Citation :
Je suis d'accord avec Janoc. L'information dans le post initial est intéressante, mais les commentaires injurieux n'y ont pas vraiment leur place, à la rigueur en commentaire dans la discussion mais pas dans le post de tête.
En fait l'information dans le post initial est à peu près aussi mal foutue que le titre du topic. La plupart des questions posées sont détaillées dans les explication. Mais elle ont été omises (tout comme un lien par le sympathique posteur initial.
Citation :
There used to be a time when Commander was based on Magic The Gathering. Since 2011, some Magic The Gathering cards that are printed are now based on Commander. This reversal of rules hierarchy leads to some strange, yet really interesting mechanics and cards. “Partner” is one of them. This mechanic, though being quite fair and totally fine in multiplayer (meaning 3+ players games), needs to be interpreted and considered differently in duel. We decided back in 2013, 2016 and 2020 to restrict the use of such cards that take advantage of the command zone with a “multiplayer buffer” instead of just making use of it.
Since the addition of Commander Legends, the number of those cards rose up. Some of them quickly became dominant in all meta deck types that they overshadowed half of the rest. The representativeness of those decks (combined with their win rates) is to be considered a non-healthy metagame invasion.
Partner, since its emergence in 2016 has been a major subject of debate in the community. This ability definitely brought a lot of creative options to the format, opening new color pairs/strategies that didn’t get a chance to shine before, but it also quickly occupied a lot of space, proving more efficient and easier to use than most regular single commanders. Since 2018, the committee intensely debated solutions and possible fixes about Partner.
First of all, please note we do not ban keywords. If we had to ban any, we could have banned Hexproof before Partner, by the way. We still don’t want to “erase” what Wizards Of The Coast creates merely because we don’t like it nor consider it problematic. Banning a keyword would be absurd because weak cards bearing that keyword are not a problem at all (like Silumgar, the Drifting Death or The Prismatic Piper).
Then, we do not change how a keyword works (e.g. forcing a mulligan, sharing tax, etc.) for it is Wizards of The Coast’s job to do that, not ours. It would also be very unproductive as it mostly removes the main interest of Partner (i.e. creativity) by cancelling the weaker ones more than the stronger ones.
If not perfect, things were looking okay-ish until last fall. Partner decks then covered between 15% and 25% of metagame share, which still gave a lot of visibility and breathing room to single commanders. However, since Commander Legends, partners now represent more than 40% of performing decks (and increasing). That large increase has changed the format up to a point the players community is not accepting anymore. So we chose to ban the strongest ones (even if they are individually worse than every commander banned in the past, so not individually worth banning for many players) but to keep the keyword alive. Greatly reducing partner dominance by removing borderline-but-not-broken partner cards. This is an unusual move as this announcement now forbids cards that are not strictly consensually too strong but only close to it. This announcement is willing to change the format for what the majority of the community expressed. A format with one commander, with some rare cases of two commanders in the hopes that partners' representation will go down to an acceptable and manageable level. Which, ideally, would be: less than what it was before Commander Legends was released.
Ps : s'il y'a un modo aussi sur Ash je pense que changer le titre de ce topic serait nécessaire pour la clarté. Avec un titre pareil on pourait croire qu'il s'agit d'une biographie de noskcaj ...
Légende
Légende
de plus. Je verrais plutôt "les commandants que vous lancez depuis la zone de commandement coûtent 
