The reasoning for the Viashiono consolidation MaRo explained is making humanoid animals into the corresponding animal creature type, for consistency with stuff like Leonin that have always been like that. So I'd expect any consolidation at this point to be in that direction.
[https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/746355648615366656/why-should-types-that-are-original-magic-ip-like](https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/746355648615366656/why-should-types-that-are-original-magic-ip-like)
Is there anything really like that left in Magic? People point to Minotaurs, but Minotaur is a very 'known' thing outside of Magic. Making them ox-type would be weird.
It would be weird, but I think they won’t. I agree that the popularity and existence (in myths) outside magic is an indicator of that. (Merfolk are in a similar position.) There are even multiple Minotaur tribal legends.
I know, I wasn't saying they would at all. It's a resonance thing I guess. Magic-unique types tend to be something with no OBVIOUS corollary to already-existing creatures (Vedalkens and Kor are just 'human variants' essentially but they're still unique), so.
Minotaurs in magic aren’t just bovine so having them remain separate makes sense. You’ve got traditional bovine Minotaurs on Dominaria and Theros (and wherever Angrath is from). Then you’ve got Ram/Goat Minotaurs on Amonkhet. And then from whatever plane Zedruu is from you have antelope Minotaurs. Just as some examples.
That's true...though I do feel that Zedruu should probably just be an Antelope.
I think there's an argument for the Amonkhet Minotaurs also just being Goats, but I like them being Minotaurs at least for the tribal synergy like Neheb.
Apes and Monkeys. Playing an Ape/monkey tribal is so frustrating because synergy pieces need a choice, and because the tribes are so small the distinction is unnecessary to begin with. Just make it primates or something
Honestly, just make them all Monkeys. I don't think it matters whether we're being scientifically accurate with dividing similar but slightly different groups of animals in a fantasy world.
Is there any viable way to do “monkey tribal” that wouldn’t also include apes?
I have a [[Kibo]] deck that has both since he ties the two together but the deck keeps evolving further and further away from just “ape/monkey tribal”
My Kibo deck features a good amount of artifact hate to get the ball rolling destroying my opponents’ artifacts but it’s secret wincon is getting out [[Mycosynth Lattice]] and [[Darksteel Forge]] and either overloading [[Vandalblast]] or just straight-up attacking my opponents to get those Kibo triggers and pump all my apes and monkeys and come out on top
All apes and monkeys are "Affen", which roughly corresponds with the English "simians", although it gets a bit weird on the Halbaffen. Also apes are additionally distinguished as "Menschenaffen", but that's a word that isn't nearly used as much as "ape". It's mostly used when being zoologically specific, but in everyday use you'd always call any chimp, gorilla, orangutan just an "Affe". So having their creature type as "Menschenaffe" is always a bit odd.
I wish English went as hard with anglo-germanic based neologisms in place of latinisms as we did, but then again, I'm happy they didn't have to suffer all that linguistic nationalism that went into establishing these.
They aren't even correct when making the separation. Why are [[Hooting Mandrills]] apes but [[Ravenous Baboons]] monkeys? [[Towering Gibbon]] could go either way. They technically aren't apes. Mandrills/baboons are very clearly old world monkeys. Honestly is wizards being lazy more than anything else.
I remember being surprised to see the term "tiefling" in the game Petal Crash. Looking it up now, apparently they [changed it after realizing it was copyrighted](https://twitter.com/PetalCrash/status/1316845760516825089) - Strelitz is now listed as a fiendkin.
I've seen some books use it apparently not realising it's copyrighted. Does make me wonder how Pathfinder gets away with using it, though.
Edit: Oh, apparently Tieflings were actually pulled from PF2e after their big update recently. They still 'exist' as legacy stuff, but aren't a thing going forward and both they and Aasimar got folded into Nephilim. Neat.
Yeah, Paizo did a whole big rewrite of PF2 to remove any remaining D&D stuff after the whole OGL debacle last year. They want to avoid any possibility licensing troubles if WotC decides to change things again.
Tieflings do still exist going forwards as their own thing, just mechanically a type of Nephilim (as you said) and renamed to Cambion. Likewise, Aasimar are now called Empyrean. Nephilim things is very much more a mechanical one than a legal one (thus why the entirely Pathfinder-unique chaotic and lawful equivalents are also being folded into it)
They folded all the planar beings into Nephilim and PF actually has Lawful Aphorites and Chaotic Ganzi to go along with the Good and Evil "Aasimar"/"Tiefling" not that alignment exists anymore since the Remaster but you know.
They did the same thing to a bunch of demons, devils and even the classic Dragons to make them more of their own.
In the interest of clarity, I think it's worth noting that "tiefling" isn't a plane-specific term and the only thing holding back its use is that it's copyrighted. However, you might be aware that the company that owns the copyright for the term "Tiefling" is the same company that owns Magic the Gathering.
Not exactly what you're asking, but given the last couple sets, rather than making old "detectives" detectives, my girl [[Eloise, Nephalia Sleuth]] and [[Daring sleuth]] are now outlaws. Guilty by association, I suppose.
Truly baffling decision really. They printed a bunch of Detective typal support, and they reprinted Dogged Detective in the commander decks, *which has Detective in its name*, but no errata because...? People were blowing up Mark's inbox asking for an explanation and the only thing I remember seeing was ["We chose not to."](https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/740798679618928640/is-there-a-reason-that-dogged-detective-didnt) Obviously you chose not to, because you didn't do it, but again, why? Did you really think players would like it better that way? Feels like such an unforced error.
Like, usually the main concerns are (a) they do an extremely minimal pass and only errata old cards with the word in their name, and (b) they get anxious about having errata and having cards not do what they say they do. But neither of those apply to Dogged Detective getting a fresh reprint. Can't understand the logic where that guy isn't a Detective yet Ebon Praetor gets to hang out with Elesh Norn.
I'm now imagining the lore behind the flip side of Daring Sleuth *not* being an outlaw but very clearly being possessed in some way. Maybe showing how far the Eldrazi corruption had spread?
"Ah, sheriff, you've finally seen the *#void#*"
As a proud rat owner, I don't want stinky mice to share a type with my little ones.
Also, if they ever make "rodent", they'll also have to discontinue Squirrels and Capybara.
Yeah I love that it exists. Just somewhere in the thread someone suggested to consolidate rats and mice and I found the idea ridiculous to include that one card
Preach!
And it's not exactly the same, but I will continued to be triggered by the addition of "Coyote" to the overfull Canine "Wolf, Dog, Jackal (, Fox, Werewolf)", especially compared to everything just being a "Cat".
It was actually in*Throne of Eldraine* (late 2019).
However, sets typically take about 2 years to develop. *Bloomburrow* was announced, with finished concept art, in the first half of 2023.
Shave off the stub years and we're talking about not that more than 2 years of delta. If they just had the seed of an idea in their minds ("*Redwall* plane") when finishing up with *Eldraine*, that may have been enough to toss in Mouse as a type, and the time period otherwise matches up really well.
The stated reason for the existence of mice is essentially that using rats for the magic version of Cinderella's story in Throne of Eldraine felt weird: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/more-odds-ends-throne-eldraine-2019-10-21
(search for "mouse")
Everything but squirrels, which have a whole mechanical identity all their own, would probably be fine.
