On creature type errata: what really gets me going in a bad way is that they decide not to use efreet as a type anymore and instead use djinn going forward (which is fine, good even), but then don't errata the older efreet to be djinn now while they're errataing a bunch of other creatures. The old ones are still still efreet! And apparantly the dragons from Kaladesh are now cat dragons. Great! But they will add cat to a handful of dragons and sloth to three cards, but refuse to make \[\[dogged detective\]\] a detective?
I know this is silly to get worked up over but come on man
Its not silly to get worked up over inconsistent application of these creature type updates. Magic is a game built on its strict rules system. It should always try and make rules changes in the most consistent way possible to minimize confusion over rules.
Actually kinda sad to see Cephalid go. I enjoy Magic’s unique weird creature types. And if I’m building a flavorful typal deck, I have no real interest in using the humanoids anyway (no Aven in my Birds deck), so it doesn’t gain me much. Rather see more occasional niche cards to expand weird tribes, than just lump a bunch together. I get this may not be a common opinion, though
I think there’s an argument to be made either way, and this isn’t a place where “one size fits all” works very well.
Certain creature types *should* stay separate and niche. Dauthi don’t need to be folded into Horrors, Mongers don’t need to become Incarnations.
But with some types, namely the “animal people” types, it just makes sense to fold them in. What makes a Cephalid further from an Octopus than a Nezumi is from a rat? Why are Orochi Snakes but Nagas aren’t? Streamlining them allows for rare types to see support without needing all of the lore baggage of porting them from world to world.
>Dauthi don't need to be folded into Horrors
that's correct, because they should be folded into *spirits*
edit: scratch that, make them *shades* because I totally forgot we have *shades*
I do get that argument, and I’m not fully sure why they feel different for me. Maybe it’s mixing sapient and non-sapient races? Though I don’t actually mind Nagas as Snakes, which is inconsistent of me
I think it's because Naga was a relatively recent addition that felt weird, because we already had less snakey snake people as Snakes, and it's not a magic original term.
It was also talked about a lot during Tarkir - snake was a supported creature type in Kamigawa, there was a handful of cards that very explicitly looked for snakes. It was really weird when we went to another plane that also had snake people but…. They didn’t count as snakes.
Basically if I’m gonna be allowed to mix Ixalan, Dominaria and Ravnica goblins in a deck, why am I not allowed to do the same for other creature types?
I feel it only really matters if your tribe has some form of cohesion. It’s fine that Brushwagg is its own type, there’s like 4 of them, and the only card that references it is a joke card. But if a bunch of Merfolk were instead, idk, Atlanteans, there’d be a ton of “Why are these ones different?”
Totally agreed, this is all an issue of taxonomy and heuristics at the end of the day.
Cephalids, Viashino, and more still exist in lore, but changes like these allow players to build stronger and more cohesive kindred decks around them.
Exactly.
Yugioh treats all Whales as fish, and all Spiders as insects 😂
Sure it's pretty biologically insulting, but in terms of gameplay it makes those whales and spiders massively more supported than if they had their own unique subset.
I could see that problem being resolved by revisiting various planes in new sets to bring back/introduce more of the less common creature types. I think that makes deck building interesting because it almost encourages you to think about how cohesive a creature type is versus spamming all the known good cards in one deck with an oddball older card.
The main thing that makes me feel conflicted with my above thought is that changing the types on older cards does increase the playability for older collections.
Glad they exist lore-wise, would love to see more lore on them. Hopefully this encourages that artistic direction.
I do feel this opens an interesting conversation around things like
- Are Snakes Lizards?
- Are Dragons Lizards?
- Are Serpents Snakes?
And other cladistics
I'm sitting here hoping for Wurm and Worm to eventually merge. I get that Wurm is fundamentally different but has evolved to basically mean the same thing in art...a worm-like monstrosity.
They seem to be better at making sure that wurms on new planes are at least somewhat draconic (i.e. [[Beanstalk Wurm]]), so we don't end up the those big worms that Ravnica calls Wums.
I think with all the UB stuff, it's a weird time to be collapsing down Magic's internal creature types.
Cephalids are cool, and it's a cool type line, and if they have to be Octopuses, then Halfling should be Kithkin, Necrons should be Zombie Robots, and Astartes should be humans.
squid humans being lumped in with octopus seems is a hell of a bigger stretch than wolves being dogs, yet they're still two separate types. I don't undersna d this one
I must pop in to say it’s VERY Simic of him to try to be a Merfolk, think “needs more fish”, and convince himself he succeeded beyond being a wet blue dude with gills now
And they’re also not what I’m talking about.
By “animal people”, I mean “creatures with no identity other than ‘person that looks like [insert animal]”, not any humanoid with animal features.
Satyrs and Centaurs have human upper halves and are based in Greek mythology. Merfolk have a much wider mythological basis and an even wider variety of expressions across the various planes.
But Nezumi aren’t based on any mythological rat-people, and Nagas in MTG bear basically no resemblance to the kind that you find in the mythology that their name comes from, they’re just snake people. These are the ones I’m saying don’t need their own type.
I actually disagree here. On the most basic level, they’re both races defined by being short, yes, but there’s actually a lot going on with each one that isn’t with the other:
Kithkin are often militaristic, halflings rarely are. Magic is widely practiced by Kithkin, while hobbits avoid it. Kithkin create elaborate mechanical devices, hobbits don’t. That’s not even getting into all the weird-looking Shadowmoor Kithkin.
That's specific to Lorwyn/Shadowmoor kithkin, and not inherent to all kithkin (Dominarian kithkin don't have the Thoughtweft, for example). Much like not all merfolk have legs; Lowyn/Shadowmoor merrows have tails, but Theros tritons and Zendikar merfolk have legs. Some Dominaria merfolk can switch between tails and legs. But they're all still merfolk.
Those are all cultural differences no greater than the differences between, say, Kamigawa's akki goblins, and Ixalan's blue monkey goblins. They're both still goblins.
Those all seem to be behavioral differences, not biological. Birds and rats and goblins and humans all vary wildly across (or even within) planes from a behavioral perspective. Biologically they are more or less the same, and grouping them together is way better for gameplay than making them distinct.
I mean why do merfolk, elves, and goblins get to look, act, and be different between realms but halfling do not.
I also want to double down now that I see you mentioned hobbit which is only one kind of halfling, the halflings from the sword coast can and often do use magic
>What makes a Cephalid further from an Octopus than a Nezumi is from a rat? Why are Orochi Snakes but Nagas aren’t?
Y'see, all that Phyrexian invasion vivisection was really about taxonomies and the study of speciation
I would be inclined to differentiate the humanoids from the animals somehow. If "human" wasn't already such a significant type, retyping "Naga" to "Human Snake" and similar would've been ideal.
Instead, I'd rather see more batching. "Outlaws" includes "Assassin", "Mercenary", "Pirate", "Rogue" and "Warlock". Why shouldn't "Cephalid" and "Octopus", "Naga" and "Snake" etc be grouped similarly - call them "Octopodes" and "Serpents" or something.
I'm of the opinion that they should all be separated, the anthropomorphic magical creatures should be their own creature type so we would have loxadon, rhox, celphildid, leonin, Vashino etc. and the big problem with nagas was that we already had a orochi, so instead of turning them all into snakes we should have turned them all into orochi or Naga.
They are cool! But I like them as their own thing. My Birds deck wants to run nice birds, not feathered humans. But I’m not trying to get rid of Aven, and would support Aven typal as it’s own thing
That's fair, but I don't think that's typical of most animal typal players, and for the small group like yourself that wants to there's still nothing stopping you. Just cause they say bird doesn't mean you're obligated to run them if you want just normal birds in your deck
I agree for the most part but I actually hate that these changes can't be visually represented and think it leads to an odd place. If something says it affects all Birds and I have a creature out with only type Aven it is affected but its not inherently so without oricle text. Like that's negative overall for the game right? When you look at my board I have a lord buffing a creature that doesn't say the type? This is why I don't run [[Soraya the Falconer]] in my birds deck and I think that's a poor example compared to these newer changes.
I can see both sides. On one hand, it makes sense to have both bird people and non-people birds in the same deck, since they're both birds. On the other, it would make sense for the people version to have a different feel from the non-people version.
Another thing to consider, as far as "typical" attitudes go, I assume, is that mixing aven and non-aven might be out of necessity as much as desire. For example, if you wanted to make a [[Kangee]] bird tribal deck, about 116/283 of your options are aven. And while 167 non-aven might sound like a lot, you'll swiftly be struggling to find enough cool ones to fill the deck out. So if you like aven, you gotta spring for some non-aven, and vice-versa. In that sense, both sides could be served just as well with twice as many of their respective options, but it's impossible to tell if that could be a solution or if there would indeed be a bigger number that wouldn't want to be restricted between them even then.
