Any potential ground you were trying to break was instantly nullified the moment you classified an archetype as "mindless". Saying an aggressive deck is brainless is no different, equally as absurd, as me calling a heavy permission deck "brainlesscounters.dek". It's OK to hate certain strategies, whether playing against them or otherwise, but the moment you reiterate this foolish line of thought is the moment you have lost any and all credibility.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the most recent 10 decklists in *** tournaments on mtgtop8 for the major archtypes (had to sub in a couple of ** lists for Titania I think, to fill out the 10). First I looked at cards that appeared in all 10 lists:
This really surprised me. And I think part of the reason is that with access to 2, 3, or 4 colors, you have a bunch more obvious staples than in just one color. Titania is the exception here, where the mana elves and the few utility green spells in MTG history are always included (i.e. Beast Within).
If you look at cards that appeared on at least 6 or more decklists from each commander, you get:
So really, Breya is the only decklist that doesn't have a very established set of cards that belong in it. I think this is partly because it's new and people are still figuring out how to play it, but also because it has 4 colors available to it.
Anyways the point here is that in the net-deck era, almost all major decks are brainless, at least from a deckbuilding perspective
I don't think Monastery Siege is worth it in here. I tested Baral as commander of my old Kami of the Crescent Moon deck and I don't think it was as good as Kami. Good cards are nice but Monastery Siege doesn't help you get good cards *and* keep playing lands every turn and I think that's one of the keys to this type of deck.
Local preferences will change over time but I haven't noticed any change in # of Cockatrice games happening in this format. I think that's a better reflection of the format as a whole since it's global and will show changes in interest across all communities.
It is unfortunate that two changes that would turn the format upside-down (C16 and 20 life) happened at the same time.
20 life can make a format less diverse and it can be "OK".
20 life can make a format less diverse and it can be "not OK".
Saying that 20 life makes the format less diverse is just pointing out the obvious and not really contributing (IMO) to the actual discussion, which is whether it's "OK" or "not OK".
I've been into Magic since 94-95 so I've been there for Necro Winter, maybe that's why I'm a bit biased in favor of it. I feel it's a card that would dominate every constructed format if allowed as a 4-of. Duel Commander is different, of course.
I have been fooling around with a Sidisi monoblack deck and have started fetching Necropotence with Sidisi about 60% of the time. It seems to be the best way to go in most cases.
The average deck is 3 to 4 colors these days so it's not too bad as a 1-of in 99 cards with 1/3 to 1/4 the card pool of your opponent, but it's been pretty effective so far.
I really tried hard in Akiri/Bruse, and it works pretty well but it's still just 1/99. It's usually a 5-for-1 in that deck, but since I spend like 3 cards setting up for it (Lotus Petal, Mox Diamond land discard, etc.), it' not quite as insane as it would otherwise be. Still, it's a dumb way to win games - even building my deck around dropping the hand early, it just seems so luck-based.
I hate tutors, but could stomach seeing what Mystical Tutor and Vampiric Tutor would do if unbanned. And I think your "maybe" cards are a definitely in a different class than this group.
Entomb seems like a lost cause. It just enables so much dumb stuff purely by lucking into it in your opening 7. There's what, 12 ways to reanimate a creature on turn 2 or turn 3 after it's been Entombed turn 1? More? I hate Vial and Breya as much as the next guy, but Entomb-->Animate Dead on a Sundering Titan isn't how I want to see the problem solved.
Everyone has two shots at making the finals, some people just use up their first shot much earlier in the tournament.
The one logistical thing I will mention is that the "loser's bracket" champion who goes to the final should have to beat the "winner's bracket" champion *two consecutive times* in order to be the winner of the tournament. I can't tell from the tournament bracket if that's clear.
Breya: 6
Zurgo: 13
Geist: 12
Titania: 21
Vial/Kraum: 19
This really surprised me. And I think part of the reason is that with access to 2, 3, or 4 colors, you have a bunch more obvious staples than in just one color. Titania is the exception here, where the mana elves and the few utility green spells in MTG history are always included (i.e. Beast Within).
If you look at cards that appeared on at least 6 or more decklists from each commander, you get:
Breya: 27
Zurgo: 47
Geist: 48
Titania: 49
Vial/Kraum: 49
So really, Breya is the only decklist that doesn't have a very established set of cards that belong in it. I think this is partly because it's new and people are still figuring out how to play it, but also because it has 4 colors available to it.
Anyways the point here is that in the net-deck era, almost all major decks are brainless, at least from a deckbuilding perspective
It is unfortunate that two changes that would turn the format upside-down (C16 and 20 life) happened at the same time.
20 life can make a format less diverse and it can be "not OK".
Saying that 20 life makes the format less diverse is just pointing out the obvious and not really contributing (IMO) to the actual discussion, which is whether it's "OK" or "not OK".
The average deck is 3 to 4 colors these days so it's not too bad as a 1-of in 99 cards with 1/3 to 1/4 the card pool of your opponent, but it's been pretty effective so far.
Entomb seems like a lost cause. It just enables so much dumb stuff purely by lucking into it in your opening 7. There's what, 12 ways to reanimate a creature on turn 2 or turn 3 after it's been Entombed turn 1? More? I hate Vial and Breya as much as the next guy, but Entomb-->Animate Dead on a Sundering Titan isn't how I want to see the problem solved.
The one logistical thing I will mention is that the "loser's bracket" champion who goes to the final should have to beat the "winner's bracket" champion *two consecutive times* in order to be the winner of the tournament. I can't tell from the tournament bracket if that's clear.