Fixing Creature Types

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey guys (and gals?),

Okay, so I'm cool with how they majorly revised and streamlined old creature types.

There are no more Heroes (who's watching the watchmen?) (double reference!) - despite about 14 creatures claiming to be one, right there in their epithets. I guess nobody likes a hero. And no more Guardians - they mostly did a lousy job guarding things anyway. Lords have stepped down, and Humans abound. Demons have made their ghastly and resounding return. I could keep going, but let's get to the point.

I may not agree with every decision (who caught [C]King Suleiman[/C] secretly killing old men by the sea?), but most of the changes make sense. I mean, it seems there was method to this immense undertaking, and overall, it's nice to extinct every ape, gorilla, simian, orangutan and monkey in one fell swoop - reminds me why we were put here in the first place. (After all, we wouldn't want them taking over the planet now, would we.)


As I was saying, it seems like there were certain rules they followed, when retroactively updating creature types of yonder. (It wasn't done haphazardly, to be sure.)

For example, they took into account, every creature type a given card was ever printed with, and (usually) decided to keep all of them. ([C]Longbow Archer[/C] and [C]Hunting Moa[/C] come to mind.)

Also, they sometimes took into consideration flavor text, which could influence the final type(s). ([C]Elder Land Wurm[/C], [C]Bartel Runeaxe[/C] ?)

Sometimes, if a card's was depicting, in its art, a race-suggestive element, that wasn't original to the card, that too could influence its new breed. ([C]The Wretched[/C] was made a Demon because it had the horns for it, [C]Rubinia Soulsinger[/C] had faerie wings, [C]Marhault Elsdragon[/C]'s elf ears, [C]Boris Devilboon[/C] kinda looks zomby-ish I guess - or maybe he's winking and just likes tattoos, [C]Gwendlyn Di Corci[/C] is obviously a slu--I mean Rogue, of course, etc.)

([C]Ramirez DePietro[/C] and [C]Jedit Ojanen[/C], for both of the above.)

And sometimes, the card title plays a part. (It's perfectly plausible that [C]The Lady of the Mountain[/C] must be a GIant.)

So this thread's purpose is to voice any... inconsistencies that anyone notices, and hopefully, your voice will be heard and the creature(s) in questions might transmutate!

(Remember to include your reasoning and/or supportive arguments.)

Sound like fun? Yay! Hooray. I'll get it started...


----------------------------------------------------------------


- Why aren't [C]Vampire Bats[/C] considered Vampires? [C]Vampire Hounds[/C] became a Vampire. It only makes sense that the Bats get the same treatment. Am I wrong?

- I've noticed that 10 out of the 13 cards with the word "Crusader" in the title, are Knights, so why aren't the other 3? [C]Grassland Crusader[/C], [C]Celestial Crusader[/C] and [C]Mystic Crusader[/C]. I don't know about Grassland Crusader, but Celestial Crusader can easily be a Knight. [C]Spectral Rider[/C] shows us that both creature types aren't mutually exclusive. And I'm not sure, but other than Mistform Ultimus and creatures with Changeling, can creatures have more than 3 types? Maybe that's why Mystic Crusader is only a "Human Nomad Mystic", and not a "Human Nomad Mystic Knight".

- Lastly, why isn't [C]Kjeldoran Skyknight[/C] a Soldier? It says "Soldier" right there on the card! [C]Kjeldoran Skycaptain[/C] kept its Soldier status, and [C]Angelfire Crusader[/C] proves that you can simultaeously be a Soldier *AND* a Knight, so I don't see the problem in doing the same for our Skynight.


That's all I got for now. I'll be sure to post more here as I spot them.

Have fun.
There are storyline reasons why most of the changes you've mentioned were changed. There is only one time (I can think of) when a card's creature type was changed to match the art. It was in a core set when someoen drew a human instead of an elf.


- Why aren't [C]Vampire Bats[/C] considered Vampires? [C]Vampire Hounds[/C] became a Vampire. It only makes sense that the Bats get the same treatment. Am I wrong?



Yes, Vampire bats are real world animals. They aren't bats taht are also vampuric (like the hounds) they are just regular bats.

- I've noticed that 10 out of the 13 cards with the word "Crusader" in the title, are Knights, so why aren't the other 3? [C]Grassland Crusader[/C], [C]Celestial Crusader[/C] and [C]Mystic Crusader[/C]. I don't know about Grassland Crusader, but Celestial Crusader can easily be a Knight. [C]Spectral Rider[/C] shows us that both creature types aren't mutually exclusive. And I'm not sure, but other than Mistform Ultimus and creatures with Changeling, can creatures have more than 3 types? Maybe that's why Mystic Crusader is only a "Human Nomad Mystic", and not a "Human Nomad Mystic Knight".