I think the biggest thing is that it makes sense to make it consistent. It didn't make sense before that Cephalids, Viashino, and Naga had their own creature type, but other animal races like Leonin, Loxodons, Amonkhet's jackal people, Aven, etc. used the animal creature type. The separation seemed to be very arbitrary and just based on whatever they happened to do when they made the set, not based on any real pattern.
So it makes sense to unify them and either give all animal people their own creature type, or give all of them the animal creature type. Since the majority use the animal creature type, some of the ones that use the animal type have heavy tribal support and would require either a lot of errata or would disrupt a lot of existing decks (e.g. a lot of people have cat decks that would need to be completely rebuilt if leonin were no longer cats, unless they errata'd all cat creature types to also apply to leonin), going with the animal type is the clear correct solution.
Also, while you're a purist who doesn't like humanoids in your animal tribal deck, there certainly are people who don't mind mixing them together. In the end, this gives people who like using both in their tribal decks more options, and doesn't stop people from building things like viashino decks that don't include regular lizards or vice versa if they prefer that.
Wait so squids are still squids? Probably could have grouped them all into Cephalopods or something so it’s not so strange seeing the two exist again.
Now where is my ocean plane where the Octopus people and Squid people are at war with each other.
I think no one would've bat an eye of Cephalids would've been Octopus from the start, so while I'm nostalgic for the creature type, this is just an all around good move
I mean I kind of agree with you but on the plus side, this means that this certain group of niche cards that specify octopuses like some of the kioras now work with cephalids, right? So that's good!
It's frankly consolidation for legacy creature types. In the last 20 years, only 8 cephalids were printed, and they were in one recent set. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't consolidated earlier once I realized before New Capenna, new Cephalids hadn't been made since Onslaught Block.
no im glad. now i can build janky tribal based arround one of my favorite animals without having to exclude mythic sentient creatures that are obviously cephalopods just because their typeline says they are something different so they can behefit from door of destiny, vanquishers banner, etc
[[Cephalid Scout]] being a Cephalid Octopus Wizard Scout probably wouldn't fit on the type line. As an example. Legendary also uses a ton of line space, so legends would struggle to fit a class on there.
It's a nice concept, if magic cards had more room for types.
Yeah, I guess it's better that they're finally picking a side instead of trying to have it both ways but still another piece of Magic history homogenized
> 702.11g “Hexproof from each [characteristic]” is shorthand for “hexproof from [quality A],” “hexproof from [quality B],” and so on for each possible quality the listed characteristic could have; it behaves as multiple separate hexproof abilities.
This rule means "Hexproof from each color" is actually five abilities. "Hexproof from white, hexproof from blue, hexproof from black, hexproof from red, and hexproof from green".
This means that when Kathril sees breaker of creation in your graveyard, you can divide up those five abilities among whatever creatures you like rather than having to give them all to the same creature and Kathril gets five +1/+1 counters. And with Indominus Rex, it enters with a "hexproof from" counter for each of those colors, meaning you'll draw five cards.
Does it work like that though? Is “Hexproof from” a different ability than “Hexproof”. So would Kathril and Indominis Rex not care about it at all? Similar to how “Banding” is separate from “Bands with”; see [[Shelkin Brownie]].
It does work like that, yeah. Here's the relevant ruling from kathril
> If cards in your graveyard have multiple hexproof abilities (such as hexproof, hexproof from white, and hexproof from black), a counter of each variant kind will be put onto a creature.
(This also applies to Trample over planeswalkers)
"Hexproof from each color" is actually:
Hexproof from white
Hexproof from blue
Hexproof from black
Hexproof from red
Hexproof from green
Which are all distinct variants of Hexproof that will get counted separately for Kathril* and Indominus.
I've never heard of this before, this is neat, especially since the rules updates aren't nearly as public as they used to be.
Though now I'm curious, where's the source stating that they are now Octopi?
Huh. The Cephalid to Octopus change was unexpected, but not unwelcome. [[Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor]] suddenly goes from completely unplayable to mildly unplayable, and fun new toys for Kenessos and Kiora.
Interesting that Six caused retrace to get its rules updated when [[Deeproot Historian]] was printed like six months ago. I’m guessing they just glossed over and forgot about it when it was printed and someone only now noticed it with Six
I mean, it's not like they're removing all of Magic's unique creature types. We still have Brushwagg, Vedalken, Phyrexian, Eldrazi, Sliver etc.
Viashino and Cephalid are just being changed to make them consistent with how they handle Leonin, Loxodon, Aven and all the other anthro animal species.
I'll admit, I'm a little disappointed because I felt like having a few weird exceptions grandfathered in from the early days did add a bit of charm to the game, but it's not a big deal.
No, because Minotaur, Merfolk and Satyr (and uh, technically Centaurs I suppose) are exceptions because they're existing things from mythology. This was originally the exception they applied to Naga, but "snake person" isn't an accurate description of mythological Naga so they got changed to Snake.
Magic's rule since the advent of the race/class model of creature types was that anthro animal species **that were made up for Magic** are given the animal type as their race. By all rights, Viashino and Cephalid (and Homarid) should fall under that policy, but had been left alone because they predated the change. They were grandfathered in, but modern WotC has revisited it and changed their minds.
Considering that the only Lobster in the game is currently [[Rock Lobster]], they might just choose to keep Homarid and not make any non-sapient Lobsters, keeping them to just Crabs for non-sapient shellfish.
See, my assumption was that they would use Crab in place of Homarid.
Somebody asked Mark on his blog, [and he seems to think that it's a matter of time before Homarid gets changed too.](https://www.tumblr.com/markrosewater/753019561413050368/in-the-new-update-cephalids-have-become-octopi)
I think Homarids are too ironically popular and unused to be changed. I don't think we will see Lobster cards in the future. Cephalids were a band aid to try to "fix merfolk" and immediately thrown to the wayside. I think it was a case of them going down all the creature types of "sentient animals" before Bloomburrow came out, as there are probably lizards in there, and snakes, and maybe even octopi.
And Lobster isn't currently a (black-border) type, so the most accurate type to swap Homarids to doesn't actually exist yet; they *could* do a Hound -> Dog thing and turn Homarids into the only currently-existing Lobster cards, but if it's just lateral movement why bother?
Yeah. Probably if we ever do get (black-border) lobsters they'll update homarids but for now there's no point. And snag Camarids into lobster too while we're at it, why do baby homarids get a separate creature type? (Though personally I'd wish lobsters, homarids, and camarids to all be crabs)
While true, WotC has chosen to group creatures into types they don't really fit before so that they didn't have to make a new one. [[Giant Solifuge]] always comes to my mind; Insect has been a haven for pretty much any non-Scorpion, non-Spider bug for a while now, even if they definitely *aren't* insects.
Magic has unique types. Vedalken and Eldrazi certainly aren't going anywhere. But cephalids being octopi in the typeline is no worse than aven being birds in the typeline. And the latter is much better gameplay, and more future proofed. You don't want to commit to every new animal person needing its own type and it's better to be consistent.
And like, they're still called cephalids and viashinos in lore, just not in typeline. I don't think it's really a flavor loss to go from "What's a cephalid? Well this art looks kinda octopuslike, i guess it's an octopus person" to "What's a cephalid? Well the typeline says octopus and the art looks kinda octopuslike, i guess it's an octopus person"
Say you open the most recent Cephalid, [[Omen Hawker]]. At what point do you say "What's a Cephalid"? Only when you read the type line. Same with [[Tin-Street Gossip]] and [[Deepmuck Desperado]].
The type line is (was) the consistent place for a player to learn about these identities.
Okay, on some you don't, you're right. It's still not a big deal. You'll go "oh it's an octopus person" and then hopefully later you come across another octopus person that's called a cephalid and go "oh i guess this is a cephalid too". Not every aven tells you it's an aven. Not every red human from mirrodin tells you it's a vulshok. The typeline doesn't need to represent the entire cultural identity. Every magic card gives you only pieces of the lore like "this world has octopus people" that you have to put together. That's how worldbuilding works in a randomized card medium.
Like, is there any reason it's more important that cephalid be a typeline separate from octopus than it is that loxodon be a typeline separate from elephant or rhox be a typeline separate from rhino other than that happened to be how they did it at first? Or do you think all the other animalfolk species *should* get their own separate creature types? Cause if so, that's a lot of new types for very minimal gain flavorfully and worse gameplay mechanically. (Cause for the most part, people who want to play a rhino deck would rather have the options of both normal rhinos and rhox than only rhinos, and for the few who don't... you can still just do that. Just apply that limit to yourself.)
I do think those should get their own type. I don't think "make sure there's enough for a rhino deck" is an important concern. That same reasoning would lead us to fold Rhino into Beast.
