Battlebond Partners vs C20 Partners

[Cyberium]

One fun aspect about the whole "Partner with X" effect in Battlebond is that: In addition to you being able to use both partners as your commander(s), in 2HG you and your teammate would both benefit from the other's, since most of their abilities either specify "your team" or "target player" (Ex: Krav, the Unredeemed//Regna, the Redeemer). The flexibility of playing two partners together and/or in a team was the biggest charm of this mechanic, separate itself from C16 partners.

But when I look at C20 partners, that unique trait is lost. All of them specify the beneficiary to YOU and you alone. For example, one cannot play Haldan, Avid Arcanist and Pako, Arcane Retriever in two team decks because Haldan can only play Fetched spells YOU exile. In other words, they're just one commander split into two casting that cannot be played separately. (In Haldan's example, he's also incapable of having his own deck)

I understand most EDH games aren't 2HG, but it seems like a lost opportunity to exclude the team aspect in the original "Partner w/" design. All it takes is switching "you" to "your team" or "target player".

[BeneTleilax]

c20 ones are ass. batlebond ones are neat tho

[leet32]

I agree.

The templating on Rowan and Will Kenrith from Battlebond is really elegant. It goes as far as enabling you to give any player an emblem. This makes for interesting political interactions, especially when playing alternate multiplayer formats, such as Treachery.

[DirkGently]

Bbd was the only non-un set to mention teams (also imperial mask for some reason). I suspect that:

1) it might have been more confusing outside the context of a made-for-2hg set.
2) it might make ppl feel they weren't getting full value playing it outside of 2hg, or that the intention was for 2hg.
3) would have clunked up the wording a bit.
4) outside of 2hg limited, which these obviously can't be used for, why would you split them up? It seems an exceedingly rare use case. You'd have to be cooperatively building edh decks with a friend specifically for 2hg AND think it's a good idea. I don't think that describes any humans.

[Cyberium]

Bbd was the only non-un set to mention teams (also imperial mask for some reason). I suspect that:

1) it might have been more confusing outside the context of a made-for-2hg set.

Battlebond partners see a lot of 1v1 and group games in addition to 2HG. It was designed with 2HG in mind, but that didn't limit its options in others, vice versa can also be true with C20 partners.

2) it might make ppl feel they weren't getting full value playing it outside of 2hg, or that the intention was for 2hg.

Syphon Mind gives greater benefit the more opponents you have, that doesn't mean it's fun to play a 8+ player game just to max out its effect. Similarly, even if C20 partners are worded to function in 2HG, players won't necessarily feel inclined to play it in 2HG.

3) would have clunked up the wording a bit.

In cases like Krav, the Unredeemed, where it says "target player" instead of "you", that small difference automatically expands its versatility and political prowess. Similar, if C20 partners were worded like Krav, it opens up the option for team play without needing an extra wall of texts.

4) outside of 2hg limited, which these obviously can't be used for, why would you split them up? It seems an exceedingly rare use case. You'd have to be cooperatively building edh decks with a friend specifically for 2hg AND think it's a good idea. I don't think that describes any humans.

With so few "Partner w/ " commanders, I'd have to pick Haldan/Pako as my imperfect example, assuming they're hypothetically worded in Battlebond style (replacing "you" with "your team").

Pako is the aggressive beater, Haldan reaps the profit. When separated, Pako player could dedicate his entire 100 card deck on size boosting, bypassing blockers, and aim to defeat an opponent as quickly as Gruul would, while Haldan player could sit back and save up his mana to play control spells and extra spells, as mono-blue excels at. In 1v1 everyone needs their deck as focused as possible, but in team play you have double the card pool and mana to cooperate with.

Again, because there are so few Partner-w/ to choose from, our examples are limited, I was merely lamenting on how WotC could've given C20 partners more options consider where it hailed its original mechanic from.

[Inkeyes22]

Personally, I wish they would not have the partner with part, and let you run Krav with Vial-Smasher if you want. I get that it would make some more powerful but really doubt they would reach Griselbrand or Rofellos levels of crazy.