Generally speaking, Rules wants to keep cards as close to printed functionality as possible. Adding creature types that aren't that obvious doesn't help that cause.

Crusader can be used in a different sense than a knight, for example a crusader for equal rights woudln't be a knight.

- Lastly, why isn't [C]Kjeldoran Skyknight[/C] a Soldier? It says "Soldier" right there on the card! [C]Kjeldoran Skycaptain[/C] kept its Soldier status, and [C]Angelfire Crusader[/C] proves that you can simultaeously be a Soldier *AND* a Knight, so I don't see the problem in doing the same for our Skynight.



That's a good catch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The creature typing system could use an overhaul, but it should focus on consolidating and eliminating creature types. Creative already updated almost all creature cards with the Great creature type update, so it is unlikely that any major creature type changes will take place.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Here is the list I made for all of the creature types I thought needed changing. I have updated it since the last time anyone posted in that thread.
Wow, I guess I'm late to the party.

That list you made is impressive, PirateAmmo. I swear I tried searching for threads that might have done this already, but I didn't see yours. They get tucked away and hard to find... I'm not sure how the thread-search works exactly.

You make many very valid points. It would be a shame if Wizards didn't take your work and apply it.

I thought Chaos Lord should be a Barbarian, but Warrior would work too. It's weird that it's just human.

I also get tickled funny when I find a a creature that has a type all to itself. "Sponge", "Oyster"... You're right about Phyrexian Dreadnought. They're just odd.

Anyway, I'm sure we could discuss this extensively - and judging from the number of pages on your thread, people have, but it's nothing if Wizards isn't interested in using our incisive insight on this matter. Yes, text box is important, but creature types also affect the game.

Generally speaking, Rules wants to keep cards as close to printed functionality as possible. Adding creature types that aren't that obvious doesn't help that cause.

Crusader can be used in a different sense than a knight, for example a crusader for equal rights woudln't be a knight.

But it seems they do it anyway. Angelfire Crusader got knighted because why? He's mounted? Celestial Crusader has a helm, shield, sword, and probably, armor - spectral or not. I don't think he works for Greenpeace.

I'm getting tired. Goodnight folks.

Edit: Oh yeah, that point you made about Phage and Arcanis? Have you read [C]Arcanis the Omnipotent[/C]'s Tenth Edition Flavor text? I thought it was pretty ironic.
Yes, it seems that magic's definition of "knight" is anyone with a mount. I don't know if that's been applied retroactively or not. But modern cards (which the crusader is) are generally locked into what creature types they have.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Anyway, I'm sure we could discuss this extensively - and judging from the number of pages on your thread, people have, but it's nothing if Wizards isn't interested in using our incisive insight on this matter. Yes, text box is important, but creature types also affect the game.

I think Wizards is interested, but they are cautious. They do not want to make changes arbitrarily, and they do not want to make changes so often that people must look up the latest errata every time they play.
Really the only major changes to creature types happen when Creative removes a type, or introduces a new type and goes back and gives that type to previous creatures (like Gremlins).
… and then, the squirrels came.
Oh, and they even published The character cheet for teh Lady of teh Mountain. She is assuredly not a Giant, juts a Very High Level Warrior/Combatmage.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
I want to know why Elder is a valid creature type yet several cards with Elder in their name aren't also Elder creatures?

Rules Advisor from 8-26-09 to 1-31-14, reinstated (reactivated?) on 9-24-14 (been seeing more FNM, prerelease, and release events as of late)
Joined the crowd and got an Avatar from zammm's Avatar Workshop on 5-6-2012

Khans of Tarkir Clan Quiz
After three iterations of taking the quiz, it says each time that I'm Temur, the clan. Which is funny because the dual-color tests still yield the same two results as before.

That "Dual Colors" personality test thing
IMAGE(http://stat.rumandmonkey.com/tests/1/6/5261/20806.jpg)

I am Black/Green

Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!

Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I am both selfish and instinctive. I value growth and community, as long as they favour my own objectives; I enjoy nature, and I particularly enjoy watching parts of nature die. At best, I am resilient and tenacious; at worst, I'm uncontrollable and destructive.

Oh, but wait, there were multiple answers that fit my thoughts to some questions. What colors did they say I was?

IMAGE(http://stat.rumandmonkey.com/tests/1/6/5261/20801.jpg)

I am Blue/Green

I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.

Skibo_the_first
Yes, it seems that magic's definition of "knight" is anyone with a mount. I don't know if that's been applied retroactively or not. But modern cards (which the crusader is) are generally locked into what creature types they have.