Beast has generally been used as "undefined big mammal animal", so Rhino could kinda fit.
The problem is that when you start fragmenting types into more "lore accurate types" then you end up with typlines as "Creature {-} Vulshok Human Warrior" which is long and redundant, since there will be very few cards that care about Vulshoks and, due to its specificty, you can't print as many cards to support them as you can with humans.
There is no mechanicaò point in adding this kinds of super specific species/races to the typeline, to convey it we already have the names, the flavor texts, the arts and even watermarks.
But what is the gameplay advantage in doing that? The typeline is part of the game piece, so every word should be as useful as possible.
If the type is "Rhox Cleric" then that card can interact with all the cards that care about clerics and about rhoxes. But, if it's "Rhino Cleric" then it can interact with all the cards that care about clerics, rhoxes and unrelated rhinos, it also gives the card more reprint potential in a set that doesn't feature rhoxes but that does feature some other form of rhinos.
Should all merfolks from Theors be errated to be tritons too? Should we ditch the goblin type and have like 15 different types for goblins of different places?
Flavor has it's place in a card but mechanics need to always come first, this is a game, not a storytelling system and I'm saying this as a Vorthos.
I don't think "maximize the number of cards this interacts with" is the same as producing good gameplay. Would Magic be a better game if we combined all of these different types into "Animal"?
The gameplay benefit of changing Cephalid to Octopus is basically zero. If there was some great need to have an Aboshan-like effect for the Octopus type, they could have easily just printed one.
>Would Magic be a better game if we combined all of these different types into "Animal"?
Obviously the objective shouldn't be that every card can interact with everything. It's a bell curve, to little interactivity between game pieces is bad, too much is also bad, an appropriate amount is good. The problem with niche lore creature types is that they don't interact with anything, they are as good as flavor text, where that information should be (or in the name), and in its place we can put a word that has some actual gameplay meaning.
>The gameplay benefit of changing Cephalid to Octopus is basically zero.
I mean, there are like 8 cards that interact with marine monsters and that know can interact with Cephalids too.
But also know they can print new cephalids and new supports to marine beasts tribe and support both at the same time. To me it seems more for the sake of coherence and future proofing.
>Not every aven tells you it's an aven.
Not to mention that not every bird-person is an aven, so being able to group them all together anyway is useful. Jund vulture-people are "kathari", Arcavios owl-people are "owlins". Similar to how some planes have different "cultural" names for merfolk or goblins
Yeah. Imagine if every Eldrazi needed to shove “Ulamog-Brood” or “Kozilek-Brood” into the type line, or if every vampire had their bloodline as a type. It might lead to flavorful type-based decks, but it would also lead to bloated type lines that are harder to parse at a glance and harder to memorize.
Previously, tribal was used to describe two different things: the card type Tribal, and cards that care about a specific creature type, tribal.
The card type Tribal has been renamed to Kindred.
The cards that care about a specific creature type has now been called typal by R&D. It's not a term in the game, just what they use to describe those cards.
Oh I get that mechanically it’s a strict upgrade. But the point of having a cephalid deck was that it was unique, not that is was powerful or synergistic.
I was also being hyperbolic. 😅 Definitely ordered a Whelming Wave and Quest for Ula’s Temple today.
Yeah, with a deck that niche [this many new cards](https://scryfall.com/search?q=id%3AU+%28t%3Aoctopus+or+otag%3Atribal-octopus%29+f%3Acommander&unique=cards&as=grid&order=edhrec) is a huge boon
Caphalid seems overdue considering they are part of a silly flavor thing WoTC tried for awhile because "Merfolk don't have legs how can we do Merfolk" or something like that. No cards care about the type anyway.
Ah yeah. It also is funny we didn't notice until here because its such a unused type. It seems like a mistake they should have corrected awhile ago. Sentient types of an animal don't get their own creature type...except for the three they changed. (I also imagine Bloomburrow had a big part in them looking down the history of "sentient animal" types)
Those are different. Those creatures aren’t just anthropomorphic animals, they have their own traits and mythology.
In the case of Merfolk and Satyrs, there’s the fact that half of them is human-shaped. And with Merfolk, what the other half of them is varies widely: some MTG merfolk even have legs.
In the case of Minotaurs, they’re mythical creatures who have traits not associated with cows, (or Oxen, as they’re typed in MTG). They’re known for their aggression and penchant for violence.
My point isn’t that Merfolk being varied inherently justifies them not being Fish, it’s that the idea of what a Merfolk is is wholly separate thing from being a Fish.
But that’s not the case for Cephalids. In both incarnations, the entire philosophy for them is “cephalopod humanoid”. Even if they’re more human-like in New Capenna, the main design philosophy is the same.
Naga aside, those are all very evocative creature types. A goat in bloomburrow would never be a Satyr. A sentient fish in bloomburrow would never be a merfolk. An ox in bloomburrow would never be a Minotaur.
Naga vs Snake was kind of always a confusing disctinction, Cephalid was a dead creature type, and Viashino was also.
I think it was more part of the odyssey block attempt to get away from the stereotypical creatures from each color at the time
Cephalids instead of merfolk
Dwarves instead of goblins
Nantuko insects instead of elves
And i cant remember black and white. Clerics?
As a Kithkin enjoyer and someone who has played with them in standard (hitting a [[mirrorweave]] with [[windbrisk heights]] will never not be fun) I really hope they similarly turn them into halflings by the time we go back to Lorwyn.
Yeah, Kithkin are in a weird spot. When they were just the mtg little people it was fine, but them we got halflings. Then Hobbits as halflings. So now we just got the 3 little people races that are effectively the same but only two of them are actually mechanically the same
> Then Hobbits as halflings.
I mean, at what point do we acknowledge that the only reason "halfling" exists in the popular consciousness is because TSR didn't want to get sued by the Tolkien estate? "Halfling" and "hobbit" is a distinction without a difference.
Yeah i agree. I'd be fine with folding kithkin into halfling or vice versa, i don't particularly care which, but it seems weird that they're separate types. Same with azra and tiefling
Surprised not to see a rules update that covers \[\[Satya, Aetherflux Genius\]\]'s ability producing multiple tokens with a replacement effect and how to calculate the delayed trigger energy payment. The most relevant rule CR 607.3 is explicitly about linked abilities that exile cards.
The rules don't need an update and that rule doesn't cover Satya at all because it's not a linked ability. Linked abilities have one ability do an action, and have another that care about _what that action did_. (Also, there is a rule that cares about linked abilities that make tokens, and its 607.2c. Abilities that follow this rule need to use the words "created with [this object]."
Her ability sets up a _delayed trigger_ that does something to the tokens she created. When you double those tokens, the single delayed trigger she creates affects both of the tokens, and you would have to pay their combined mana value of {E} to keep them.
>603.7c A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. See rule 400.7.)
With doubling season, her ability reads
>Whenever Satya, Aetherflux Genius attacks, create ~~a~~ **two** tapped and attacking token**s** that~~’s~~ are **a copy** of up to one other target nontoken creature you control. You get {E}{E} (two energy counters). At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice ~~that~~ **those** token**s** unless you pay an amount of {E} equal to ~~its~~ **their** mana values.
This has already been seen on cards that create tokens and do things to those tokens.
[[Body of Research]] creates two tokens and puts X counters on each of them.
Satya's interaction is new. That's why I said "the most relevant rule"; because there is no applicable rule. There are no other cards that create a token and then have a delayed ability that references a quality of that token to define the value of a variable within that ability. Body of Research does not do this. 603.7c does not cover this. The translation of the ability to account for the replacement effect is ambiguous. The logic of summing values when an ability receives multiple answers is specified in exactly three very specific places:
>607.3. If, within a pair of linked abilities, one ability refers to a single object as “the exiled card,” “a card exiled with \[this card\],” or a similar phrase, and the other ability has exiled multiple cards (usually because it was copied), the ability refers to each of the exiled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the exiled card, such as a characteristic or mana value, it gets multiple answers. **If these answers are used to determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used.** If that ability performs any actions on “the” card, it performs that action on each exiled card. If that ability creates a token that is a copy of “the” card, then for each exiled card, it creates a token that is a copy of that card. If that ability performs any actions on “a” card, the controller of the ability chooses which card is affected.
>701.13d If an ability checks information about a single milled card but more than one card was milled, that ability refers to each of the milled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the milled card, such as a characteristic or mana value, it gets multiple answers. **If these answers are used to determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used.** If that ability performs any actions on “the” card, it performs that action on each milled card. If that ability performs any actions on “a” card, the controller of the ability chooses which card is affected.