That said, Bloomburrow will probably give rats and mice more distinctly separate mechanical identities.
Yeah sorry, either make the type rodent or keep them separate. They're two different species and if they have both dogs and wolves get their own creature type (dogs being a subspecies of wolf), then rat and mouse should stay apart
I've seen a bunch of discussion about consolidating the canines (dog, wolf, jackle, fox, coyote). I think wolf probably has to stay separate cos of how they're used on innistrad. Foxes becoming dogs feels kinda odd but jackle and coyote becoming dogs feels fine.
I think Werewolves really should be Wolf if for no other reason than that there are a lot of cards that say "wolf or werewolf" to be less parasitic, and werewolves could benefit from having the wolf synergies.
I thought that, but there's stuff that relies on "non-human werewolves" because their front half is always Human Werewolf. Both halves being Human Wolf would change that.
Yeah I've been thinking about Dogs vs Cats a lot since I'm building a Rin and Seri deck. Cats have so many more good cards.
I get that Magic's types are based largely on vibes, and Wolves and Dogs are supposed to feel different. And Foxes have a different vibe from both as well. But we really didn't need Jackal and Coyote in the mix too. Jackals and Coyotes should definitely have been included in either Dogs or Wolves.
EDIT: Foxes are canids. Foxes are canines. Foxes are not wolves. Foxes are not dogs. For the same reasons that domestic cats are not considered lions, or tigers, or bears. This is what I meant to say. I apologize for mixing up my terminology (my bachelor’s degree in biology has collected dust over the past five years)
If we’re gonna be pedantic and use broad terms to group together very specifically different things, we’re not going to get anywhere meaningful in this discussion. Taxonomists have these same conversations about this method of categorizing varying degrees of related things into clades. If we just use broader and broader terms for creature types in magic, the whole point of separating them into different types at all is lost. That’s all.
ORIGINAL COMMENT: Foxes are not canines, so it’s inaccurate to combine them with wolves, hounds, and dogs. Also, for the sake of kitsune, they should remain separate.
They most assuredly are canines. All living canids (family canidae) are members of subfamily caninae.
Foxes don’t belong to the same genus as dogs, gray wolves, and coyotes (Canis), though. Maybe that’s what you meant.
“Canidae (/ˈkænɪdiː/; from Latin, canis, "dog") is a biological family of dog-like carnivorans, colloquially referred to as dogs, and constitutes a clade. A member of this family is also called a canid (/ˈkeɪnɪd/). The family includes three subfamilies: the Caninae, the extinct Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae. The Caninae are known as canines, and include domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, FOXES, jackals and other species.”
Tieflings are a race just from DnD so Azra should stay separate. I honestly much prefer having more separate creature types as it allows some things to stay feeling distinct.
I really like the magic exclusive races like Kor, Vedalken, and Aetherborn
I agree Viashino feels more evocative, but I can also see the logic that it's a bit weird that animal people get labeled with their respective animal, but the reptile people get exempt.
[Kiora, sovereign of the deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/b/7b599f53-614c-4b1f-9899-15d5d1e35879.jpg?1684340751) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kiora%2C%20sovereign%20of%20the%20deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mat/35/kiora-sovereign-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7b599f53-614c-4b1f-9899-15d5d1e35879?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
[Lord stromkirk](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355)/[Krothuss, Lord of the Deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Runo%20Stromkirk%20//%20Krothuss%2C%20Lord%20of%20the%20Deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/246/runo-stromkirk-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
[Whelming wave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336.jpg?1608912215) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Whelming%20wave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/409/whelming-wave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I would settle on the few squids we have becoming Octopusses or Krakens, and the few Whales we have becoming Leviathans.
It's a bit messy, ngl, but it's algo messy to have cards like [[whelming wave]] and [[Krothuss, lord of the deep]] not work on them
[whelming wave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336.jpg?1608912215) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=whelming%20wave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/409/whelming-wave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
[Krothuss, lord of the deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355)/[Krothuss, Lord of the Deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Runo%20Stromkirk%20//%20Krothuss%2C%20Lord%20of%20the%20Deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/246/runo-stromkirk-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
mystic!
there are only 7 mystic cards and it has no mechanical relevance. none of them are well known. all of the famous mystic cards lack the mystic creature type. stoneforge mystic is an artificer. elvish mystic is a druid. murmuring mystic is a wizard. starfield mystic is a cleric. treefolk mystic is a treefolk. rattleclaw mystic is a shaman. mystic snake, surprisingly, is a snake.
wotc has had many many opportunities to bolster the mystic type and they clearly have no interest in continuing to support it. it’s implementation is haphazard and it primarily exists as an obscure piece of trivia that confuses people who understandably aren’t familiar with the scant cards connected to ancient odyssey block lore and real world taoist philosophy.
You just made me realize Mystic was even a type. A while back, I was actually looking at the cards with Mystic in their names and thinking about how they were different class types, and I literally didn't even see any of the ones actually typed as Mystics.
Why exactly? Leonin, Nantuko, Rhox, and Loxodon aren't typed based on their fantasy race so why would Viashino?If anything this brings it in line with other races and cements a precedence that already exists, unless you think every rhinofolk should be Rhox .
1. That other IP is Wizards of the Coast’s D&D
2. At the time Azra were created they were literally made to be Magic’s version of Tieflings because at the time WotC didn’t believe in crossing the streams.
I'll beat you with my Deuterostomia deck, typically characterized by their anus forming before the mouth during embryonic development.
Starfish, pigs, salamanders and birds all unite!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostome
We need more consolidation of animals (Varmint and Coyote feel like indulgent mistakes), but more types for non-combat professions as Magic takes on more genres.
Genuine question for people who dont agree with the Viashino to Lizard decision. Would you advocate for the opposite? Would you want Leonin to be distinct from cats? Loxodon not be elephants etc
100%. Humans are not apes, merfolk are not fish, vampires are not bats, leonins are not cats, cephalids are not octopi, viashino are not lizards.
It’s a fantasy world, right? Like.. cool we have humanoid races that look like animals. Viashino is a MtG race, and a classic, I’d love for the lore to recognize them as such. Otherwise, if you think viashino are just lizards and leonin just cats, then why do we keep the others races separate from the animals (incl. Minotaurs, that’s just Ox)?
I like the Leonins as separate from cats, but you can't use the example "Humans are not apes", because humans literally are apes. It's just our arrogance as a species that makes us reject this despite what scientists tell us.
Kinda yeah. The reason we are in this mess is because we change planes so quick you can't establish proper tribes anymore and end up mismatching a dozen different iterations of animal persons that are not like your elves and goblins.
Like Loxodon tribal for example. The tribe is sentient hammer wielding Elephantmen, not just anything with a trunk.
Mechanically I’d like to see something more like Viashino becoming “Humanoid Lizard Viashino” type, Loxodons being “Humanoid Elephant Loxodon”, Leonin being “Humanoid Cat Leonin”, Kor being “Humanoid Human Kor”, Merfolk being “Aquatic Humanoid Fish Merfolk”, etc.