Steward of Valeron, Puresteel Paladin, Accorder Paladin, Mirran Crusader, Phyrexian Crusader. These are knights that were printed *after* Celestial Crusader, which don't seem mounted to me.

Yes, all Paladins in Magic are Knights, but before that point is argued, I looked up the word Paladin:

- any knightly or heroic champion.
- any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

So just like Crusaders, it is not invariable that all Paladins be Knights.

So far, all Paladins in Magic are. I think that somewhere along the way, they had the same plan for Crusaders.

My point with this thread is precisely to point these things out. Oddities, aberrations, anomalies... Our observations.

PirateAmmo
I think Wizards is interested, but they are cautious. They do not want to make changes arbitrarily, and they do not want to make changes so often that people must look up the latest errata every time they play.

Yes, but my [C]Kjeldoran Skyknight[/C] says Soldier dangnabbit! :P

I want to know why Elder is a valid creature type yet several cards with Elder in their name aren't also Elder creatures?

Exactly Edacade!
I want to know why Elder is a valid creature type yet several cards with Elder in their name aren't also Elder creatures?



Probably for the same reason Giant Spider  isn't a Giant. Or perhaps Elder is one of those "still on the books but we're not putting it on new cards" types.
I want to know why Elder is a valid creature type yet several cards with Elder in their name aren't also Elder creatures?



Probably for the same reason Giant Spider  isn't a Giant. Or perhaps Elder is one of those "still on the books but we're not putting it on new cards" types.



Yeah, but Giant Spider is a poor example. Because on it, Giant is clearly being used as an adjective instead of a noun. "That guy is a giant (noun)" vs "that guy is giant (adjective)." Elder on most of the cards in the linked list is a title, which in most situations is a noun, especially when used as a profession. "Town elder" or whatnot.

But now that I start flinging around words like "adjective" and "noun", I start to see that elder can be used as an adjective as well, and in some of those card titles it could be instead read as "Old person"...

And so I have defeated myself with my own arguement.

Rules Advisor from 8-26-09 to 1-31-14, reinstated (reactivated?) on 9-24-14 (been seeing more FNM, prerelease, and release events as of late)
Joined the crowd and got an Avatar from zammm's Avatar Workshop on 5-6-2012

Khans of Tarkir Clan Quiz
After three iterations of taking the quiz, it says each time that I'm Temur, the clan. Which is funny because the dual-color tests still yield the same two results as before.

That "Dual Colors" personality test thing
IMAGE(http://stat.rumandmonkey.com/tests/1/6/5261/20806.jpg)

I am Black/Green

Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!

Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I am both selfish and instinctive. I value growth and community, as long as they favour my own objectives; I enjoy nature, and I particularly enjoy watching parts of nature die. At best, I am resilient and tenacious; at worst, I'm uncontrollable and destructive.

Oh, but wait, there were multiple answers that fit my thoughts to some questions. What colors did they say I was?

IMAGE(http://stat.rumandmonkey.com/tests/1/6/5261/20801.jpg)

I am Blue/Green

I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.

I'm pretty sure the only reason Elder is still a type is because it would just be wrong for the Elder Dragons to not be Elder Dragons.
blah blah metal lyrics
I'm pretty sure the only reason Elder is still a type is because it would just be wrong for the Elder Dragons to not be Elder Dragons.



They'd still be elder dragons, they just wouldn't have the elder type.

There are about ten or twenty useless creature types that should be removed.
… and then, the squirrels came.
There are about ten or twenty useless creature types that should be removed.

Apart from perhaps Brushwagg, I'd say the list is fine enough as-is. There's no compelling reason to eliminate existing creature types just for the sake of it. I can understand giving creatures the types people would expect them to have and removing things that are nonsensical or outright ridiculous in and of themselves (Will-O'-the-Wisp or Gaea's-Avenger), and while I'd argue against removing types you don't want to use anymore despite printing cards that should logically have them (Banshee) I can at least see the logic behind such a removal.

But what purpose does cutting further types from the list serve? Cutting down the list solely for the sake of cutting down the list doesn't make a whole lot of sense--it's not like we're about to run out of kilobytes.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

There are about ten or twenty useless creature types that should be removed.

Apart from perhaps Brushwagg, I'd say the list is fine enough as-is. There's no compelling reason to eliminate existing creature types just for the sake of it. I can understand giving creatures the types people would expect them to have and removing things that are nonsensical or outright ridiculous in and of themselves (Will-O'-the-Wisp or Gaea's-Avenger), and while I'd argue against removing types you don't want to use anymore despite printing cards that should logically have them (Banshee) I can at least see the logic behind such a removal.