>712.8g While the two cards of a meld pair are on the battlefield as a melded permanent, the object represented by those cards has only the characteristics of the combined back face, and **its mana value is the sum of the mana values of its front faces**. If a permanent is copying a melded permanent, the mana value of the copy is 0. See rule 202.3c.
That's it. There's no generic rule for this kind of thing. I fully expect that it works this way, but I'm surprised that there wasn't an update to explicitly define how it.
>302.3: The rule that creature types are always one word was changed to "usually" to properly accommodate Time Lords.
Is this the first time the rules have had to change because of UB?
In a way, UB has introduced more rule changes than the general set.
- The Walking Dead introduces a new predefined token (Walker token), which happens to be the first (and so far only) predefined creature token.
- Transformers introduces the word convert, which is for all purposes identical to transform. They even added rules such as "if a card instructs you to transform something, it also counts as converting that thing as appropriate".
- LOTR introduces the first named emblem (The Ring). This modifies some existing emblem rules, such as a general "emblems have no name" into "*most* emblems have no name".
- As you said, Doctor Who introduces the first two-word creature type.
- Fallout introduces rad counters, which is quite unlike many things already present in the game that it gets an entire CR section (CR 725).
By the way, there is one rule change they forgot:
700.9. Some cards refer to modified creatures. A creature is modified if it has one or more counters on it (see rule 122), if it is equipped (see rule 301.5), or if it is enchanted by an Aura that is controlled by that creature’s controller. (see rule 303.4). If an ability of a permanent checks to see whether that permanent is modified, the answer is always no if that permanent isn’t a currently a creature.
They should really change the part that only creature can be modified since \[\[Pearl-Ear, Imperial Advisor\]\] refers to "modified permanents".
Probably more boon than nerf tbh. Now you can play ex-cephalids in your deck that already wanted whelming wave or play wave in your cephalid typal deck if you play [[Aboshan]] and i think that's a lot more likely a benefit than the downside of encountering a random cephalid in the wild
Not gonna lie, I absolutely despise them making creature types bland like this. Just another piece of what makes magic unique and lore-rich disappearing. I understand the mechanical need or ease it creates but it's just sad to me still
I really wish it was the opposite and they kept animals and animalfolk MORE distinct. Leonin vs Cat, Cephalid vs Octopus, Rhox vs Rhino, Loxodon vs Elephant, Aven vs Bird.... It feels so weird to me to consider them the same when mtg has distinctions for Soldiers, Knights, Warriors, Rogues, Scouts etc :/ They also prioritize keeping stuff that is "traditional" mythology like satyrs vs goats, horses vs unicorns
On the same hand!!! Why don't they fold together octopus and squid if they're gonna cull Cephalids? RIP Chasm Skulker
>302.3: The rule that creature types are always one word was changed to "usually" to properly accommodate Time Lords.
Calling it now. This is preemptive so they can do "Super Hero" and "Super Villain" when Marvel comes
I think the naga and viashino think make sense with bloomburrow likely having lizards (and maybe, though unlikely, snakes) as themes. Cephalids feel odd though. I wonder if they are testing the waters before a possible major overhaul of "redundant" types that can be represented by other types.
Sad to see the more unique creature types go but at the same time glad to see some of these cards may get to see some real play now in kindred decks, can't really say Ive ever seen a Viashino deck
Well, the reason is simply that this is not how Doctor Who spells the name. It's similar to why Transformers cards "convert" instead of "transform" -- if the rights holder doesn't want to use a specific term or requires a particular spelling, Wizards have to take that into account. Note, for example, that Warhammer 40K and LotR cards consistently use the spelling "Grey" (\[\[Gandalf the Grey\]\], \[\[Grey Knight Paragon\]\], \[\[Soldier of the Grey Host\]\]) while "regular" Magic cards use "Gray" (\[\[Gray Harbor Merfolk\]\], \[\[Gray Merchant of Asphodel\]\], \[\[Graypelt Refuge\]\]).
It sucks to see more unique and different names for creature types get folded into generic animal types, but it makes mechanical sense, technically makes both tribes more powerful, and flavor-wise, I think it will be fine as long as they keep using the fantasy name in the card name when appropriate. That way, they can have the flavor of the interesting "anthropomorphized animal" name but the mechanical robustness of being kindered with their regular animal counterpart.
I get that they are trying to aggregate creature types for playability/simplicity, but there's so much charm in the fringe types that I hope doesn't continue to be eroded.
Basically that "hexproof from each color" on \[\[Breaker of Creation\]\] is a shortcut that really means "hexproof from white", "hexproof from blue", etc.
On creature type errata: what really gets me going in a bad way is that they decide not to use efreet as a type anymore and instead use djinn going forward (which is fine, good even), but then don't errata the older efreet to be djinn now while they're errataing a bunch of other creatures. The old ones are still still efreet! And apparantly the dragons from Kaladesh are now cat dragons. Great! But they will add cat to a handful of dragons and sloth to three cards, but refuse to make \[\[dogged detective\]\] a detective? I know this is silly to get worked up over but come on man
[dogged detective](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/7/57d1f729-0d7c-4122-9bca-f3b08cf6fe4f.jpg?1706240758) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=dogged%20detective) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/127/dogged-detective?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/57d1f729-0d7c-4122-9bca-f3b08cf6fe4f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Bro's not even a dog!
If they make a 'detective dogged' card thats a dog detective in bloomburrow all will be right with the multiverse
Its not silly to get worked up over inconsistent application of these creature type updates. Magic is a game built on its strict rules system. It should always try and make rules changes in the most consistent way possible to minimize confusion over rules.
What dragons got changed to cat dragons? The Companion app doesn’t list more than 2 for me and neither are from Kaladesh.
Actually kinda sad to see Cephalid go. I enjoy Magic’s unique weird creature types. And if I’m building a flavorful typal deck, I have no real interest in using the humanoids anyway (no Aven in my Birds deck), so it doesn’t gain me much. Rather see more occasional niche cards to expand weird tribes, than just lump a bunch together. I get this may not be a common opinion, though
I think there’s an argument to be made either way, and this isn’t a place where “one size fits all” works very well. Certain creature types *should* stay separate and niche. Dauthi don’t need to be folded into Horrors, Mongers don’t need to become Incarnations. But with some types, namely the “animal people” types, it just makes sense to fold them in. What makes a Cephalid further from an Octopus than a Nezumi is from a rat? Why are Orochi Snakes but Nagas aren’t? Streamlining them allows for rare types to see support without needing all of the lore baggage of porting them from world to world.
>Dauthi don't need to be folded into Horrors that's correct, because they should be folded into *spirits* edit: scratch that, make them *shades* because I totally forgot we have *shades*
We have shades *for now*.
thats exactly where im going with this haha
I do get that argument, and I’m not fully sure why they feel different for me. Maybe it’s mixing sapient and non-sapient races? Though I don’t actually mind Nagas as Snakes, which is inconsistent of me
I think it's because Naga was a relatively recent addition that felt weird, because we already had less snakey snake people as Snakes, and it's not a magic original term.
It was also talked about a lot during Tarkir - snake was a supported creature type in Kamigawa, there was a handful of cards that very explicitly looked for snakes. It was really weird when we went to another plane that also had snake people but…. They didn’t count as snakes. Basically if I’m gonna be allowed to mix Ixalan, Dominaria and Ravnica goblins in a deck, why am I not allowed to do the same for other creature types? I feel it only really matters if your tribe has some form of cohesion. It’s fine that Brushwagg is its own type, there’s like 4 of them, and the only card that references it is a joke card. But if a bunch of Merfolk were instead, idk, Atlanteans, there’d be a ton of “Why are these ones different?”
Totally agreed, this is all an issue of taxonomy and heuristics at the end of the day. Cephalids, Viashino, and more still exist in lore, but changes like these allow players to build stronger and more cohesive kindred decks around them.
Exactly. Yugioh treats all Whales as fish, and all Spiders as insects 😂 Sure it's pretty biologically insulting, but in terms of gameplay it makes those whales and spiders massively more supported than if they had their own unique subset.
Nuh uh. One or two are Sea-Serpents.
I could see that problem being resolved by revisiting various planes in new sets to bring back/introduce more of the less common creature types. I think that makes deck building interesting because it almost encourages you to think about how cohesive a creature type is versus spamming all the known good cards in one deck with an oddball older card. The main thing that makes me feel conflicted with my above thought is that changing the types on older cards does increase the playability for older collections. Glad they exist lore-wise, would love to see more lore on them. Hopefully this encourages that artistic direction.
I do feel this opens an interesting conversation around things like - Are Snakes Lizards? - Are Dragons Lizards? - Are Serpents Snakes? And other cladistics
I'm sitting here hoping for Wurm and Worm to eventually merge. I get that Wurm is fundamentally different but has evolved to basically mean the same thing in art...a worm-like monstrosity.