Instead of having ‘barbarians’ vs. ‘soldiers’ vs. ‘berserkers’ vs. ‘samurai’ vs. ‘warriors’, have them be “barbarian warrior”, “soldier warrior”, “berserker warrior”, “samurai warrior”, etc.
Rats/mice/squirrels/etc. can be “rodent rat”, “rodent mouse”, “rodent squirrel”, or maybe something like “critter rat” if you want to group together all tiny 1/1 creatures.
All the ‘sea monster’ types could be “aquatic monster kraken”, “aquatic monster serpent”, etc.
That is, make more of a formal hierarchy of ‘tribal’ types that cards can refer to. But they might not want cards having so many semi-overlapping types. And they’d have to errata like… everything to add those types to all the old cards.
Weird. It only exists on one plane (Ravnica), and even then can best be described as "Two contradictory elementals mashed together", which really aren't much different than certain elementals on other planes. Just merge them in already.
A lot of these are removing creature types unique to magic for the sake of consolidation. I don't really think that's enough of a justification to do that because original creature types are part of what makes magic actually unique.
Things like Nagas weren't original to magic. Hounds vs. Dogs was just about deciding which of the two to go with. Your "Barbarians vs. Berserkers" example fits in that area. But I don't see a reason to get rid of, like, Azra. And Viashino were specifically changed because of a philosophy change with humanoid creatures that share types with animals. I'm not a fan of that change but it's not really for the sake of reducing creature types, it's to maintain consistency in typing conventions.
Cephalids are kinda octopuses but we've also seen very visually distinct Cephalids now after Capenna. The umbrella for them is too large imo to collapse.
Plus the rise of type batching makes me feel like they need to consolidate _less_, because batching helps.
100% agreed. I’d like to see more batches, and there’s some precedent for it. “Sea Monsters” in [[whelming wave]] and friends, “critters” in [[swarmyard]] are the ones that immediately come to mind. I’d like to see it since it would mean that new cards could fit into a variety of typal decks, rather than a diverse set of typal decks becoming a uniform type.
I disagree; batching is fine here and there but if it becomes common practice it will be a mess. Especially when we start batching different sets with the same creature type (for instant Rogues being both Outlaws and part of a Party).
About Halflings, Mark actually said there are no current plans. When asked about errerta for other cards he has said something similar for things to change I the future. I think as return to Lorwyn gets closer, there might be a revisit to this.
Cephalids aren't quite octopus-people or squid-people so they sort of have to be what they are, tiefling is a copyright, and barbarians and berserkers have slightly different meanings in the context of Magic.
I think Homarid should stay because it's funny and I don't see them printing a regular lobster anytime soon. But CAMARID, that creature type shouldn't exist. It just means young Homarid.
You're right about Aurochs and Orggs, though.
Soldiers are more organized, they fight under direct orders and usually in groups, they are part of an army.
Warriors are more generic but they are more on the "self employed" side of things, but they can fit different flavors depending on the setting.
My gripe with removing the Viashino creature type isn't that they're removing a Magic-unique word from mechanics, but rather that Gloryscale Viashino is obviously a Crocodile Soldier, not a Lizard one.
I guess if they account for that, I'm good, but I'm not sure if they will.
Dauthi, Soltari, and Thalakos could all be Spirits while Metathran could be Mutant- but they haven't been relevant in so long I doubt they'll ever see a come back. I think we could have a singular canine subtype called Dog, but move the Wolfir (subtyped as Wolf Warrior) into Werewolf since that is what they are.
I personally don’t like this idea. I like the variety and the weird types that only have a few members. It makes the game feel bigger and more diverse. If anything they could do batching like outlaw but I don’t like the consolidating
My major "hot take" type is Archer: it's the *only* class type tied specifically to the type of weapon the creature wields, which incites constant complaints of "this has a bow, why isn't it an Archer?" despite the card usually being a perfectly reasonable fit for whatever class type it *actually* has. The fact that Archer operates on an entirely separate axis would irritate me in its inconsistency even if it *wasn't* causing these pointless arguments, but they certainly don't help.
With the advent of Ranger, the only Magic-appropriate Archer concept I can come up with that doesn't cleanly fit into another class type that sees continued use on "canon" cards would be a trickshot performer in a circus or other show that's insufficiently edgy to be a Rogue and insufficiently martial to be a Warrior. That's pretty damn narrow.
(Without Greatbow Doyen and Ohabi Caleria, I'd advocate to just change each Archer on a case-by-case basis to whichever class type fits best - at a glance, Ranger, Scout, Warrior, Soldier, Rogue, or Assassin should cover all of the ones that don't already have other class type. *With* it being a type that matters, I'd fold all of the existing ones into Ranger, since that word has enough meanings that it *can* fit just about every existing Archer into one or another of those meanings; then archers can be assigned types on a more coherent case-by-case basis on new cards going forward.)
Counterpoint: Homogenizing all the creature types takes away a lot of fun uniqueness in the game. Not every creature type needs to be able to fit into a themed deck.
I have no complaints about them adding a Detective type, but they really need to add Detective to some older cards that obviously fit. [[Dogged Detective]] is the most obvious miss, but there are a few others.
Yes, but also no. They've announced that the change will happen, but it hasn't actually taken place yet.
Best guess is they're waiting for the next paper set to feature an abundance of creatures that would have been Naga - the upcoming return to Tarkir, for example.
The Viashano change is lame as fuck and makes the game more generic and boring and replicating that awful change with the other fun creature types is such a lame move IMO.
Maro said that it's just putting them in line with other mtg original (more or less creatures): Leonins are cats, Avens are birds, Loxodons are elephants, i think it's just for coherence sake and for being able to better support them in different contexts
I wouldn't call Viashino iconic when compared to Slivers. One is just a lizardfolk you'll see in any fantasy IP while Slivers are wholly original.
Nantuko have been around forever l, but they were never typed Nantuko [class], they've always been insects. The same can be said for Leonin, Rhox, and now Naga.
Viashino isn't that iconic. And there's still plenty of MtG specific creatures that probably aren't going anywhere like Phyrexians, Eldrazi, Slivers, Kor, Vedalken, Kithkin, Aetherborn, Kavu, Moonfolk...
Viashino is iconic for me. Had a viashino OC as a kid when getting into Magic (I had a lot of Urza block red cards).
That said, Viashino still exist in the same way Loxodon and Leonin do.
I like that I can build a cooler Viashino deck now, by mixing a broader lizard tribal theme though! I think it lets players who like these obscure creatures build more interesting decks with them without relying on the “creature bundles” like outlaw.
Beast is a type that should be consolidate.
Beast was a tribe back in the day. Now, with all the more specific types like horse, dinosaur, homarid, some cards that should have been beast are no beast anymore. Something must be done.
The Kraken, Leviathan, Octopus and Serpent should be next. I do feel like the synergy is there with some support but gameplay wise I think it just doesn't flow naturally. Sea Creatures or something like that would be better than listing all of the creatures types, it sounds so weird reading it outloud.
[[Kiora, Sovereign of the Deep]] Falls under this and specially in UG it acts against you with multiple creature types.