But what purpose does cutting further types from the list serve? Cutting down the list solely for the sake of cutting down the list doesn't make a whole lot of sense--it's not like we're about to run out of kilobytes.



What was the point in removing the lord creature type?

If a creautre type isn't well defined, and isn't applied consistancy then having it around causes more problems than it's worth.

There are also creature types that just don't make sense. They elimianted the Ship creature type but not the wall one.

Then you have token creature types that could be consolidated into existing creature types.

THere are reasons why these things stay around. You remember my thread a few years back on consolidating the creature types, you could elimiante about half of them with no real loss of flavor (Since most of the time the flavor is captured in hte name, art, or flavor text already).

Here are two things that drive my view of consolidating creature types:

A) Having a turkey, chicken, hawk, pigeion, and robin is not better than having 5 birds. If two creature types are similar flavorfully they should just be the same type. Yes Hawk is more flavorful than Bird, but mechaincally Hawk is useless.

B) You remember werefrog. He loved frogs. The thing is, every creature type has a fan. There is probably someone (probably more than one person) still waiting from Alpha for them to print a second Cockatrice. Why keep Cockatrice as a creature type if you aren't going to support it? Roll it into Basalisk and let me throw it into a basalisk tribal deck.

I'd rather they cut the list of supported tribes in half and actually printed one or two of them a year, rather than have hundreds of creature types that only ever appear once.

* For me, if you aren't going to support a creature type, don't have it. You are tying up creature cards that can go into supported tribal decks. There are still a few creature types that aren't supported (flag bearer) comes to mind that are mechanically driven, but alot of them like Nephilim and Bringer could be removed without any trouble.
… and then, the squirrels came.
A) Having a turkey, chicken, hawk, pigeion, and robin is not better than having 5 birds. If two creature types are similar flavorfully they should just be the same type. Yes Hawk is more flavorful than Bird, but mechaincally Hawk is useless.

This is true. However, that's a case where there's a reasonable point to which a consolidation can be made. Types like Nautilus, Sponge, Ferret, Antelope, Wolverine, and Oyster have no such convenient consolidation points with other types. At least not ones that make much sense, and that causes its own problems--"Beast" has historically been overloaded through such consolidation to nigh-meaninglessness.

B) You remember werefrog. He loved frogs. The thing is, every creature type has a fan. There is probably someone (probably more than one person) still waiting from Alpha for them to print a second Cockatrice. Why keep Cockatrice as a creature type if you aren't going to support it? Roll it into Basalisk and let me throw it into a basalisk tribal deck.

The primary purpose of creature types is to define the flavor of the card and (potentially) through it, the world the card exists in. That's why creature types are generally set by the Creative team rather than Design or Development. Why should you bar any type that serves that purpose just because it doesn't happen to also produce the side-effect of enabling a tribal deck?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

There are about ten or twenty useless creature types that should be removed.

Apart from perhaps Brushwagg, I'd say the list is fine enough as-is.

But Look at it! Those Eyes! What has poor little Brushwagg ever done to you?
There's no compelling reason to eliminate existing creature types just for the sake of it. I can understand giving creatures the types people would expect them to have and removing things that are nonsensical or outright ridiculous in and of themselves (Will-O'-the-Wisp or Gaea's-Avenger), and while I'd argue against removing types you don't want to use anymore despite printing cards that should logically have them (Banshee) I can at least see the logic behind such a removal.

But what purpose does cutting further types from the list serve? Cutting down the list solely for the sake of cutting down the list doesn't make a whole lot of sense--it's not like we're about to run out of kilobytes.

True. The CR is always going to grow, if alone for the continued addition of Keywords, and those add several Lines, while Creature Types only add about 10 characters, tops.

As long as Creatures that should have them have the correct Types, it is good.


I want to know why Elder is a valid creature type yet several cards with Elder in their name aren't also Elder creatures?



Probably for the same reason Giant Spider  isn't a Giant. Or perhaps Elder is one of those "still on the books but we're not putting it on new cards" types.



Yeah, but Giant Spider is a poor example. Because on it, Giant is clearly being used as an adjective instead of a noun. "That guy is a giant (noun)" vs "that guy is giant (adjective)." Elder on most of the cards in the linked list is a title, which in most situations is a noun, especially when used as a profession. "Town elder" or whatnot.

But now that I start flinging around words like "adjective" and "noun", I start to see that elder can be used as an adjective as well, and in some of those card titles it could be instead read as "Old person"...

And so I have defeated myself with my own arguement.