They seem to be better at making sure that wurms on new planes are at least somewhat draconic (i.e. [[Beanstalk Wurm]]), so we don't end up the those big worms that Ravnica calls Wums.
I think with all the UB stuff, it's a weird time to be collapsing down Magic's internal creature types. Cephalids are cool, and it's a cool type line, and if they have to be Octopuses, then Halfling should be Kithkin, Necrons should be Zombie Robots, and Astartes should be humans.
squid humans being lumped in with octopus seems is a hell of a bigger stretch than wolves being dogs, yet they're still two separate types. I don't undersna d this one
but satyrs aren't goats and merfolk aren't fish and centaurs aren't horses
I will never forgive WOTC for making [[Morska, Undersea Sleuth]] a Vedalken Fish instead of a Merfolk.
I must pop in to say it’s VERY Simic of him to try to be a Merfolk, think “needs more fish”, and convince himself he succeeded beyond being a wet blue dude with gills now
Simic creatures have to have two species in their type line.
Could have been a vedalken merfolk
And they’re also not what I’m talking about. By “animal people”, I mean “creatures with no identity other than ‘person that looks like [insert animal]”, not any humanoid with animal features. Satyrs and Centaurs have human upper halves and are based in Greek mythology. Merfolk have a much wider mythological basis and an even wider variety of expressions across the various planes. But Nezumi aren’t based on any mythological rat-people, and Nagas in MTG bear basically no resemblance to the kind that you find in the mythology that their name comes from, they’re just snake people. These are the ones I’m saying don’t need their own type.
But kithkin should be halflings
I actually disagree here. On the most basic level, they’re both races defined by being short, yes, but there’s actually a lot going on with each one that isn’t with the other: Kithkin are often militaristic, halflings rarely are. Magic is widely practiced by Kithkin, while hobbits avoid it. Kithkin create elaborate mechanical devices, hobbits don’t. That’s not even getting into all the weird-looking Shadowmoor Kithkin.
Not to mention the Thoughtweft. I refuse to let such a big part of Lorwyn's identity be erased.
That's specific to Lorwyn/Shadowmoor kithkin, and not inherent to all kithkin (Dominarian kithkin don't have the Thoughtweft, for example). Much like not all merfolk have legs; Lowyn/Shadowmoor merrows have tails, but Theros tritons and Zendikar merfolk have legs. Some Dominaria merfolk can switch between tails and legs. But they're all still merfolk.
Those are all cultural differences no greater than the differences between, say, Kamigawa's akki goblins, and Ixalan's blue monkey goblins. They're both still goblins.
Speaking of Ixalan's goblins, the deep gobs and monkey gobs are not biologically related.
Good point! Two entirely different species on one plane, yet both still goblins.
Those all seem to be behavioral differences, not biological. Birds and rats and goblins and humans all vary wildly across (or even within) planes from a behavioral perspective. Biologically they are more or less the same, and grouping them together is way better for gameplay than making them distinct.
I mean why do merfolk, elves, and goblins get to look, act, and be different between realms but halfling do not. I also want to double down now that I see you mentioned hobbit which is only one kind of halfling, the halflings from the sword coast can and often do use magic
The existence of the wide array of goblins across the multiverse kinda discredits your whole argument here.
You're being deeply inconsistent.
>What makes a Cephalid further from an Octopus than a Nezumi is from a rat? Why are Orochi Snakes but Nagas aren’t? Y'see, all that Phyrexian invasion vivisection was really about taxonomies and the study of speciation
I would be inclined to differentiate the humanoids from the animals somehow. If "human" wasn't already such a significant type, retyping "Naga" to "Human Snake" and similar would've been ideal. Instead, I'd rather see more batching. "Outlaws" includes "Assassin", "Mercenary", "Pirate", "Rogue" and "Warlock". Why shouldn't "Cephalid" and "Octopus", "Naga" and "Snake" etc be grouped similarly - call them "Octopodes" and "Serpents" or something.
I'm of the opinion that they should all be separated, the anthropomorphic magical creatures should be their own creature type so we would have loxadon, rhox, celphildid, leonin, Vashino etc. and the big problem with nagas was that we already had a orochi, so instead of turning them all into snakes we should have turned them all into orochi or Naga.
But Aven are super cool.
They are cool! But I like them as their own thing. My Birds deck wants to run nice birds, not feathered humans. But I’m not trying to get rid of Aven, and would support Aven typal as it’s own thing
That's fair, but I don't think that's typical of most animal typal players, and for the small group like yourself that wants to there's still nothing stopping you. Just cause they say bird doesn't mean you're obligated to run them if you want just normal birds in your deck
I agree for the most part but I actually hate that these changes can't be visually represented and think it leads to an odd place. If something says it affects all Birds and I have a creature out with only type Aven it is affected but its not inherently so without oricle text. Like that's negative overall for the game right? When you look at my board I have a lord buffing a creature that doesn't say the type? This is why I don't run [[Soraya the Falconer]] in my birds deck and I think that's a poor example compared to these newer changes.
[Soraya the Falconer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/9/19fb3ce2-a660-4829-9af4-330cfd612f06.jpg?1562587051) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Soraya%20the%20Falconer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hml/18/soraya-the-falconer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/19fb3ce2-a660-4829-9af4-330cfd612f06?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I can see both sides. On one hand, it makes sense to have both bird people and non-people birds in the same deck, since they're both birds. On the other, it would make sense for the people version to have a different feel from the non-people version. Another thing to consider, as far as "typical" attitudes go, I assume, is that mixing aven and non-aven might be out of necessity as much as desire. For example, if you wanted to make a [[Kangee]] bird tribal deck, about 116/283 of your options are aven. And while 167 non-aven might sound like a lot, you'll swiftly be struggling to find enough cool ones to fill the deck out. So if you like aven, you gotta spring for some non-aven, and vice-versa. In that sense, both sides could be served just as well with twice as many of their respective options, but it's impossible to tell if that could be a solution or if there would indeed be a bigger number that wouldn't want to be restricted between them even then.
[Kangee](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/a/3afd7e8e-4fcc-4003-9791-7baf10ef1880.jpg?1562906943) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kangee%2C%20aerie%20keeper) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/inv/253/kangee-aerie-keeper?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3afd7e8e-4fcc-4003-9791-7baf10ef1880?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think the biggest thing is that it makes sense to make it consistent. It didn't make sense before that Cephalids, Viashino, and Naga had their own creature type, but other animal races like Leonin, Loxodons, Amonkhet's jackal people, Aven, etc. used the animal creature type. The separation seemed to be very arbitrary and just based on whatever they happened to do when they made the set, not based on any real pattern. So it makes sense to unify them and either give all animal people their own creature type, or give all of them the animal creature type. Since the majority use the animal creature type, some of the ones that use the animal type have heavy tribal support and would require either a lot of errata or would disrupt a lot of existing decks (e.g. a lot of people have cat decks that would need to be completely rebuilt if leonin were no longer cats, unless they errata'd all cat creature types to also apply to leonin), going with the animal type is the clear correct solution. Also, while you're a purist who doesn't like humanoids in your animal tribal deck, there certainly are people who don't mind mixing them together. In the end, this gives people who like using both in their tribal decks more options, and doesn't stop people from building things like viashino decks that don't include regular lizards or vice versa if they prefer that.
Wait so squids are still squids? Probably could have grouped them all into Cephalopods or something so it’s not so strange seeing the two exist again. Now where is my ocean plane where the Octopus people and Squid people are at war with each other.
>Now where is my ocean plane where the Octopus people and Squid people are at war with each other. Splatoon Universes Beyond when?
Mon Cala?
I think no one would've bat an eye of Cephalids would've been Octopus from the start, so while I'm nostalgic for the creature type, this is just an all around good move
I mean I kind of agree with you but on the plus side, this means that this certain group of niche cards that specify octopuses like some of the kioras now work with cephalids, right? So that's good!
It's frankly consolidation for legacy creature types. In the last 20 years, only 8 cephalids were printed, and they were in one recent set. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't consolidated earlier once I realized before New Capenna, new Cephalids hadn't been made since Onslaught Block.
no im glad. now i can build janky tribal based arround one of my favorite animals without having to exclude mythic sentient creatures that are obviously cephalopods just because their typeline says they are something different so they can behefit from door of destiny, vanquishers banner, etc
Not sure if it would be worth it but maybe keep the unique type and add generic ones as well?
[[Cephalid Scout]] being a Cephalid Octopus Wizard Scout probably wouldn't fit on the type line. As an example. Legendary also uses a ton of line space, so legends would struggle to fit a class on there. It's a nice concept, if magic cards had more room for types.