[DirkGently]

Battlebond partners see a lot of 1v1 and group games in addition to 2HG. It was designed with 2HG in mind, but that didn't limit its options in others, vice versa can also be true with C20 partners.

Yes, but BBD isn't an entry-level product. Precon decks are. If someone is brand new to magic and it says "your team can cast this card" then it might be confusing considering 99% of commander games don't involve teams. If I was brand new, I might think I HAD to play them as separate decks, or think commander was mostly a team game, or just be confused as to why they worded them that way. If I'm acquiring commanders from BBD, I probably know what's going on, plus they clearly designed the mechanic for 2hg limited with the tutoring ability and putting them together in packs, which is why they're worded like that in BBD, not for commander 2HG. That's just a nice bonus for a very small number of players.

Syphon Mind gives greater benefit the more opponents you have, that doesn't mean it's fun to play a 8+ player game just to max out its effect. Similarly, even if C20 partners are worded to function in 2HG, players won't necessarily feel inclined to play it in 2HG.

My point was more that, if someone (especially a new player) is looking at it, they might think that they aren't really "doing it right" unless they can exploit the team aspect of it. Similar to how people tend to underestimate cards for limited if they have an underpowered ability that they don't expect to use, even if the card is still good without that ability. They want these cards to look good and be relatively easily grokkable for newer players, since those are their primary target market for precons.

In cases like Krav, the Unredeemed, where it says "target player" instead of "you", that small difference automatically expands its versatility and political prowess. Similar, if C20 partners were worded like Krav, it opens up the option for team play without needing an extra wall of texts.

Sure, but the wording isn't always easy to do that way. I can't think of a way to use haldan/pako without using the word "team" which opens up those problems.

Also, I guess this is just opinion, but I think it's ok that the game has some abilities that are, and some that aren't, more exploitable in multiplayer. If every card was designed to work optimally for multiplayer it wouldn't be as much fun to find cards like syphon mind that are trash in 1v1 but get much more interesting in muliplayer.

With so few "Partner w/ " commanders, I'd have to pick Haldan/Pako as my imperfect example, assuming they're hypothetically worded in Battlebond style (replacing "you" with "your team").

Pako is the aggressive beater, Haldan reaps the profit. When separated, Pako player could dedicate his entire 100 card deck on size boosting, bypassing blockers, and aim to defeat an opponent as quickly as Gruul would, while Haldan player could sit back and save up his mana to play control spells and extra spells, as mono-blue excels at. In 1v1 everyone needs their deck as focused as possible, but in team play you have double the card pool and mana to cooperate with.

Again, because there are so few Partner-w/ to choose from, our examples are limited, I was merely lamenting on how WotC could've given C20 partners more options consider where it hailed its original mechanic from.

Ok, be realistic. How many people do you think would actually build haldan/pako as separate halves of a 2hg deck if they were worded like that? Personally I'd put money on "close to zero". I don't think it's unreasonable to prioritize keeping commanders relatively simple rather than cater to a very small audience.

[Sinis]

It's a lost opportunity, but I don't think it's going to be missed by many. I have not managed to make anyone search for any creature with Battlebond cards yet.

[Cyberium]

Yes, but BBD isn't an entry-level product. Precon decks are. If someone is brand new to magic and it says "your team can cast this card" then it might be confusing considering 99% of commander games don't involve teams. If I was brand new, I might think I HAD to play them as separate decks, or think commander was mostly a team game, or just be confused as to why they worded them that way. If I'm acquiring commanders from BBD, I probably know what's going on, plus they clearly designed the mechanic for 2hg limited with the tutoring ability and putting them together in packs, which is why they're worded like that in BBD, not for commander 2HG. That's just a nice bonus for a very small number of players.

My point was more that, if someone (especially a new player) is looking at it, they might think that they aren't really "doing it right" unless they can exploit the team aspect of it. Similar to how people tend to underestimate cards for limited if they have an underpowered ability that they don't expect to use, even if the card is still good without that ability. They want these cards to look good and be relatively easily grokkable for newer players, since those are their primary target market for precons.