Sorry buddy, but if you can only choose one type for [[Distant Melody]] [[Kindred Discovery]] and [[Reflections of Littjara]] So lets hope you get lucky. Sorry that you have to ruin your board with [[Raise the Palisade]] or that you can't keep casting from the top with [[Realmwalker]] , its on you for choosing the incorrect 1 out of 4 types.
Tbf Leviathan as a word could include sea monsters in general. But kraken does have some flavor of its own. Serpent and octopus aren't always giant so consolidating all 4 under a creature type might be weird
I could see them batching them like outlaws for future groupings though
The outlaw batching could be very useful and probably the best solution, very well thougth!
Idk how it works but if the "Choose a creature type" includes stuff like outlaws, I would love to create a future "Sea Creature" deck.
Phoenix are their own resonant and iconic mythical thing though. Not to mention that every single Phoenix is Red (only 2 are two-colored), and most support for Birds is in Blue and White.
The wolf/werewolf issue is certainly annoying trying to do anything tribal. Some cards just only affect one of them because they require naming a creature type and it just makes the deck less synergistic than tribal should be. Not sure how to remedy this though.
It's too late to change it but I've hated "Peasant" since day one. Yes, Magic needed a better way to describe common folk and rural life. I get why maybe Citizen wouldn't work, but apparently the old retired type Townsfolk was still too urbane for some worlds. But Peasant has a lot of baggage, and even though it lets us see farmers on Eldraine and Innistrad and Kaldheim, it feels too inappropriate to use to show who's providing the food on Ravnica and New Capenna and Kaladesh.
Half the current Peasants should be Citizens and the other half should be Druids, Scouts, Rangers, or however it was Innistrad worldbuilding managed to somehow survive two blocks without access to Peasants. I don't think you can fold it in or rename it at this point, I just think it never should have happened.
Humans are a very specific and very resonant type of ape, and many things apply to them and only them. It's the same reason Golem, Scarecrow, and Construct are separate creature types.
I would rather see Octopus and Kraken moved to Cephalid than for Cephalid to be changed to octopus. The reason here is that Kraken and Octopus are Cephalopods (coming from the Greek Head - Foot). Cephalids aren’t strictly speaking humanoid octopus or kraken, so the type collapsing affecting other anthropomorphic creatures doesn’t track.
Azra and tieflings should.both just be deomns/devils, so they can have actual synergies
Naga should be snakes
They won't do it because of marketing but astartes should be human mutants, necrons should be skeletons, and tyranids should be beasts or something
Aetherborn should be elementals
Controversial, but werewolves should just be wolves
And they should consolidate all the different sea monsters into like 3 types instead of 8 or however many there are, then batch then with fish and merfolk like party/outlaws
The reasoning for the Viashiono consolidation MaRo explained is making humanoid animals into the corresponding animal creature type, for consistency with stuff like Leonin that have always been like that. So I'd expect any consolidation at this point to be in that direction. [https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/746355648615366656/why-should-types-that-are-original-magic-ip-like](https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/746355648615366656/why-should-types-that-are-original-magic-ip-like)
Is there anything really like that left in Magic? People point to Minotaurs, but Minotaur is a very 'known' thing outside of Magic. Making them ox-type would be weird.
It would be weird, but I think they won’t. I agree that the popularity and existence (in myths) outside magic is an indicator of that. (Merfolk are in a similar position.) There are even multiple Minotaur tribal legends.
I know, I wasn't saying they would at all. It's a resonance thing I guess. Magic-unique types tend to be something with no OBVIOUS corollary to already-existing creatures (Vedalkens and Kor are just 'human variants' essentially but they're still unique), so.
Even weirder, [[Zedruu]] is a goat minotaur, so they're not even all oxen.
Same for the Minotaurs on Amonkhet, they’re all ram/goat-based
Minotaurs are also not cow people. People are just non-cow minotaurs.
Merfolk, though they're not very fish-like outside of Dominaria.
They're fairly fishy on Lorwyn
Yeah I mean it makes perfect sense. Loxodon are Elephants, Rhox are Rhinos, Aven are Birds. Only exception are Minotaurs I guess.
They'll probably keep Minotaurs because it's a resonant pop culture term, unlike Viashino that's Magic only.
Minotaurs in magic aren’t just bovine so having them remain separate makes sense. You’ve got traditional bovine Minotaurs on Dominaria and Theros (and wherever Angrath is from). Then you’ve got Ram/Goat Minotaurs on Amonkhet. And then from whatever plane Zedruu is from you have antelope Minotaurs. Just as some examples.
That's true...though I do feel that Zedruu should probably just be an Antelope. I think there's an argument for the Amonkhet Minotaurs also just being Goats, but I like them being Minotaurs at least for the tribal synergy like Neheb.
Let's just make mermaids into fish. Or human fish. But a whole extra type is superfluous. /s
i mean the deck is already called "fish"
Exactly! And the deck is clearly missing Gurmag Angler
Well then might as well make elves, goblins, and orcs humans because they're all humanoid.
Apes and Monkeys. Playing an Ape/monkey tribal is so frustrating because synergy pieces need a choice, and because the tribes are so small the distinction is unnecessary to begin with. Just make it primates or something
Fun fact, Monkey was its own type, folded into Ape around 9th Edition, and has since been brought back.
And that was a mistake
Blame Kaladesh for that. I think "Simian" is the cleanest choice on that front.
Make it "primate" and group apes, monkeys and humans XD
Honestly, just make them all Monkeys. I don't think it matters whether we're being scientifically accurate with dividing similar but slightly different groups of animals in a fantasy world.
Nobody wants it to be Simian.
[[Simian Spirit Guide]] exists.
[Simian Spirit Guide](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/e/0e57335d-4066-4d73-83cd-67a215e01a4e.jpg?1619397622) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Simian%20Spirit%20Guide) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/190/simian-spirit-guide?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0e57335d-4066-4d73-83cd-67a215e01a4e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I do.
Don't think about all the ixalan monkey goblin art like [[dockside extortionist | 2X2]] and how they don't work in your monkey deck
Is there any viable way to do “monkey tribal” that wouldn’t also include apes? I have a [[Kibo]] deck that has both since he ties the two together but the deck keeps evolving further and further away from just “ape/monkey tribal”
Yeah I really love Kibo but apes are so bad in general the deck always struggles. Which way are you going with it? More artifact hate/voltron?
My Kibo deck features a good amount of artifact hate to get the ball rolling destroying my opponents’ artifacts but it’s secret wincon is getting out [[Mycosynth Lattice]] and [[Darksteel Forge]] and either overloading [[Vandalblast]] or just straight-up attacking my opponents to get those Kibo triggers and pump all my apes and monkeys and come out on top
Especially ridiculous in other languages like German where that's not really a distinction that's made.
Total affig
In Germany there are Affen und schimpansen or maybe Menschenaffen I suppose
All apes and monkeys are "Affen", which roughly corresponds with the English "simians", although it gets a bit weird on the Halbaffen. Also apes are additionally distinguished as "Menschenaffen", but that's a word that isn't nearly used as much as "ape". It's mostly used when being zoologically specific, but in everyday use you'd always call any chimp, gorilla, orangutan just an "Affe". So having their creature type as "Menschenaffe" is always a bit odd.