Yeah, I guess it's better that they're finally picking a side instead of trying to have it both ways but still another piece of Magic history homogenized
\[\[Deeproot Historian\]\] granted retrace to certain permanent cards in LCI Commander. It's not new with Six.
[Deeproot Historian](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/f/fffb73ed-5748-4c2a-afe5-e29bf954b578.jpg?1698987992) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deeproot%20Historian) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/91/deeproot-historian?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fffb73ed-5748-4c2a-afe5-e29bf954b578?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[[Kathril]] and [[Indominus Rex]] love [[Breaker of Creation]]. That's five separate counters from one card, and very useful ones at that
Oh that's very interesting now...
Sorry but I don't understand this one.
> 702.11g “Hexproof from each [characteristic]” is shorthand for “hexproof from [quality A],” “hexproof from [quality B],” and so on for each possible quality the listed characteristic could have; it behaves as multiple separate hexproof abilities. This rule means "Hexproof from each color" is actually five abilities. "Hexproof from white, hexproof from blue, hexproof from black, hexproof from red, and hexproof from green". This means that when Kathril sees breaker of creation in your graveyard, you can divide up those five abilities among whatever creatures you like rather than having to give them all to the same creature and Kathril gets five +1/+1 counters. And with Indominus Rex, it enters with a "hexproof from" counter for each of those colors, meaning you'll draw five cards.
Does it work like that though? Is “Hexproof from” a different ability than “Hexproof”. So would Kathril and Indominis Rex not care about it at all? Similar to how “Banding” is separate from “Bands with”; see [[Shelkin Brownie]].
It does work like that, yeah. Here's the relevant ruling from kathril > If cards in your graveyard have multiple hexproof abilities (such as hexproof, hexproof from white, and hexproof from black), a counter of each variant kind will be put onto a creature. (This also applies to Trample over planeswalkers)
"Hexproof from each color" is actually: Hexproof from white Hexproof from blue Hexproof from black Hexproof from red Hexproof from green Which are all distinct variants of Hexproof that will get counted separately for Kathril* and Indominus.
[Kathril](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/b/ebc57f73-a517-463e-8d55-56aa996d091e.jpg?1591946565) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kathril%2C%20aspect%20warper) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c20/10/kathril-aspect-warper?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ebc57f73-a517-463e-8d55-56aa996d091e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Indominus Rex](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/25e6ebfb-8f0b-44f0-a911-103ade41c6bc.jpg?1698988767) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=indominus%20rex%2C%20alpha) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rex/14/indominus-rex-alpha?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/25e6ebfb-8f0b-44f0-a911-103ade41c6bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Breaker of Creation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/2/72449552-aa2c-4ae3-846f-df523c5e6078.jpg?1717011200) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Breaker%20of%20Creation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/1/breaker-of-creation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/72449552-aa2c-4ae3-846f-df523c5e6078?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Octopus Breakfast doesn’t quite have the same ring, sadly.
Neither does Octopus Coliseum.
Petition to change it to **Octopus's Garden** *ringo intensifies* edit: woah this is my first award in my 5 years of reddit 😭 thank u kind stranger
[https://academyruins.com/diff/cr/OTJ-MH3](https://academyruins.com/diff/cr/OTJ-MH3)
I've never heard of this before, this is neat, especially since the rules updates aren't nearly as public as they used to be. Though now I'm curious, where's the source stating that they are now Octopi?
>where's the source stating that they are now Octopi [Gatherer](https://gatherer.wizards.com)
Your link doesn't work. https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Default.aspx
thanks, missed an 'm'.
Also never heard of this before. Amazing tool, thanks for sharing it!
Dang, that's handy! Wish there was one of those for all the terms and conditions or privacy policies that update all the time.
Huh. The Cephalid to Octopus change was unexpected, but not unwelcome. [[Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor]] suddenly goes from completely unplayable to mildly unplayable, and fun new toys for Kenessos and Kiora.
Kiora now cares about Cephalids, still doesn't care about her fellow Merfolk.
At least she still disdains Homarids, as is good and proper.
Homarids, the forgotten tribal (ahem, kindred). It’s a sad day when you are perpetually less relevant than thrulls and thallids.
Based
[Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/2/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8.jpg?1562919289) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aboshan%2C%20Cephalid%20Emperor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ody/58/aboshan-cephalid-emperor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
As a [[whelming wave]] enthusiast, I kinda agree!
Interesting that Six caused retrace to get its rules updated when [[Deeproot Historian]] was printed like six months ago. I’m guessing they just glossed over and forgot about it when it was printed and someone only now noticed it with Six
Could be that the Arena engine caught it? Deeproot Historian isn't on Arena right?
[Deeproot Historian](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/f/fffb73ed-5748-4c2a-afe5-e29bf954b578.jpg?1698987992) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deeproot%20Historian) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/91/deeproot-historian?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fffb73ed-5748-4c2a-afe5-e29bf954b578?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Removing Magic's unique creature types is awful. At least Homarids remain safe for now.
I mean, it's not like they're removing all of Magic's unique creature types. We still have Brushwagg, Vedalken, Phyrexian, Eldrazi, Sliver etc. Viashino and Cephalid are just being changed to make them consistent with how they handle Leonin, Loxodon, Aven and all the other anthro animal species. I'll admit, I'm a little disappointed because I felt like having a few weird exceptions grandfathered in from the early days did add a bit of charm to the game, but it's not a big deal.
They were already consistent with how they handle Merfolk, Minotaurs, etc.
No, because Minotaur, Merfolk and Satyr (and uh, technically Centaurs I suppose) are exceptions because they're existing things from mythology. This was originally the exception they applied to Naga, but "snake person" isn't an accurate description of mythological Naga so they got changed to Snake. Magic's rule since the advent of the race/class model of creature types was that anthro animal species **that were made up for Magic** are given the animal type as their race. By all rights, Viashino and Cephalid (and Homarid) should fall under that policy, but had been left alone because they predated the change. They were grandfathered in, but modern WotC has revisited it and changed their minds.
Considering that the only Lobster in the game is currently [[Rock Lobster]], they might just choose to keep Homarid and not make any non-sapient Lobsters, keeping them to just Crabs for non-sapient shellfish.
See, my assumption was that they would use Crab in place of Homarid. Somebody asked Mark on his blog, [and he seems to think that it's a matter of time before Homarid gets changed too.](https://www.tumblr.com/markrosewater/753019561413050368/in-the-new-update-cephalids-have-become-octopi)
it's weird that they had these other changes planned, but not far enough ahead that [[Deepmuck Desperado]] was allowed to slip past unaltered
Ah yes, carcinization.
Homarids? Crabs. Lobsters? Crabs. Merfolk? You know they're crabs. Dragons? Believe it or not, crabs.
[Rock Lobster](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/e/7e216977-d414-4e04-aca9-765ea8ea298c.jpg?1583965849) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rock%20Lobster) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/und/82/rock-lobster?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7e216977-d414-4e04-aca9-765ea8ea298c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think Homarids are too ironically popular and unused to be changed. I don't think we will see Lobster cards in the future. Cephalids were a band aid to try to "fix merfolk" and immediately thrown to the wayside. I think it was a case of them going down all the creature types of "sentient animals" before Bloomburrow came out, as there are probably lizards in there, and snakes, and maybe even octopi.
Nah, they just don't have enough popularity or new cards to get targetted. Eventually though they'll just become Crabs.
I do you think you're correct that Wizards doesn't care and will just make them crabs, but Homarids are lobsterfolk, not crabfolk.
And Lobster isn't currently a (black-border) type, so the most accurate type to swap Homarids to doesn't actually exist yet; they *could* do a Hound -> Dog thing and turn Homarids into the only currently-existing Lobster cards, but if it's just lateral movement why bother?
Yeah. Probably if we ever do get (black-border) lobsters they'll update homarids but for now there's no point. And snag Camarids into lobster too while we're at it, why do baby homarids get a separate creature type? (Though personally I'd wish lobsters, homarids, and camarids to all be crabs)
While true, WotC has chosen to group creatures into types they don't really fit before so that they didn't have to make a new one. [[Giant Solifuge]] always comes to my mind; Insect has been a haven for pretty much any non-Scorpion, non-Spider bug for a while now, even if they definitely *aren't* insects.
Carcinization strikes again.
Magic has unique types. Vedalken and Eldrazi certainly aren't going anywhere. But cephalids being octopi in the typeline is no worse than aven being birds in the typeline. And the latter is much better gameplay, and more future proofed. You don't want to commit to every new animal person needing its own type and it's better to be consistent. And like, they're still called cephalids and viashinos in lore, just not in typeline. I don't think it's really a flavor loss to go from "What's a cephalid? Well this art looks kinda octopuslike, i guess it's an octopus person" to "What's a cephalid? Well the typeline says octopus and the art looks kinda octopuslike, i guess it's an octopus person"
Say you open the most recent Cephalid, [[Omen Hawker]]. At what point do you say "What's a Cephalid"? Only when you read the type line. Same with [[Tin-Street Gossip]] and [[Deepmuck Desperado]]. The type line is (was) the consistent place for a player to learn about these identities.