You have a valid point. Entry product should cater to the biggest general public, which is a mix of new players and advance players, much larger than 2HG is. At the same time, given the "partner w/" mechanic already tells Player A to allow Player B to search their deck for a card named X, I'm sure keen newcomers are already asking what that's about. It's inevitable that the discussion would come as to where the design came from and its original purpose.

Even without the T word, it wouldn't hurt to allow C20 partners to have more universal targeting. It doesn't hurt to learn some politics at intro level.

Sure, but the wording isn't always easy to do that way. I can't think of a way to use haldan/pako without using the word "team" which opens up those problems.

Also, I guess this is just opinion, but I think it's ok that the game has some abilities that are, and some that aren't, more exploitable in multiplayer. If every card was designed to work optimally for multiplayer it wouldn't be as much fun to find cards like syphon mind that are trash in 1v1 but get much more interesting in muliplayer.

I'm not suggesting all abilities need to be borderless. My pet peeve here is that "partner w/" was designed with 2HG and team play as its core, it even allows another player to search for a specific legend, yet the C20 partners bearing that mechanic are void of the possibility to "go team" like the ones in BBD. It's fine that most cards have limit to who or what they could target, which format they're best in, but partners using BBD mechanic ought to have some versatility for team play, be it 2HG or simply some Phelddagrif politics.

My complaint is more about the style and execution, not efficiency.

If I were to fix Haldan, I'd give him an ability: "2: choose a card in exile with a fetch counter on it. Target player may play that card using any type of mana," something along that line.

As you said, it's difficult to change C20 partners' current state without using the T word, which solidifies my belief that WotC did not even consider that option when they designed these new partners, makes me wonder why they bother with partners in C20, even if it goes with the Ikoria human/monster themes. They might as well print some EDH specific companions (hopefully not as broken).

Ok, be realistic. How many people do you think would actually build haldan/pako as separate halves of a 2hg deck if they were worded like that? Personally I'd put money on "close to zero". I don't think it's unreasonable to prioritize keeping commanders relatively simple rather than cater to a very small audience.

The new → intermediate crowd, I'd think. You suggested that precons are entry level product that needs to attract new players, those are the same crowd that'd try new ideas and play style without concerning themselves with power level. Not everyone uses Isochron Scepter with Dramatic Reversal either, some are satisfied with mere Counterspell,

[DirkGently]

You have a valid point. Entry product should cater to the biggest general public, which is a mix of new players and advance players, much larger than 2HG is. At the same time, given the "partner w/" mechanic already tells Player A to allow Player B to search their deck for a card named X, I'm sure keen newcomers are already asking what that's about. It's inevitable that the discussion would come as to where the design came from and its original purpose.

Even without the T word, it wouldn't hurt to allow C20 partners to have more universal targeting. It doesn't hurt to learn some politics at intro level.

True, the partner with mechanic was designed with 2HG in mind, because it was originally designed for BBD limited where it was frequently reasonable to split the pair between decks. It was kind of overloaded to work well in both the limited BBD environment, and the commander environment - presumably because they knew that if the commanders couldn't be used as partners, people would be pretty upset, and also none of them would likely be remotely playable in the CZ.

But while "target" on the tutor might be slightly confusing, the tutor ability still makes a decent amount of sense given that they'll usually start off in the 99 of the precon, where that trigger is very relevant. They'd play pretty terribly in the 99 without that ability.

I'm not suggesting all abilities need to be borderless. My pet peeve here is that "partner w/" was designed with 2HG and team play as its core, it even allows another player to search for a specific legend, yet the C20 partners bearing that mechanic are void of the possibility to "go team" like the ones in BBD. It's fine that most cards have limit to who or what they could target, which format they're best in, but partners using BBD mechanic ought to have some versatility for team play, be it 2HG or simply some Phelddagrif politics.

My complaint is more about the style and execution, not efficiency.

