I beg to differ that most decks can trade blows fine. My experience has been that any deck I like enough to do tuning beyond the initial build quickly outpace the vast majority of decks and I have to be careful not to play them against new/inexperienced players, the chill crowd, or unknowns at the LGS. I have a range of decks that I take and play, but my favorite decks are reserved for once I know the table can handle them. And this isn't the "near cEDH" decks I have. It is just the ones that I have taken the time to improve or haven't intentionally hamstrung.

Also, I see no where in the article where it says it isn't a deck building tool. It is perfectly reasonable to think "my normal fare is too strong, I will look at the official guidance on brackets to be able to build a weaker deck". My point in using my Ghave deck wasn't that I would ever trot it out against precons. It was that if someone were building a deck that they were wanting to be lower powered, they could arrive at a similar deck while actively trying to build a weak deck. Again, it isn't just bad actors and misapplied rubrics. The problem is that they are trying to keep it simple to apply and so the rubrics can not accurately reflect the complexity of the format.

The bracket system, like the 1-10 "power level" scale that it is apparently intended to replace, suffers from trying to reduce an incredibly complex format into checklists of criteria. This iteration just has half the numbers, so instead of every deck being "about a 7" they are now "bracket 3".

This also isn't down to just bad actors misclassifying their decks, or people using the rubrics wrong. Someone could easily throw together a deck that is way too powerful and think that they are putting together a "bracket 2" deck. For example, my Ghave, Guru of Spores deck runs no land interaction or extra turns; intentionally doesn't combo; runs no game changers; and only has land tutors. Additionally the description in the article reads like a checklist of that deck.

• Has the potential for big, splashy turns (check)

• Strong engines (check)

• Built in a way that works toward winning the game (check)

• The game is unlikely to end out of nowhere and generally goes nine or more turns (usually 7-8 actually, without knowledge of the commander and deck it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume 9+)

• Can expect big swings (Token swarms FTW)

• Has some cards that aren't perfect from a gameplay perspective but are there for flavor reasons, or just because they bring a smile to your face. (literately just built because my first 60 card deck was Junk Tokens and I wanted it as a commander deck.)

There is also the fact that "bracket 3" spans the entirety of commander between "unedited precon" (bracket 2) and "cEDH without building for a meta" (bracket 4). Hell, Trouble in Pairs is on the Game Changers list, so not even all of the unedited precons actually fall into bracket 2.

I appreciate that they are trying to improve the format and people's ability to find a game they want to play. I don't think that trying to codify power levels is the correct way to go about it. The format is just too nuanced and taking the time to set expectations in a more descriptive way will always be better.

Overall, great tips. I do disagree about the Start Your Engines mechanic though. If you get the right cards it can absolutely win you the game. It isn't enough to turn a bad card good, but it can turn a good card great. (Disclaimer: I did pull The Speed Demon and it might warp my perception.)

Also, the statements "You must Crew your Vehicles prior to Combat, if you are going to attack with them." and "You cannot move to Combat, then Crew your Vehicles, then declare them as attackers." are wrong. Crewing is instant speed and can be done on the beginning of combat step. There is only one beginning of combat trigger in the set and it already auto Crews a vehicle, so it is of little use in this set. But in a format where you can play Citadel Siege alongside vehicles, the Siege trigger might change what you can Crew and how.