Turns out that the only Creatures that have "Elder" (the five Elder Dragon Legends) indeed use it as an adjective...

Plus, do you really think that he would share a type with him?

B) You remember werefrog. He loved frogs. The thing is, every creature type has a fan. There is probably someone (probably more than one person) still waiting from Alpha for them to print a second Cockatrice. Why keep Cockatrice as a creature type if you aren't going to support it? Roll it into Basalisk and let me throw it into a basalisk tribal deck.

The primary purpose of creature types is to define the flavor of the card and (potentially) through it, the world the card exists in. That's why creature types are generally set by the Creative team rather than Design or Development. Why should you bar any type that serves that purpose just because it doesn't happen to also produce the side-effect of enabling a tribal deck?

This. I am not playing Game A, I am playing Magic. Creature Type has more uses than just being a Tag for other Cards/Rules, it also serves as a Tag for your imagination.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
I want creature types to be meaningful.

If a creature type refers to something existing in real life (e.g. Cat, Soldier), that's meaningful.  If it refers to something in mythology or other fantasy settings (e.g. Unicorn, Elf), that's meaningful.  If something is specific to Magic but there are enough references to it in the various flavor aspects of the game that we can piece together what the creature type represents (e.g. Sliver, Myr), that's meaningful.

However, if none of those apply, the creature type could be problematic.  I'll take Brushwagg as an example.  The only reference to brushwaggs is Brushwagg itself.  So saying that Brushwagg is a Brushwagg conveys no information.  It's just saying that Brushwagg is shaped like itself.

There are also a lot of token-only creature types that don't need to exist.

I do think Elder should be removed.  Creature types are supposed to be nouns, not adjectives, and whatever specialness that cycle had would be maintained if they removed the nonsensical creature type.
Saying that Brushwagg is shaped only like itself is, however, flavorful -- there are no other creatures like them in the world.  This also creates a relevant mechanical interaction: It doesn't get a boost from an Elvish lord, or Beast lord, or what-have-you.

It's a drawback in sheep's clothing, in other words.  I wouldn't want to pull this trick too many times.  There's also the possibility -- like the Surrakar -- of it pointing toweard future possibilities, and then becoming a flavorful callback, much like the Kithkin or Lorwyn/Shadowmoor became.
Look at Atog - if the original had been a Beast, Dr. Teeth would have never been invented.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Look at Atog - if the original had been a Beast, Dr. Teeth would have never been invented.



That's not true. the idea of atog would still exist, the creature type would not.

You could still have more atogs that refernce back to the original even without the creature type.

see Baloths
… and then, the squirrels came.
Look at Atog - if the original had been a Beast, Dr. Teeth would have never been invented.



That's not true. the idea of atog would still exist, the creature type would not.

You could still have more atogs that refernce back to the original even without the creature type.

see Baloths


But what is their mechanical Identity?

Being an Atog confines teh ATogs to their identity, being a Beast just means thzat they are Beasts.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Look at Atog - if the original had been a Beast, Dr. Teeth would have never been invented.



That's not true. the idea of atog would still exist, the creature type would not.

You could still have more atogs that refernce back to the original even without the creature type.

see Baloths


But what is their mechanical Identity?

Being an Atog confines teh ATogs to their identity, being a Beast just means thzat they are Beasts.



I don't really see your point. What does the Atog creature type do for the Atogs that the name atog doesn't?
… and then, the squirrels came.
^ I think Skibo makes a valid point (more than one, actually), in that creature types are hardly necessary to encompass or represent a mechanic.

If all Atogs preserved their names but were of the go-to creature type "Beast", it wouldn't preclude them from all sharing an identity, and they can still have similar abilities. However, I think Atog type is just fine. They played with it, it evolved, it recurred over a few different sets... It works.

However, I'm inclined to say that creature types shouldn't be used as mere flavor. I mean, [C]Chambered Nautilus[/C] was a Beast, and then they decided to tack on "Nautilus", but still retain "Beast". What did this do? It's still a beast (because that's what is printed on the card, and when they alter a creature type, they typically tend to keep intact any types the card was ever printed with, which remain in the creature type directory / repertoire - *cough* [C]Kjeldoran Skyknight[/C] *cough* - any other examples where they didn't keep a still-existing type that a card was printed with?), and thus, Chambered Nautilus would accordingly get affected by anything affecting Beasts, but now it's also the only card in Magic that is a "Nautilus".

As far as gameplay is concerned, it doesn't make sense! You know that if they ever print more Nautilus creatures in the future, they would unlikely also be beasts, so it's a little silly, but at least future Nautili would include the "elder" nautilus. Man, I've been waiting nine years for them to print "Pearly Nautilus", so that I can start on that super-cool-awesome Oyster-Nautilus-Sponge deck to kick people's butts with! I mean... scrub people's feet with, and feed them... and stuff. Watch out world.