If I were to fix Haldan, I'd give him an ability: "2: choose a card in exile with a fetch counter on it. Target player may play that card using any type of mana," something along that line.

As you said, it's difficult to change C20 partners' current state without using the T word, which solidifies my belief that WotC did not even consider that option when they designed these new partners, makes me wonder why they bother with partners in C20, even if it goes with the Ikoria human/monster themes. They might as well print some EDH specific companions (hopefully not as broken).

I'm wondering if you realized how difficult it would be to implement the c20 legends without specifically mentioning teams as you were writing that out, because honestly they'd all be a huge huge mess. Your Haldan is insanely much worse with that ability than his given ability, but more importantly he's far more complicated. Looking at them all, in some cases (like shabraz and brallin, and yannik) they actually do have some targeting that enables political or team play. But I don't think any of them could realistically be more team-enabled without getting way more complicated or specifically mentioning teams (I guess nikara could target a player instead of just drawing, but that's about it). You're not asking for some small tweak, you're asking for pretty major changes that would significantly complicate the cards.

It's easy to say "well, they should have designed the card like this because that's what I specifically wanted more", but they've got a lot of people they're considering with their design and players who want to split them into 2 decks are almost certainly extremely low on the list.

Since you brought up Phelddagrif - I doubt politics was the original intention behind that design. But what makes him political is that his abilities can't benefit its controller (beyond the abilities he gains, ofc). Kenrith would be a more apt comparison, since he can benefit anyone including himself. And having played kenrith, 99.9% of the time, I'm targeting myself. Is he political? I mean kinda, I guess, but realistically that element is rarely relevant when you can use him to benefit yourself instead. Besides giving enemies answers on occasion, I doubt Haldan would ever get used to give enemies cards, and the implementation is a gross mess. Besides which, is breaks their intended implementation, which is that if someone gains control of Haldan, they don't get control of all his spells.

The original partner with set was designed for 2HG play because BBD was designed for 2HG play. C20 wasn't. But the partner with mechanic works fine even outside of 2HG, and it's popular and exciting, so they used it. Also, nobody players 2HG commander so there's very little reason to bother with 2HG synergy unless they're trying to specifically push it, and they weren't.

The new → intermediate crowd, I'd think. You suggested that precons are entry level product that needs to attract new players, those are the same crowd that'd try new ideas and play style without concerning themselves with power level. Not everyone uses Isochron Scepter with Dramatic Reversal either, some are satisfied with mere Counterspell,

I'm not sure why you're bringing power level into this - it has nothing to do with power level, and everything to do with how people play the game. I've been playing commander for 10 years and, to my recollection, I've played at most 3 games of 2HG commander. New players are not going to build separate decks for them, not because they think they're too weak, but because building an entire deck is a lot of work for a new player - and it must be an almost entirely new deck since they're excising 1-2 colors from the precon - and they're probably not going to do that only for 2HG play. Even ignoring that, unless one person creates both decks and loans one out, both players would need to coordinate to build each partner, which is a lot of investment for decks that can only be reasonably played in very specific circumstances. New players want "the deck" that they can play anywhere, any time, that they can make better and better. Not a niche deck. The only players who are likely to want to build decks specifically for 2HG are likely heavily invested players, imo.

Maybe there are kitchen table groups that love playing 2HG only, and like borrowing decks where they'd actually consider doing this, but I think it's extraordinarily rare - far too rare to worry much about catering to those players.

Dumb sidebar: it'd be really funny to build 2 5c decks both running all of the partner with's. Then playing 2HG with them, and whenever someone plays one of the partners, they chain them together so both players get to play them all out. :laugh:

[ilovesaprolings]

I mean, they forgot to put the "and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color" clause on mindleecher, so i think it's only natural they forgot to template for 2hg.
It's also only the temur couple. The jeskai partners kinda work and the other ones would be way stronger if they could affect all players.