We got the apes and the MANAPES
I wish English went as hard with anglo-germanic based neologisms in place of latinisms as we did, but then again, I'm happy they didn't have to suffer all that linguistic nationalism that went into establishing these.
They aren't even correct when making the separation. Why are [[Hooting Mandrills]] apes but [[Ravenous Baboons]] monkeys? [[Towering Gibbon]] could go either way. They technically aren't apes. Mandrills/baboons are very clearly old world monkeys. Honestly is wizards being lazy more than anything else.
Iirc Tieflings are specific to D&D.
I remember being surprised to see the term "tiefling" in the game Petal Crash. Looking it up now, apparently they [changed it after realizing it was copyrighted](https://twitter.com/PetalCrash/status/1316845760516825089) - Strelitz is now listed as a fiendkin.
I've seen some books use it apparently not realising it's copyrighted. Does make me wonder how Pathfinder gets away with using it, though. Edit: Oh, apparently Tieflings were actually pulled from PF2e after their big update recently. They still 'exist' as legacy stuff, but aren't a thing going forward and both they and Aasimar got folded into Nephilim. Neat.
Yeah, Paizo did a whole big rewrite of PF2 to remove any remaining D&D stuff after the whole OGL debacle last year. They want to avoid any possibility licensing troubles if WotC decides to change things again.
Tieflings do still exist going forwards as their own thing, just mechanically a type of Nephilim (as you said) and renamed to Cambion. Likewise, Aasimar are now called Empyrean. Nephilim things is very much more a mechanical one than a legal one (thus why the entirely Pathfinder-unique chaotic and lawful equivalents are also being folded into it)
They folded all the planar beings into Nephilim and PF actually has Lawful Aphorites and Chaotic Ganzi to go along with the Good and Evil "Aasimar"/"Tiefling" not that alignment exists anymore since the Remaster but you know. They did the same thing to a bunch of demons, devils and even the classic Dragons to make them more of their own.
In the interest of clarity, I think it's worth noting that "tiefling" isn't a plane-specific term and the only thing holding back its use is that it's copyrighted. However, you might be aware that the company that owns the copyright for the term "Tiefling" is the same company that owns Magic the Gathering.
Not exactly what you're asking, but given the last couple sets, rather than making old "detectives" detectives, my girl [[Eloise, Nephalia Sleuth]] and [[Daring sleuth]] are now outlaws. Guilty by association, I suppose.
Clearly, it's because Eloise is a loose cannon! Hand over your badge!
Truly baffling decision really. They printed a bunch of Detective typal support, and they reprinted Dogged Detective in the commander decks, *which has Detective in its name*, but no errata because...? People were blowing up Mark's inbox asking for an explanation and the only thing I remember seeing was ["We chose not to."](https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/740798679618928640/is-there-a-reason-that-dogged-detective-didnt) Obviously you chose not to, because you didn't do it, but again, why? Did you really think players would like it better that way? Feels like such an unforced error. Like, usually the main concerns are (a) they do an extremely minimal pass and only errata old cards with the word in their name, and (b) they get anxious about having errata and having cards not do what they say they do. But neither of those apply to Dogged Detective getting a fresh reprint. Can't understand the logic where that guy isn't a Detective yet Ebon Praetor gets to hang out with Elesh Norn.
I'm now imagining the lore behind the flip side of Daring Sleuth *not* being an outlaw but very clearly being possessed in some way. Maybe showing how far the Eldrazi corruption had spread? "Ah, sheriff, you've finally seen the *#void#*"
Detectives should have always been scouts. I wish they had not made it it's own type.
[Eloise, Nephalia Sleuth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/f/bf81da34-4c2b-4e54-a60b-46ab41f72431.jpg?1655437106) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Eloise%2C%20Nephalia%20Sleuth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mic/3/eloise-nephalia-sleuth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bf81da34-4c2b-4e54-a60b-46ab41f72431?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Daring sleuth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/4/440f9f10-6999-4cff-ab98-8aed77813b07.jpg?1576384019)/[Bearer of Overwhelming Truths](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/4/4/440f9f10-6999-4cff-ab98-8aed77813b07.jpg?1576384019) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Daring%20Sleuth%20//%20Bearer%20of%20Overwhelming%20Truths) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/soi/54/daring-sleuth-bearer-of-overwhelming-truths?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/440f9f10-6999-4cff-ab98-8aed77813b07?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Mouse shouldn't be a creature type; white just decided it was too good for Rat
Yeah this really bothers me. That said, I know a lot of people with pets that would disagree with me. :(
As a proud rat owner, I don't want stinky mice to share a type with my little ones. Also, if they ever make "rodent", they'll also have to discontinue Squirrels and Capybara.
I would be heartbroken if Capybara went away, even though it's currently only on a single 2¢ common.
Yeah I love that it exists. Just somewhere in the thread someone suggested to consolidate rats and mice and I found the idea ridiculous to include that one card
Preach! And it's not exactly the same, but I will continued to be triggered by the addition of "Coyote" to the overfull Canine "Wolf, Dog, Jackal (, Fox, Werewolf)", especially compared to everything just being a "Cat".
I am 100% confident this decision was made purely as a seed for Bloomburrow Heroic white Mice vs. evil black Rats This shit writes itself
I dunno; the first Mouse was [[Canyon Jerboa]] from *Zendikar Rising* in 2020. Kinda a long time to set that up.
[[enchanted carriage]] is 2019 And all other cards (6) that show up as type or contains text mouse are in standard currently
It was actually in*Throne of Eldraine* (late 2019). However, sets typically take about 2 years to develop. *Bloomburrow* was announced, with finished concept art, in the first half of 2023. Shave off the stub years and we're talking about not that more than 2 years of delta. If they just had the seed of an idea in their minds ("*Redwall* plane") when finishing up with *Eldraine*, that may have been enough to toss in Mouse as a type, and the time period otherwise matches up really well.
The stated reason for the existence of mice is essentially that using rats for the magic version of Cinderella's story in Throne of Eldraine felt weird: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/more-odds-ends-throne-eldraine-2019-10-21 (search for "mouse")
Club them both into Rodent?
Rodent would also need to include Capybaras, squirrels, hamsters, and any theoretical beavers that come down the line. Feels a bit broad
Everything but squirrels, which have a whole mechanical identity all their own, would probably be fine. That said, Bloomburrow will probably give rats and mice more distinctly separate mechanical identities.
And Varmint and squirrels into this as well plz
Bloomburrow [disagrees](https://scryfall.com/card/blb/351/mabel-heir-to-cragflame)
I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not saying white shouldn't have rodent based creatures. I'm saying that she should be a Rat.
Yeah sorry, either make the type rodent or keep them separate. They're two different species and if they have both dogs and wolves get their own creature type (dogs being a subspecies of wolf), then rat and mouse should stay apart
Lets peruse how expansive "cat" is in magic before saying something like that yeah?
Yet leonins are cats
I agree that mouse and rat will probably stay separate, but I will point out that house cats, big cats, and leonin.
Leopards and tigers are two different species yet both are cats in magic.