I think Title, Art and Flavor Text are plenty for my tastebuds. Creature types should remain accurate (or close enough), but (and more importantly) functional over completely, utterly and/or ridiculously fictional. (Bubbling Beebles anyone?) Just my opinion. Having said that, Surrakar (as NoUnderscore pointed out) is a perfect example of a fresh new creature type. Beastly (don't seem to need an armory to me), yet can wield magic. They are a race of their own, have a certain mystery about them, history behind them, and there's room to grow. (Good job Wizards!)

Volver however, is borderline. Okay, there is one for every color, and the word is a play on "evolve", because depending on how you kick em, you get a certain evolution of them. Or something like that. Fine. But do they *really* need their own creature race? Considering there is 5 of them, which is more than the number of Brushwaggs, it just barely slides under the radar for me. Or rather, it's there, but the blip is faint.

The [C]Village Elder[/C] / [C]Nicol Bolas[/C] comparison was funny, but if you look closely, I found the facial features around their nozzles to be strikingly similar. :P

I still think that every other card (apart from the 5 Dragons), with "Elder" in their titles, can't simply be referring to the (adjective) fact that they are aged, so it's kind of weird that the 5 Elder Dragons get a creature type of their own. It's very volver-y.

But Edacade opened my eyes to how adjectives and nouns play a part in this. It makes sense for the most part - especially Giants vs. Gigantism.

Here's something else - Despite Lands having their own subsets, and Creatures having theirs, I for one think [C]Island Fish Jasconius[/C] should be considered an Island, and tappable for blue mana. Because it's funny that way, not to mention about a hundred times more useful.

Bumbling Beebles - (1)(U) - Creature -- Beeble - 1/1 - Bumbling Beebles is unblockable unless defending player thinks Beebles are dumb.
I don't think it's wrong for Nautilus to be a creature type.  It's real-life animal, so the term is meaningful, even with only a single Magic example.  However, it might make sense to consolidate Squid, Octopus, and Nautilus under a single banner, either as Cephalopod or just using one of them as the generic term.  Squids aren't octopodes or vice versa, but Magic already takes a lot of liberties with taxonomy, so that wouldn't be the first such inaccuracies.
RE: ATogs: I doubt that Foratog would have ever been invented (or made into an Atog) if the original one did not have that Creature type.

Or take Hellions. They would be Beasts.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Foratog wasn't originally an atog. It was made into one and that's what started the atog megacycle, but if Atog hadn't had that creature type I could easily imagine the same thing happening.
blah blah metal lyrics
However, that's a case where there's a reasonable point to which a consolidation can be made. Types like Nautilus, Sponge, Ferret, Antelope, Wolverine, and Oyster have no such convenient consolidation points with other types.

Creature – Other Laughing
However, that's a case where there's a reasonable point to which a consolidation can be made. Types like Nautilus, Sponge, Ferret, Antelope, Wolverine, and Oyster have no such convenient consolidation points with other types.

Creature – Other 

Creature – Miscellaneous?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

If Atog were still the only Atog, I'd be in favor of getting rid of that creature type, as well.

You can't extrapolate from a single data point.  Without the other Atogs, we wouldn't be able to tell which attributes are specific to Atog and which are general to Atogs.  If we concluded, for example, that all Atogs are red-aligned, purple-skinned, or artifact-related, we'd be wrong.  It's only with the many other Atogs that we can get an idea of what it means to be an Atog.

I think it's also okay to keep creature types relatively generic until there's a real need to specialize.  I think Hellions are actually a good example of this.  Crater Hellion and Flowstone Hellion were originally just Beasts, and they could have stayed that way.  This didn't stop them from expanding the line to include Iron-Barb Hellion (initially also just a Beast), and it didn't stop them from later deciding that they are actually distinct enough to deserve their own creature type.

I don't think it's necessary to give creatures distinct creature types just in case they could possibly be sufficiently expanded in the future.
I repeat again: Mark Rosewater, who happens to know a thing or two about Magic Design, said that if Atogatog had not happened, none of the later Atogs would have happened. And an Atogatog that eats Beasts is just crap. It just does not resonate as much.

To quote the Article again, with added emphasis:
Luckily my love for Atogs was not alone. While the world reviled the Atog, R&D liked him. So, my pleas were met with much support. So much so that we concocted a plan where we would create an Atog in every color in consecutive sets. which led to an Atog resurgence, which led to Atogatog and the other the multi-color Atogs in Odyssey (including Psychatog). All because of Foratog.