Okay, on some you don't, you're right. It's still not a big deal. You'll go "oh it's an octopus person" and then hopefully later you come across another octopus person that's called a cephalid and go "oh i guess this is a cephalid too". Not every aven tells you it's an aven. Not every red human from mirrodin tells you it's a vulshok. The typeline doesn't need to represent the entire cultural identity. Every magic card gives you only pieces of the lore like "this world has octopus people" that you have to put together. That's how worldbuilding works in a randomized card medium. Like, is there any reason it's more important that cephalid be a typeline separate from octopus than it is that loxodon be a typeline separate from elephant or rhox be a typeline separate from rhino other than that happened to be how they did it at first? Or do you think all the other animalfolk species *should* get their own separate creature types? Cause if so, that's a lot of new types for very minimal gain flavorfully and worse gameplay mechanically. (Cause for the most part, people who want to play a rhino deck would rather have the options of both normal rhinos and rhox than only rhinos, and for the few who don't... you can still just do that. Just apply that limit to yourself.)
I do think those should get their own type. I don't think "make sure there's enough for a rhino deck" is an important concern. That same reasoning would lead us to fold Rhino into Beast.
Beast has generally been used as "undefined big mammal animal", so Rhino could kinda fit. The problem is that when you start fragmenting types into more "lore accurate types" then you end up with typlines as "Creature {-} Vulshok Human Warrior" which is long and redundant, since there will be very few cards that care about Vulshoks and, due to its specificty, you can't print as many cards to support them as you can with humans. There is no mechanicaò point in adding this kinds of super specific species/races to the typeline, to convey it we already have the names, the flavor texts, the arts and even watermarks.
I agree that we shouldn't make typelines like "Rhox Rhino Cleric". It should just be "Rhox Cleric".
But what is the gameplay advantage in doing that? The typeline is part of the game piece, so every word should be as useful as possible. If the type is "Rhox Cleric" then that card can interact with all the cards that care about clerics and about rhoxes. But, if it's "Rhino Cleric" then it can interact with all the cards that care about clerics, rhoxes and unrelated rhinos, it also gives the card more reprint potential in a set that doesn't feature rhoxes but that does feature some other form of rhinos. Should all merfolks from Theors be errated to be tritons too? Should we ditch the goblin type and have like 15 different types for goblins of different places? Flavor has it's place in a card but mechanics need to always come first, this is a game, not a storytelling system and I'm saying this as a Vorthos.
I don't think "maximize the number of cards this interacts with" is the same as producing good gameplay. Would Magic be a better game if we combined all of these different types into "Animal"? The gameplay benefit of changing Cephalid to Octopus is basically zero. If there was some great need to have an Aboshan-like effect for the Octopus type, they could have easily just printed one.
>Would Magic be a better game if we combined all of these different types into "Animal"? Obviously the objective shouldn't be that every card can interact with everything. It's a bell curve, to little interactivity between game pieces is bad, too much is also bad, an appropriate amount is good. The problem with niche lore creature types is that they don't interact with anything, they are as good as flavor text, where that information should be (or in the name), and in its place we can put a word that has some actual gameplay meaning. >The gameplay benefit of changing Cephalid to Octopus is basically zero. I mean, there are like 8 cards that interact with marine monsters and that know can interact with Cephalids too. But also know they can print new cephalids and new supports to marine beasts tribe and support both at the same time. To me it seems more for the sake of coherence and future proofing.
>Not every aven tells you it's an aven. Not to mention that not every bird-person is an aven, so being able to group them all together anyway is useful. Jund vulture-people are "kathari", Arcavios owl-people are "owlins". Similar to how some planes have different "cultural" names for merfolk or goblins
Mtg's own flavor i best expressed in the name, art and flavor text of cards, the type should be about functionality and coherence first.
Yeah. Imagine if every Eldrazi needed to shove “Ulamog-Brood” or “Kozilek-Brood” into the type line, or if every vampire had their bloodline as a type. It might lead to flavorful type-based decks, but it would also lead to bloated type lines that are harder to parse at a glance and harder to memorize.
Phelia, Exuberant Shepherd Legendary Creature - Canine Dog Shepard Corgi
Still missing the type "Good Girl".
Kindred is a million times better than typal.
That's like comparing apples to donuts, since they're describing two different things.
Is it? I thought typal was their replacement for tribal, which is how they are describing kindred
Previously, tribal was used to describe two different things: the card type Tribal, and cards that care about a specific creature type, tribal. The card type Tribal has been renamed to Kindred. The cards that care about a specific creature type has now been called typal by R&D. It's not a term in the game, just what they use to describe those cards.
This is a bad day for Aboshan but also a very good day for Aboshan.
They massacred my boys!!! 😭😭😭 All 8 of us Aboshan kindred players have been devastated. This is officially the worst thing to ever happen to Magic.
It's the opposite, you guys now retroactively got new toys in the shape of [[Whelming Wave]] and co.
Oh I get that mechanically it’s a strict upgrade. But the point of having a cephalid deck was that it was unique, not that is was powerful or synergistic. I was also being hyperbolic. 😅 Definitely ordered a Whelming Wave and Quest for Ula’s Temple today.
I mean is an Octopus deck meaningfully less unique? It feels pretty comparable.
[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
Yeah, with a deck that niche [this many new cards](https://scryfall.com/search?q=id%3AU+%28t%3Aoctopus+or+otag%3Atribal-octopus%29+f%3Acommander&unique=cards&as=grid&order=edhrec) is a huge boon
Caphalid seems overdue considering they are part of a silly flavor thing WoTC tried for awhile because "Merfolk don't have legs how can we do Merfolk" or something like that. No cards care about the type anyway.
Actually, \[\[Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor\]\] did -- but he's now errataed to tap an Octopus.
Ah yeah. It also is funny we didn't notice until here because its such a unused type. It seems like a mistake they should have corrected awhile ago. Sentient types of an animal don't get their own creature type...except for the three they changed. (I also imagine Bloomburrow had a big part in them looking down the history of "sentient animal" types)
>Sentient types of an animal don't get their own creature type...except for the three they changed. Minotaur? Merfolk? Satyr?
Those are different. Those creatures aren’t just anthropomorphic animals, they have their own traits and mythology. In the case of Merfolk and Satyrs, there’s the fact that half of them is human-shaped. And with Merfolk, what the other half of them is varies widely: some MTG merfolk even have legs. In the case of Minotaurs, they’re mythical creatures who have traits not associated with cows, (or Oxen, as they’re typed in MTG). They’re known for their aggression and penchant for violence.
Cephalids surely have just as much variety as Merfolk. They range from [[Cephalid Scout]] to [[Backstreet Bruiser]].
My point isn’t that Merfolk being varied inherently justifies them not being Fish, it’s that the idea of what a Merfolk is is wholly separate thing from being a Fish. But that’s not the case for Cephalids. In both incarnations, the entire philosophy for them is “cephalopod humanoid”. Even if they’re more human-like in New Capenna, the main design philosophy is the same.
Naga aside, those are all very evocative creature types. A goat in bloomburrow would never be a Satyr. A sentient fish in bloomburrow would never be a merfolk. An ox in bloomburrow would never be a Minotaur. Naga vs Snake was kind of always a confusing disctinction, Cephalid was a dead creature type, and Viashino was also.
We got new Viashino in MKM and new Cephalids in SNC. How are those dead creature types?
We actually got a Cephalid in MOM too
[Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/2/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8.jpg?1562919289) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aboshan%2C%20Cephalid%20Emperor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ody/58/aboshan-cephalid-emperor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think it was more part of the odyssey block attempt to get away from the stereotypical creatures from each color at the time Cephalids instead of merfolk Dwarves instead of goblins Nantuko insects instead of elves And i cant remember black and white. Clerics?
How does 702.11g affect [[Indominus Rex, Alpha]]?
Every variant of hexproof becomes a new counter. With "hexproof from each color", Indominus Rex gets five counters, one for each variant.
Wooo!
It affects it very well. Discarding [[Breaker of Creation]] means you get five counters
[Indominus Rex, Alpha](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/25e6ebfb-8f0b-44f0-a911-103ade41c6bc.jpg?1698988767) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Indominus%20Rex%2C%20Alpha) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rex/14/indominus-rex-alpha?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/25e6ebfb-8f0b-44f0-a911-103ade41c6bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Are people going to shout at me when I keep calling Tribal Tribal and not "Kindred"? Such a useless and unnecessary change.
Yes but when do homarids become crabs?
