too late to even try it, since even that decision will be hit by the full force of market manipulation accusations. So basically the only opportunity was the same window the RC had back then when they started the format and while I cannot blame them for not having the foresight (and me now and here having the hindsight), it will remain the half-botched job sore spot of the format to me.