A Lhurgoyf is not identified by it's mechanical Identity (what is teh mechnaicla Identity of Cats, Elves or Snakes?), but by what it is. A lot of Lhurgoyfs share the mechanic, but that is not their sole identifier.

Creative Identity is not mechanical Identity. It makes perfect sense for a Vampire or a Demon to sacrifice other Creature to get stronger. It makes no sense for a Vampire or a Demon to be an Atog.

I don't think it's useful to look at things that happened far later to justify something that didn't have good reason for it at the time.  It's even less useful to posit potential things that could happen in the future to justify something that doesn't seem to have good reason for it now.  That is, something shouldn't be given a distinct creature type on the basis that it could, maybe, in the future become an established tribe.

No love for the Myr, for example? When they were introduced, there were no Lords for them (they all could easily have been Constructs). Only Darksteel had Myr Matrix.

As per your Suggestion, that would have killed teh Myrs, and made them Constructs. No, just No.

While it is nice to get rid of unneeded baggage, granulation (or Detail, or Resolution, if you want) is still needed. Vedalken are not Humans are not Merfolk, even iof they easily could be. But they are not.


That Leonin and other Catpeople are Cats goes right back to Cat Warriors (Savannah Lions were Lions back then). They kept the tradition with Rhinox'es being Rhinos and Elephant people being Elephants.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
I'm not sure what your point is about Atog.

Foratog could have been made an Atog even if Atog wasn't a creature type.  That is, even if both of them were Beasts or whatever, they could still have made the callback via the name, and this would still have allowed the Atog line to be expanded in the future.  I think the example of Hellions was a good one (even though you first brought it up, it completely undermines your argument), but it's not the only one.  The first Mirrodin block had three Fangren creatures, with the Beast creature type.  Scars of Mirrodin block then brought us Fangren Marauder, also just a Beast.  The same happened with Tyrranax vs. Alpha Tyrranax.  And Shards of Alara included leonin creatures that are clearly the same type of thing as those of Mirrodin, even though they're the same creature type as the humble Sanctuary Cat.  And let's not forget all the Time Spiral callbacks, which could be easily identified even without the distinct creature type.

I don't think it's useful to look at things that happened far later to justify something that didn't have good reason for it at the time.  It's even less useful to posit potential things that could happen in the future to justify something that doesn't seem to have good reason for it now.  That is, something shouldn't be given a distinct creature type on the basis that it could, maybe, in the future become an established tribe.
Atogatog could not work without the Creature type.



And "Falcon tamer" won't exist until they split the bird creature type up.

AtogAtog could eat up beasts as much as atogs. There are a few creature types that need to exist for rules reasons (Zubera, flagbearers), but most do not. YOu can get the flavor from name, art, and flavor text. You don't need the creature type as well.

* To be honest, if you are going to have the Atog creature type, you should print some every block or so.
… and then, the squirrels came.
You seem to be suggesting that even now, Atog shouldn't be a creature type.  I disagree.  They have enough of a shared identity that isn't shared with non-Atogs that it's perfectly reasonable to give them their own creature type.  It's only early on that this wouldn't have made sense.

As for the idea that a creature type is only acceptable if it appears every block, that's absurd.  Even if we ignore things like Innistrad's lack of Elves and Goblins, there are many creature types with a thoroughly established identity that nevertheless appear only occasionally.
You seem to be suggesting that even now, Atog shouldn't be a creature type.  I disagree.  They have enough of a shared identity that isn't shared with non-Atogs that it's perfectly reasonable to give them their own creature type.  It's only early on that this wouldn't have made sense.



The Atogs do have a good racial idenity.... I wish creative would remember that they exist.

There are currently 3 cards in standard that could have easily been Atogs, they sacrifice something to give themselves a temporary boost.

Devouring Swarm (Has flying, but maybe some atogs have flying as well.



And ironically:

Ferrovore Ironic because Mirrodin does have Atogs.

As for the idea that a creature type is only acceptable if it appears every block, that's absurd.  Even if we ignore things like Innistrad's lack of Elves and Goblins, there are many creature types with a thoroughly established identity that nevertheless appear only occasionally.



That's why is said "you should print some every block or so." One Atog every two blocks is not an absurd idea. You could skip elves (humans, goblins, whatnot) every other block and that would be fine.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, alot of creature types from Kamigawa would be impratical to bring back (Samurai, Ninja, and Moonfolk), but most races can be brought back on a regular basis and should. I know there are people who love Atogs, who colect Atogs, who loved the Atog cycle, and who want to see more printed.