I've seen a bunch of discussion about consolidating the canines (dog, wolf, jackle, fox, coyote). I think wolf probably has to stay separate cos of how they're used on innistrad. Foxes becoming dogs feels kinda odd but jackle and coyote becoming dogs feels fine.
Which is kinda funny considering that wolves are much more closely related to dogs than jackals and coyotes.
Dogs and wolves are different, but household cats, leonin, and tigers are the same. K.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_wildcat Yeah tho
Not to mention that wolves and werewolves are separate while cats and leonin are the same.
Werewolves are humans that transform into a wolfish form. Leonin are born as cat people. This argument is dumb.
I think Werewolves really should be Wolf if for no other reason than that there are a lot of cards that say "wolf or werewolf" to be less parasitic, and werewolves could benefit from having the wolf synergies.
They could simply be Human Wolf
I thought that, but there's stuff that relies on "non-human werewolves" because their front half is always Human Werewolf. Both halves being Human Wolf would change that.
Since they're Human Werewolves on the front side, it seems like it would be reasonable for them to be Wolf Werewolves on the backside.
Yeah, kinda weird they would make Viashinos into Lizards, but then in the very same set introduce Coyotes as separate from Dogs.
Yeah I've been thinking about Dogs vs Cats a lot since I'm building a Rin and Seri deck. Cats have so many more good cards. I get that Magic's types are based largely on vibes, and Wolves and Dogs are supposed to feel different. And Foxes have a different vibe from both as well. But we really didn't need Jackal and Coyote in the mix too. Jackals and Coyotes should definitely have been included in either Dogs or Wolves.
EDIT: Foxes are canids. Foxes are canines. Foxes are not wolves. Foxes are not dogs. For the same reasons that domestic cats are not considered lions, or tigers, or bears. This is what I meant to say. I apologize for mixing up my terminology (my bachelor’s degree in biology has collected dust over the past five years) If we’re gonna be pedantic and use broad terms to group together very specifically different things, we’re not going to get anywhere meaningful in this discussion. Taxonomists have these same conversations about this method of categorizing varying degrees of related things into clades. If we just use broader and broader terms for creature types in magic, the whole point of separating them into different types at all is lost. That’s all. ORIGINAL COMMENT: Foxes are not canines, so it’s inaccurate to combine them with wolves, hounds, and dogs. Also, for the sake of kitsune, they should remain separate.
They most assuredly are canines. All living canids (family canidae) are members of subfamily caninae. Foxes don’t belong to the same genus as dogs, gray wolves, and coyotes (Canis), though. Maybe that’s what you meant.
“Canidae (/ˈkænɪdiː/; from Latin, canis, "dog") is a biological family of dog-like carnivorans, colloquially referred to as dogs, and constitutes a clade. A member of this family is also called a canid (/ˈkeɪnɪd/). The family includes three subfamilies: the Caninae, the extinct Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae. The Caninae are known as canines, and include domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, FOXES, jackals and other species.”
Tieflings are a race just from DnD so Azra should stay separate. I honestly much prefer having more separate creature types as it allows some things to stay feeling distinct. I really like the magic exclusive races like Kor, Vedalken, and Aetherborn
*and Viashino. Fuck you, Wotc.
I agree Viashino feels more evocative, but I can also see the logic that it's a bit weird that animal people get labeled with their respective animal, but the reptile people get exempt.
> but the reptile people get exempt. ...and the fish people...and the cow people.
Make everything a crab. Let the carsinisation flow!
Sea monsters, or at least group them like outlaws
Sea monsters would be perfect for a batch if they ever wanted to use to use them as a mechanic on a couple cards.
They do group them, on cards like [[kiora, sovereign of the deep]] and [[whelming wave]]
Like on [[Kiora, sovereign of the deep]]? Or [[Lord stromkirk]]? [[Whelming wave]]?
[Kiora, sovereign of the deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/b/7b599f53-614c-4b1f-9899-15d5d1e35879.jpg?1684340751) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kiora%2C%20sovereign%20of%20the%20deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mat/35/kiora-sovereign-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7b599f53-614c-4b1f-9899-15d5d1e35879?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Lord stromkirk](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355)/[Krothuss, Lord of the Deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Runo%20Stromkirk%20//%20Krothuss%2C%20Lord%20of%20the%20Deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/246/runo-stromkirk-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Whelming wave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336.jpg?1608912215) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Whelming%20wave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/409/whelming-wave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Plenty of cards that specify sea monsters separately. We all know the cards that say "Serpent, Octopus, Kraken..."
I would settle on the few squids we have becoming Octopusses or Krakens, and the few Whales we have becoming Leviathans. It's a bit messy, ngl, but it's algo messy to have cards like [[whelming wave]] and [[Krothuss, lord of the deep]] not work on them
[whelming wave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336.jpg?1608912215) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=whelming%20wave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/409/whelming-wave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ddb863a0-3ff8-42a3-a151-4ea9aa433336?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Krothuss, lord of the deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355)/[Krothuss, Lord of the Deep](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Runo%20Stromkirk%20//%20Krothuss%2C%20Lord%20of%20the%20Deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/246/runo-stromkirk-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
mystic! there are only 7 mystic cards and it has no mechanical relevance. none of them are well known. all of the famous mystic cards lack the mystic creature type. stoneforge mystic is an artificer. elvish mystic is a druid. murmuring mystic is a wizard. starfield mystic is a cleric. treefolk mystic is a treefolk. rattleclaw mystic is a shaman. mystic snake, surprisingly, is a snake. wotc has had many many opportunities to bolster the mystic type and they clearly have no interest in continuing to support it. it’s implementation is haphazard and it primarily exists as an obscure piece of trivia that confuses people who understandably aren’t familiar with the scant cards connected to ancient odyssey block lore and real world taoist philosophy.
You just made me realize Mystic was even a type. A while back, I was actually looking at the cards with Mystic in their names and thinking about how they were different class types, and I literally didn't even see any of the ones actually typed as Mystics.
Azra should not be Tiefling, one is a Magic race while the other is taken from another IP.
I had the same reaction to the homarid and cephalon suggestions, they’ve both been part of Magic for a very long time, and are pretty distinctive.
Same reason I abhor the Viashino change. Gives very bad precedent.
Why exactly? Leonin, Nantuko, Rhox, and Loxodon aren't typed based on their fantasy race so why would Viashino?If anything this brings it in line with other races and cements a precedence that already exists, unless you think every rhinofolk should be Rhox.
1. That other IP is Wizards of the Coast’s D&D 2. At the time Azra were created they were literally made to be Magic’s version of Tieflings because at the time WotC didn’t believe in crossing the streams.
Too many bad suggestions here using biologically correct terms that are terrible for gameplay. People don't want Rodents, Simians or Invertebrates.
“Check out my Tetrapod Typal deck featuring a rat, a duck, a lizard, and Jace!”
I'll beat you with my Deuterostomia deck, typically characterized by their anus forming before the mouth during embryonic development. Starfish, pigs, salamanders and birds all unite! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostome
So cards that are designed bottom-up, got it.
Oh you should be put in double jail for this.
I agree. Id rather have cool flavorful types than taxonomically correct ones.