[Cyberium]

True, the partner with mechanic was designed with 2HG in mind, because it was originally designed for BBD limited where it was frequently reasonable to split the pair between decks. It was kind of overloaded to work well in both the limited BBD environment, and the commander environment - presumably because they knew that if the commanders couldn't be used as partners, people would be pretty upset, and also none of them would likely be remotely playable in the CZ.

But while "target" on the tutor might be slightly confusing, the tutor ability still makes a decent amount of sense given that they'll usually start off in the 99 of the precon, where that trigger is very relevant. They'd play pretty terribly in the 99 without that ability.
I'm wondering if you realized how difficult it would be to implement the c20 legends without specifically mentioning teams as you were writing that out, because honestly they'd all be a huge huge mess. Your Haldan is insanely much worse with that ability than his given ability, but more importantly he's far more complicated. Looking at them all, in some cases (like shabraz and brallin, and yannik) they actually do have some targeting that enables political or team play. But I don't think any of them could realistically be more team-enabled without getting way more complicated or specifically mentioning teams (I guess nikara could target a player instead of just drawing, but that's about it). You're not asking for some small tweak, you're asking for pretty major changes that would significantly complicate the cards.

It's easy to say "well, they should have designed the card like this because that's what I specifically wanted more", but they've got a lot of people they're considering with their design and players who want to split them into 2 decks are almost certainly extremely low on the list.

Since you brought up Phelddagrif - I doubt politics was the original intention behind that design. But what makes him political is that his abilities can't benefit its controller (beyond the abilities he gains, ofc). Kenrith would be a more apt comparison, since he can benefit anyone including himself. And having played kenrith, 99.9% of the time, I'm targeting myself. Is he political? I mean kinda, I guess, but realistically that element is rarely relevant when you can use him to benefit yourself instead. Besides giving enemies answers on occasion, I doubt Haldan would ever get used to give enemies cards, and the implementation is a gross mess. Besides which, is breaks their intended implementation, which is that if someone gains control of Haldan, they don't get control of all his spells.

The original partner with set was designed for 2HG play because BBD was designed for 2HG play. C20 wasn't. But the partner with mechanic works fine even outside of 2HG, and it's popular and exciting, so they used it. Also, nobody players 2HG commander so there's very little reason to bother with 2HG synergy unless they're trying to specifically push it, and they weren't.

I'm not sure why you're bringing power level into this - it has nothing to do with power level, and everything to do with how people play the game. I've been playing commander for 10 years and, to my recollection, I've played at most 3 games of 2HG commander. New players are not going to build separate decks for them, not because they think they're too weak, but because building an entire deck is a lot of work for a new player - and it must be an almost entirely new deck since they're excising 1-2 colors from the precon - and they're probably not going to do that only for 2HG play. Even ignoring that, unless one person creates both decks and loans one out, both players would need to coordinate to build each partner, which is a lot of investment for decks that can only be reasonably played in very specific circumstances. New players want "the deck" that they can play anywhere, any time, that they can make better and better. Not a niche deck. The only players who are likely to want to build decks specifically for 2HG are likely heavily invested players, imo.

Maybe there are kitchen table groups that love playing 2HG only, and like borrowing decks where they'd actually consider doing this, but I think it's extraordinarily rare - far too rare to worry much about catering to those players.

Again, you are correct on how small 2HG crowd is for WotC to incorporate that much consideration into the annual commander product. If they had any intention for 2HG or joint/team play, C20 partners wouldn't be so distant from BBD's design as it is. I was just hoping they'd be team/politic friendly, given that they changed the # of precons from 5 to 4 at one point to accommodate a full table, knowing that EDH is commonly played in group.

Dumb sidebar: it'd be really funny to build 2 5c decks both running all of the partner with's. Then playing 2HG with them, and whenever someone plays one of the partners, they chain them together so both players get to play them all out. :laugh:

When BBD first came out, I made a Saskia deck using all the right-colored partners in it. C20 added Silvar, Devourer of the Free/Trynn, Champion of Freedom and Yannik, Scavenging Sentinel/Nikara, Lair Scavenger.