Did Partners change how you view/play the format? If so, how?

[Antis]

I've never been interested in partners simply because the specific cards they made with the mechanic didn't particularly speak to me. With CMR, however, there's one combination I'm interested in trying out. Someone here mentioned how Okaun+Zndrsplt decks were taken apart in their group after just a few weeks. When those two were new, I, too, was thinking about building the deck, but at that time, I had a hard time filling it up. Good coin flip cards are still too few and far between and the generals didn't really push me in any other direction.

But now, now I see before me a solution: Krark+Sakashima. That is because these two can add spellslinging and cloning as additional deck foci in addition to coin flipping, which means the deck can actually be filled with meaningful cards. As I see it, if I get both generals out and win with value, great. If I fail at that, but win through Chance Encounter, awesome. And if both fail, it won't matter, 'cause it's gonna be a blast all the way down =)

Also, Sakashima lets me copy Krark's Thumb. 'Nuff said, mic dropped, see ya later.

[Candlemane]

I've never liked partner. I'm more okay with "partner with", but it still bugs me. To me, A legendary creature was to lead your forces into battle to emerge victorious. A singular entity of such renown and power that it could lead your legions into the howling abyss where the maws of your enemies awaited your onslaught, meeting their magics with might of your own.

Flavor-wise, partner is a fail for me, and has always been. Why would they pair up? How can they across worlds / Blind Eternities (this is largely answered by us summoning them, but still)? I started playing EDH with Razia, Boros Archangel as my first commander back when Oblation was good removal, so I might be a bit more old school than others.

Mechanically, I like the new ones better than the last ones, but Thrasios alone has put such a bad stamp on them for me that I don't know I'd ever build a partner pairing for a personal deck of my own (put a darned tap symbol in these costs wizards!)

As far as my groups or LGSs go, I'm not dogmatic about telling anyone they can't play them, though I may groan sometimes.

EDIT: Guess I forgot to answer the actual question. Generally, no, the partners didn't change my view on the format itself.

[Toshi]

As someone who started EDH when there were less than 250 commander options overall

I'm going to (playfully) call BS on that - 250 options went past somewhere around the middle of kamigawa block in 2005. Were you seriously playing the format that early on?

Cool beans, dude. What's with the rude tone though?
Yeah, i was off on that one. I started playing EDH somewhen in 2011/2012 or something, with i think <500 possible commanders.

By "250 options" I'm sure they mean realistic options. No one counts the actual trash cards that technically existed but weren't practical or serving a purpose.

Nah, i actually meant all possible options, though my memory was way off apparently.

[Guardman]

So talking about the EDH with 250 commanders, it reminds me the first time I ever saw a game of EDH being played it was back during Mirrodin-Kamigawa. It was just one of like a dozen different variants that were played after FNM. I might've even played a game. I don't remember (and if I did I borrowed a deck because I was a poor High School student at the time, barely able to afford a bad FNM deck).

I miss those times. I mean everyone that played after the FNM were giant *********s. But they were my *********s.

P.S. I did get banned from one format. I can't remember the name. It had a common deck and you could play one free spell a turn. I remember it was because I played a card wrong (I think I misread Echo for Morph on Deranged Hermit). And yes, they were that petty.

[DirkGently]

As someone who started EDH when there were less than 250 commander options overall

I'm going to (playfully) call BS on that - 250 options went past somewhere around the middle of kamigawa block in 2005. Were you seriously playing the format that early on?

Cool beans, dude. What's with the rude tone though?

Haha, I was genuinely trying to avoid sounding rude when I posted that (hence the "playfully"). Apologies for coming off harshly. Would have been very impressive if you had gotten in that early, though!

[ilovesaprolings]

It didn't change my view of the format, it changed my view on how wotc will relate with the format

[Kelzam]

They never changed how I played the format because I actively avoided using them as Commanders. I don't like Partners for a multitude of reasons. The best ones are too generically powerful because with Partner they weren't designed to be focused so their other half could be open ended. And the rest? Are watered down Commanders because they have Partner. The vast majority of Partner decks I've seen and played against, even now with the new Partners from Commander Legends, have been mostly goodstuff piles and there rarely seems to be a space between "omnipresent" and "whisper in the wind" as far as effectiveness goes. I'm especially not happy with the fact that a multitude of characters people have been waiting a decade or more to get cards for got relegated to being watered down Uncommon Partner Commanders for the sake of a limited format. I don't expect every old character to be Yawgmoth, Thran Physician or Urza, Lord High Artificer (Volrath, the Shapestealer is more interesting than almost any of the Uncommon Partners), but eesh.

[5colorsrainbow]

I'm really the only one is my group who builds commander decks (my friends like it but mostly just buy the precons upgrade when they get the cards too and leave it at that) and I've always been open to partners and I've been having fun trying to mix n matching stuff. Defiantly opened up a few new deck types.

[Cyberium]

One thing I appreciate the partners for are cards like Myth Unbound, Fury Storm, and Commander's Insignia etc, cards that get better the more frequently you cast your commanders. Most partner combinations are cliche or weak, but that's far better than overpower ones like Thrasios; area for exploration is already good.

EDIT: I do find new partners + old partners are better (creative deck building wise) than 2x old or 2x new, partly because of what Dirk said; the synergy between older partners were less obvious, therefore leaving a lot more room for creativity, which (ironically) also made they too prone to the good-stuff direction. Combining old and new would be fun to test out.

[Gashnaw]

My LGS closed down Soni ha e not had a chance to play since the pandemic.

Partners never really bugged me, but word ha e targeted the 99 still be 99 not 98.

The only partner that is a real problem is thrasios. But aside from that opinion has not changed

[Mimicvat]

Disliked the original partners, many of them were just too good given they were one of two commanders. Didn't like how they would sometimes be taken 'just for colors' and easily unlock 4c decks that were often not very interesting in design.

The new partners have shifted me heavily in the other direction. These are really cool and I find the exponential possibility unlocked by pairs of commanders much more interesting than most of the single commander options. Each commander has a million little variations on its core theme depending on its buddy, instead of say, Obeka, Brute Chronologist which is gonna build a pretty similar way every time.

I'm at the point where I would welcome a rule allowing other commanders to partner in some way across the board.

[Yatsufusa]

Disliked the original partners, many of them were just too good given they were one of two commanders. Didn't like how they would sometimes be taken 'just for colors' and easily unlock 4c decks that were often not very interesting in design.

The new partners have shifted me heavily in the other direction. These are really cool and I find the exponential possibility unlocked by pairs of commanders much more interesting than most of the single commander options. Each commander has a million little variations on its core theme depending on its buddy, instead of say, Obeka, Brute Chronologist which is gonna build a pretty similar way every time.

I'm at the point where I would welcome a rule allowing other commanders to partner in some way across the board.

This basically also sums up my general outlook on Partners. When it was just the 2C commanders, I never thought of using them as Commanders, even if I had 3C decks that could overlap. Now with a variety of 1C partners, I'm looking into tweaking some of my decks to have "modular Commanders".

"Partners with" was always just too narrow, they were effectively just a singular Commander using the quirks/oddities of the partner-system in regards to the Command Zone. That being said I still dream to see Iname, Death Aspect and Iname, Life Aspect have partner with each other.

Partner is a very fragile mechanic easily broken that needs to be designed very carefully, but as Commander Legends has shown, when done right, it can open a new dimension of well-regulated imagination. It's not a perfect job of course (time will tell, but Kodama of the East Tree sure looks like the Thrasios, Triton Hero of the set), but I can see a future for them. Just keep them mono-colored, please (at the very most one more very-carefully-designed allied cycle to balance the 2Cs, then stop there).