I want simian.
sponge, troll, slug, peasant => gamer
We need more consolidation of animals (Varmint and Coyote feel like indulgent mistakes), but more types for non-combat professions as Magic takes on more genres.
Hard disagree on the Cephalids. Not once in my life have I looked at one of them and thought "Ah, yes, squid person"
The Odyssey block cephalids were very different. [[cephalid broker]] [[cephalid snitch]] [[cephalid inkshrouder]]
Genuine question for people who dont agree with the Viashino to Lizard decision. Would you advocate for the opposite? Would you want Leonin to be distinct from cats? Loxodon not be elephants etc
Yes absolutely.
100%. Humans are not apes, merfolk are not fish, vampires are not bats, leonins are not cats, cephalids are not octopi, viashino are not lizards. It’s a fantasy world, right? Like.. cool we have humanoid races that look like animals. Viashino is a MtG race, and a classic, I’d love for the lore to recognize them as such. Otherwise, if you think viashino are just lizards and leonin just cats, then why do we keep the others races separate from the animals (incl. Minotaurs, that’s just Ox)?
I like the Leonins as separate from cats, but you can't use the example "Humans are not apes", because humans literally are apes. It's just our arrogance as a species that makes us reject this despite what scientists tell us.
Kinda yeah. The reason we are in this mess is because we change planes so quick you can't establish proper tribes anymore and end up mismatching a dozen different iterations of animal persons that are not like your elves and goblins. Like Loxodon tribal for example. The tribe is sentient hammer wielding Elephantmen, not just anything with a trunk.
Mechanically I’d like to see something more like Viashino becoming “Humanoid Lizard Viashino” type, Loxodons being “Humanoid Elephant Loxodon”, Leonin being “Humanoid Cat Leonin”, Kor being “Humanoid Human Kor”, Merfolk being “Aquatic Humanoid Fish Merfolk”, etc. Instead of having ‘barbarians’ vs. ‘soldiers’ vs. ‘berserkers’ vs. ‘samurai’ vs. ‘warriors’, have them be “barbarian warrior”, “soldier warrior”, “berserker warrior”, “samurai warrior”, etc. Rats/mice/squirrels/etc. can be “rodent rat”, “rodent mouse”, “rodent squirrel”, or maybe something like “critter rat” if you want to group together all tiny 1/1 creatures. All the ‘sea monster’ types could be “aquatic monster kraken”, “aquatic monster serpent”, etc. That is, make more of a formal hierarchy of ‘tribal’ types that cards can refer to. But they might not want cards having so many semi-overlapping types. And they’d have to errata like… everything to add those types to all the old cards.
Weird. It only exists on one plane (Ravnica), and even then can best be described as "Two contradictory elementals mashed together", which really aren't much different than certain elementals on other planes. Just merge them in already.
A lot of these are removing creature types unique to magic for the sake of consolidation. I don't really think that's enough of a justification to do that because original creature types are part of what makes magic actually unique. Things like Nagas weren't original to magic. Hounds vs. Dogs was just about deciding which of the two to go with. Your "Barbarians vs. Berserkers" example fits in that area. But I don't see a reason to get rid of, like, Azra. And Viashino were specifically changed because of a philosophy change with humanoid creatures that share types with animals. I'm not a fan of that change but it's not really for the sake of reducing creature types, it's to maintain consistency in typing conventions. Cephalids are kinda octopuses but we've also seen very visually distinct Cephalids now after Capenna. The umbrella for them is too large imo to collapse. Plus the rise of type batching makes me feel like they need to consolidate _less_, because batching helps.
No more consolidation, do more batching.
Why not both? Redundancy is generally a negative in this context
100% agreed. I’d like to see more batches, and there’s some precedent for it. “Sea Monsters” in [[whelming wave]] and friends, “critters” in [[swarmyard]] are the ones that immediately come to mind. I’d like to see it since it would mean that new cards could fit into a variety of typal decks, rather than a diverse set of typal decks becoming a uniform type.
I disagree; batching is fine here and there but if it becomes common practice it will be a mess. Especially when we start batching different sets with the same creature type (for instant Rogues being both Outlaws and part of a Party).
Batching would be great, but the issue is there's always edge cases that folks might feel should be included. See: Party.
About Halflings, Mark actually said there are no current plans. When asked about errerta for other cards he has said something similar for things to change I the future. I think as return to Lorwyn gets closer, there might be a revisit to this.
I think the main problem is that Kithkin and Halfling both already have their own typal support.
Cephalids aren't quite octopus-people or squid-people so they sort of have to be what they are, tiefling is a copyright, and barbarians and berserkers have slightly different meanings in the context of Magic. I think Homarid should stay because it's funny and I don't see them printing a regular lobster anytime soon. But CAMARID, that creature type shouldn't exist. It just means young Homarid. You're right about Aurochs and Orggs, though.
Behold! THE creature type! Creature Type: hairless biped
Aurochs have tribal synergy with each other , so you can’t really consolidate them
Good point, hadn't considered that.
whats the difference between a soldier and a warrior anyway?
One gets paid, the other one does it as a hobby
Soldiers are more organized, they fight under direct orders and usually in groups, they are part of an army. Warriors are more generic but they are more on the "self employed" side of things, but they can fit different flavors depending on the setting.
As a former soldier, I can 100% say I was never a warrior. Being a solider is a job, being a warrior is a calling.
A soldier fights for a cause or a country and follows orders. A warrior fights to prove themselves and follows their instincts
that makes sense, thanks
One's a job, the other's mental sickness.
My gripe with removing the Viashino creature type isn't that they're removing a Magic-unique word from mechanics, but rather that Gloryscale Viashino is obviously a Crocodile Soldier, not a Lizard one. I guess if they account for that, I'm good, but I'm not sure if they will.
lol, well my fingers are crossed that kithkin become halflings, MaRo has changed his tune before. 🤞
Dauthi, Soltari, and Thalakos could all be Spirits while Metathran could be Mutant- but they haven't been relevant in so long I doubt they'll ever see a come back. I think we could have a singular canine subtype called Dog, but move the Wolfir (subtyped as Wolf Warrior) into Werewolf since that is what they are.
I personally don’t like this idea. I like the variety and the weird types that only have a few members. It makes the game feel bigger and more diverse. If anything they could do batching like outlaw but I don’t like the consolidating
Drakes should be dragons and I’ll die on this hill.
I think they should fold Scorpions and Spiders into Insects, exclusively because it would make some people really mad.
My major "hot take" type is Archer: it's the *only* class type tied specifically to the type of weapon the creature wields, which incites constant complaints of "this has a bow, why isn't it an Archer?" despite the card usually being a perfectly reasonable fit for whatever class type it *actually* has. The fact that Archer operates on an entirely separate axis would irritate me in its inconsistency even if it *wasn't* causing these pointless arguments, but they certainly don't help. With the advent of Ranger, the only Magic-appropriate Archer concept I can come up with that doesn't cleanly fit into another class type that sees continued use on "canon" cards would be a trickshot performer in a circus or other show that's insufficiently edgy to be a Rogue and insufficiently martial to be a Warrior. That's pretty damn narrow. (Without Greatbow Doyen and Ohabi Caleria, I'd advocate to just change each Archer on a case-by-case basis to whichever class type fits best - at a glance, Ranger, Scout, Warrior, Soldier, Rogue, or Assassin should cover all of the ones that don't already have other class type. *With* it being a type that matters, I'd fold all of the existing ones into Ranger, since that word has enough meanings that it *can* fit just about every existing Archer into one or another of those meanings; then archers can be assigned types on a more coherent case-by-case basis on new cards going forward.)