I know this because I know Werefrog, who loved Frogs, and was annoyed whenever they didn't print a frog (Frogmite). Yes, Vorthos are a small part of the magic community, but We are the ones who care the most about creature types (except maybe for tribal players, who would probably also be happy to have more options for thier tribal deck).

So yes, i'd like for Creative to say "Hey this creature sacrifices soemthing to give itself a temporary boost, I think it should be an Atog. And if you aren't willing to print any new Atogs even when you have the ability to do so, what is the point of having the creature type exist in the first place? To piss people off who really want to finish thier tribal deck? To anger players who actually care about Atogs?

I call this the Lhurgoyf factor, we have this creature type that we don't use anymore, but we keep it around so those cards are basically useless for tribal decks. Yet we continue to print cards that have the Lhurgoyf ability. Either you are still printing Lhurgoyfs or Lhurgoyfs are obsolete.

Then what do you do with obsolete creature types? With the GCTU (great creature type update) obsolete creature types were removed.



… and then, the squirrels came.
Arg, the forum ate my reply and i have no time to retype it!
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Are you saying the forum should also be classified as an Atog?
I think it's clear that a postatog lives here, whether the forum itself is an atog or not.

Also,
I repeat again: Mark Rosewater, who happens to know a thing or two about Magic Design, said that if Atogatog had not happened, none of the later Atogs would have happened. And an Atogatog that eats Beasts is just crap. It just does not resonate as much.

There's only one new atog card that was printed after atogatog. Megatog, though I suppose you could include chronatog totem too... Also, that quote doesn't say anything about atogatog leading to later atogs. It says that the original atog lead to other early atogs and then to atogatog & the other odyssey atogs.
All Generalizations are Bad
Aww - Sorry to hear your reply got chomped DocDoom. I hate when that happens - which has happened to me enough in my life for me to get proactive / preemtive about it.

I make a habit of Copying the entire text of emails / posts, making sure it's in my clipboard (by checking if it pastes in notepad), before clicking submit, lest the Netatog, Cyberatog or what-have-you-atog devours it whole.

I realized that [C]Lava Hounds[/C] seems like it should be an Elemental, what do you guys think?

Like [C]Hound of Griselbrand[/C], [C]Hellfire Mongrel[/C]...

But then I thought, shouldn't [C]Lightning Dragon[/C] and [C]Volcanic Dragon[/C] also be Elementals? I wonder where they draw the line with Elementals. It's very... what's the word I'm looking for? I guess "erratic" as a creature type that doesn't normally hybrid with other types.

There are a few... [C]Valakut Fireboar[/C], [C]Arc Runner[/C], [C]Magmasaur[/C], [C]Hydromorph Gull[/C]. All the Firecats... [C]Pride of the Clouds[/C]... [C]Cinderbones[/C] is funny as the lone Elemental Skeleton.

[C]Thundermare[/C] (which I think should have been called Cindermare), and [C]Timbermare[/C] are Horses now, but how come [C]Spitemare[/C] isn't?

[C]Longhorn Firebeast[/C] (alongside [C]Goretusk Firebeast[/C]) is weird. It was printed with Beast, so now it's an Ox *and* a Beast? Does that even make sense anymore? Elemental Boar Beast... although, I found lots of Beasts that got Boar affixed.

[C]Living Hive[/C] is unique as an Insect Elemental.

Am I the only one who thinks [C]Wood Elemental[/C] looks like a treefolk? I mean, they made [C]Plant Elemental[/C] a Plant Elemental.

I still don't know what a [C]Floral Spuzzem[/C] is supposed to be. Shouldn't it be a Fungus, to join the only Fungus Elemental called... can you guess? [C]Fungus Elemental[/C]!


But anyway, there are more important matters I wanted to discuss here than mere Elementals... Rabbits! * [C]Kezzerdrix[/C] Forever! * :P


I must say, I'm impressed by how some of you can dig up buried yet completely relevant Magicthegathering.com articles.

Good job, and thanks for posting!


BTW, Has anyone found any other creature besides [C]Kjeldoran Skyknight[/C] that errata-dated a creature type (which still exists on other cards), that it was printed with?
[C]Thundermare[/C] (which I think should have been called Cindermare), and [C]Timbermare[/C] are Horses now, but how come [C]Spitemare[/C] isn't?


Because it's from Lorwyn (well, Shadowmoor, same thing). They decided not to give the greater elementals animal creature types even though many of them resemble animals. Crackleburr isn't a Fox, Offalsnout isn't a Boar, and Slithermuse isn't a Snake.
blah blah metal lyrics
Sign In to post comments