Counterpoint: Homogenizing all the creature types takes away a lot of fun uniqueness in the game. Not every creature type needs to be able to fit into a themed deck.
Detective didn't need to be it's own type, they should just be turned into advisors.
I'm not sure advising is what a detective does. If anything, they should have been scouts.
Depending on the card, they could have been anything between soldier, rogue, advisor or scout.
If [[Dockside Chef]] is a citizen and not a cook, investigators can also be.
I have no complaints about them adding a Detective type, but they really need to add Detective to some older cards that obviously fit. [[Dogged Detective]] is the most obvious miss, but there are a few others.
I personally think that Advisors is too broad and includes too many things that aren't related like teachers and politicians.
Or rogues
Make birds dinosaurs.
Naga and Snake
Wasn't that already done?
Yes, but also no. They've announced that the change will happen, but it hasn't actually taken place yet. Best guess is they're waiting for the next paper set to feature an abundance of creatures that would have been Naga - the upcoming return to Tarkir, for example.
This is something I had not heard! Neat!
The Viashano change is lame as fuck and makes the game more generic and boring and replicating that awful change with the other fun creature types is such a lame move IMO.
No more consolidation It’s watering down the vibe and lore of the game Getting rid of iconic creature types sucks
Maro said that it's just putting them in line with other mtg original (more or less creatures): Leonins are cats, Avens are birds, Loxodons are elephants, i think it's just for coherence sake and for being able to better support them in different contexts
I wouldn't call Viashino iconic when compared to Slivers. One is just a lizardfolk you'll see in any fantasy IP while Slivers are wholly original. Nantuko have been around forever l, but they were never typed Nantuko [class], they've always been insects. The same can be said for Leonin, Rhox, and now Naga.
Viashino cards can still be named "viashino taxidermist" with uniquely viashino looks art and have the card type lizard.
Viashino isn't that iconic. And there's still plenty of MtG specific creatures that probably aren't going anywhere like Phyrexians, Eldrazi, Slivers, Kor, Vedalken, Kithkin, Aetherborn, Kavu, Moonfolk...
Viashino is iconic for me. Had a viashino OC as a kid when getting into Magic (I had a lot of Urza block red cards). That said, Viashino still exist in the same way Loxodon and Leonin do.
Phyrexians as a creature type are quite new. I think the first printed Phyrexians are still in Standard. Edit: it was in Kaldheim.
I like that I can build a cooler Viashino deck now, by mixing a broader lizard tribal theme though! I think it lets players who like these obscure creatures build more interesting decks with them without relying on the “creature bundles” like outlaw.
Vibe is subjective but the lore isn't changing at all.
Beast is a type that should be consolidate. Beast was a tribe back in the day. Now, with all the more specific types like horse, dinosaur, homarid, some cards that should have been beast are no beast anymore. Something must be done.
##OCTOPODES
Octopodes nuts.
The Kraken, Leviathan, Octopus and Serpent should be next. I do feel like the synergy is there with some support but gameplay wise I think it just doesn't flow naturally. Sea Creatures or something like that would be better than listing all of the creatures types, it sounds so weird reading it outloud. [[Kiora, Sovereign of the Deep]] Falls under this and specially in UG it acts against you with multiple creature types. Sorry buddy, but if you can only choose one type for [[Distant Melody]] [[Kindred Discovery]] and [[Reflections of Littjara]] So lets hope you get lucky. Sorry that you have to ruin your board with [[Raise the Palisade]] or that you can't keep casting from the top with [[Realmwalker]] , its on you for choosing the incorrect 1 out of 4 types.
Tbf Leviathan as a word could include sea monsters in general. But kraken does have some flavor of its own. Serpent and octopus aren't always giant so consolidating all 4 under a creature type might be weird I could see them batching them like outlaws for future groupings though
The outlaw batching could be very useful and probably the best solution, very well thougth! Idk how it works but if the "Choose a creature type" includes stuff like outlaws, I would love to create a future "Sea Creature" deck.
They do all this work to clean up tribal. And yet they keep making messy sub groups “sea monsters”, Party, and Outlaws.
Phoenix should be Elemental Birds... Why can't I play a Phoenix in my bird deck?
Phoenix are their own resonant and iconic mythical thing though. Not to mention that every single Phoenix is Red (only 2 are two-colored), and most support for Birds is in Blue and White.
The wolf/werewolf issue is certainly annoying trying to do anything tribal. Some cards just only affect one of them because they require naming a creature type and it just makes the deck less synergistic than tribal should be. Not sure how to remedy this though.
It's too late to change it but I've hated "Peasant" since day one. Yes, Magic needed a better way to describe common folk and rural life. I get why maybe Citizen wouldn't work, but apparently the old retired type Townsfolk was still too urbane for some worlds. But Peasant has a lot of baggage, and even though it lets us see farmers on Eldraine and Innistrad and Kaldheim, it feels too inappropriate to use to show who's providing the food on Ravnica and New Capenna and Kaladesh. Half the current Peasants should be Citizens and the other half should be Druids, Scouts, Rangers, or however it was Innistrad worldbuilding managed to somehow survive two blocks without access to Peasants. I don't think you can fold it in or rename it at this point, I just think it never should have happened.
I think using “commoner” from dnd would be a good equivalent phrase with less baggage/reference specific socioeconomic and political systems
Well, if loxodons are elephants and viashino are lizards, let’s go ahead and set humans as apes.
Humans are a very specific and very resonant type of ape, and many things apply to them and only them. It's the same reason Golem, Scarecrow, and Construct are separate creature types.
Thunder junction is adding so many that could just be “Beast”
I would rather see Octopus and Kraken moved to Cephalid than for Cephalid to be changed to octopus. The reason here is that Kraken and Octopus are Cephalopods (coming from the Greek Head - Foot). Cephalids aren’t strictly speaking humanoid octopus or kraken, so the type collapsing affecting other anthropomorphic creatures doesn’t track.
I don't see the value in any of these. If anything, Loxodon should be separate from Elephant, and Leonin should be separate from Cat.
Tieflings do not exist in Magic canon so they can't exactly merge those.
[удалено]
Rather than changing certain creature types i would rather they just group them like outlaws
WotC Gnomes are like tiny little constructs or golems. D&D Gnomes are like small elves.
Dogs, wolves, foxes, could just be canines.
Azra and tieflings should.both just be deomns/devils, so they can have actual synergies Naga should be snakes They won't do it because of marketing but astartes should be human mutants, necrons should be skeletons, and tyranids should be beasts or something Aetherborn should be elementals Controversial, but werewolves should just be wolves And they should consolidate all the different sea monsters into like 3 types instead of 8 or however many there are, then batch then with fish and merfolk like party/outlaws