[[Standardize]]
Why does everything just keep evolving into crabs?
As a Kithkin enjoyer and someone who has played with them in standard (hitting a [[mirrorweave]] with [[windbrisk heights]] will never not be fun) I really hope they similarly turn them into halflings by the time we go back to Lorwyn.
Yeah, Kithkin are in a weird spot. When they were just the mtg little people it was fine, but them we got halflings. Then Hobbits as halflings. So now we just got the 3 little people races that are effectively the same but only two of them are actually mechanically the same
> Then Hobbits as halflings. I mean, at what point do we acknowledge that the only reason "halfling" exists in the popular consciousness is because TSR didn't want to get sued by the Tolkien estate? "Halfling" and "hobbit" is a distinction without a difference.
Yeah i agree. I'd be fine with folding kithkin into halfling or vice versa, i don't particularly care which, but it seems weird that they're separate types. Same with azra and tiefling
I'm a big kithkin fan and I'd also like to see them become Halflings. It'll just be much easier to make tribal work for them.
[mirrorweave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/c/1c77925b-0944-4b2b-b389-42bf17907b34.jpg?1562272856) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mirrorweave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cm2/162/mirrorweave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1c77925b-0944-4b2b-b389-42bf17907b34?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [windbrisk heights](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/047f2401-d2dc-4bfd-a7fa-83ef1d825219.jpg?1698988669) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=windbrisk%20heights) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/370/windbrisk-heights?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/047f2401-d2dc-4bfd-a7fa-83ef1d825219?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
So... its now called Octopus Colosseum now right? Right??
No, they just lost their race, not their culture.
They're still called cephalid in lore, that's just not reflected in the typeline. Same as aven being birds or rhox being rhinos
I greatly dislike this.
Surprised not to see a rules update that covers \[\[Satya, Aetherflux Genius\]\]'s ability producing multiple tokens with a replacement effect and how to calculate the delayed trigger energy payment. The most relevant rule CR 607.3 is explicitly about linked abilities that exile cards.
[Satya, Aetherflux Genius](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/b/3b964bbe-54cc-425c-9cc6-c877f82af7ba.jpg?1717644351) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Satya%2C%20Aetherflux%20Genius) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m3c/3/satya-aetherflux-genius?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3b964bbe-54cc-425c-9cc6-c877f82af7ba?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The rules don't need an update and that rule doesn't cover Satya at all because it's not a linked ability. Linked abilities have one ability do an action, and have another that care about _what that action did_. (Also, there is a rule that cares about linked abilities that make tokens, and its 607.2c. Abilities that follow this rule need to use the words "created with [this object]." Her ability sets up a _delayed trigger_ that does something to the tokens she created. When you double those tokens, the single delayed trigger she creates affects both of the tokens, and you would have to pay their combined mana value of {E} to keep them. >603.7c A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. See rule 400.7.) With doubling season, her ability reads >Whenever Satya, Aetherflux Genius attacks, create ~~a~~ **two** tapped and attacking token**s** that~~’s~~ are **a copy** of up to one other target nontoken creature you control. You get {E}{E} (two energy counters). At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice ~~that~~ **those** token**s** unless you pay an amount of {E} equal to ~~its~~ **their** mana values. This has already been seen on cards that create tokens and do things to those tokens. [[Body of Research]] creates two tokens and puts X counters on each of them.
Satya's interaction is new. That's why I said "the most relevant rule"; because there is no applicable rule. There are no other cards that create a token and then have a delayed ability that references a quality of that token to define the value of a variable within that ability. Body of Research does not do this. 603.7c does not cover this. The translation of the ability to account for the replacement effect is ambiguous. The logic of summing values when an ability receives multiple answers is specified in exactly three very specific places: >607.3. If, within a pair of linked abilities, one ability refers to a single object as “the exiled card,” “a card exiled with \[this card\],” or a similar phrase, and the other ability has exiled multiple cards (usually because it was copied), the ability refers to each of the exiled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the exiled card, such as a characteristic or mana value, it gets multiple answers. **If these answers are used to determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used.** If that ability performs any actions on “the” card, it performs that action on each exiled card. If that ability creates a token that is a copy of “the” card, then for each exiled card, it creates a token that is a copy of that card. If that ability performs any actions on “a” card, the controller of the ability chooses which card is affected. >701.13d If an ability checks information about a single milled card but more than one card was milled, that ability refers to each of the milled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the milled card, such as a characteristic or mana value, it gets multiple answers. **If these answers are used to determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used.** If that ability performs any actions on “the” card, it performs that action on each milled card. If that ability performs any actions on “a” card, the controller of the ability chooses which card is affected. >712.8g While the two cards of a meld pair are on the battlefield as a melded permanent, the object represented by those cards has only the characteristics of the combined back face, and **its mana value is the sum of the mana values of its front faces**. If a permanent is copying a melded permanent, the mana value of the copy is 0. See rule 202.3c. That's it. There's no generic rule for this kind of thing. I fully expect that it works this way, but I'm surprised that there wasn't an update to explicitly define how it.
[Body of Research](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/8/98b56823-0076-49cc-b5aa-4accb8e2782e.jpg?1627428272) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Body%20of%20Research) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/168/body-of-research?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/98b56823-0076-49cc-b5aa-4accb8e2782e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>302.3: The rule that creature types are always one word was changed to "usually" to properly accommodate Time Lords. Is this the first time the rules have had to change because of UB?
In a way, UB has introduced more rule changes than the general set. - The Walking Dead introduces a new predefined token (Walker token), which happens to be the first (and so far only) predefined creature token. - Transformers introduces the word convert, which is for all purposes identical to transform. They even added rules such as "if a card instructs you to transform something, it also counts as converting that thing as appropriate". - LOTR introduces the first named emblem (The Ring). This modifies some existing emblem rules, such as a general "emblems have no name" into "*most* emblems have no name". - As you said, Doctor Who introduces the first two-word creature type. - Fallout introduces rad counters, which is quite unlike many things already present in the game that it gets an entire CR section (CR 725).
time for crab gang to make demands
By the way, there is one rule change they forgot: 700.9. Some cards refer to modified creatures. A creature is modified if it has one or more counters on it (see rule 122), if it is equipped (see rule 301.5), or if it is enchanted by an Aura that is controlled by that creature’s controller. (see rule 303.4). If an ability of a permanent checks to see whether that permanent is modified, the answer is always no if that permanent isn’t a currently a creature. They should really change the part that only creature can be modified since \[\[Pearl-Ear, Imperial Advisor\]\] refers to "modified permanents".
[Pearl-Ear, Imperial Advisor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/8/28aef7c8-58b3-463c-91d3-2d1ff8a815ee.jpg?1717011514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pearl-Ear%2C%20Imperial%20Advisor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/39/pearl-ear-imperial-advisor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/28aef7c8-58b3-463c-91d3-2d1ff8a815ee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Cephalid // Octopus change should have gone the other way round
No one would have guessed a stealth [[Whelming Wave]] nerf.
Probably more boon than nerf tbh. Now you can play ex-cephalids in your deck that already wanted whelming wave or play wave in your cephalid typal deck if you play [[Aboshan]] and i think that's a lot more likely a benefit than the downside of encountering a random cephalid in the wild
[Aboshan](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/2/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8.jpg?1562919289) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=aboshan%2C%20cephalid%20emperor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ody/58/aboshan-cephalid-emperor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/82db4a41-03e8-4f0c-946c-a98fc5c9f7c8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Or buff, depending on your point of view.
[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
Not gonna lie, I absolutely despise them making creature types bland like this. Just another piece of what makes magic unique and lore-rich disappearing. I understand the mechanical need or ease it creates but it's just sad to me still
I really wish it was the opposite and they kept animals and animalfolk MORE distinct. Leonin vs Cat, Cephalid vs Octopus, Rhox vs Rhino, Loxodon vs Elephant, Aven vs Bird.... It feels so weird to me to consider them the same when mtg has distinctions for Soldiers, Knights, Warriors, Rogues, Scouts etc :/ They also prioritize keeping stuff that is "traditional" mythology like satyrs vs goats, horses vs unicorns On the same hand!!! Why don't they fold together octopus and squid if they're gonna cull Cephalids? RIP Chasm Skulker
We riot.
>302.3: The rule that creature types are always one word was changed to "usually" to properly accommodate Time Lords. Calling it now. This is preemptive so they can do "Super Hero" and "Super Villain" when Marvel comes
But why? Both of these words are more commonly written together.
No. Let me have this 😂
I think the naga and viashino think make sense with bloomburrow likely having lizards (and maybe, though unlikely, snakes) as themes. Cephalids feel odd though. I wonder if they are testing the waters before a possible major overhaul of "redundant" types that can be represented by other types.
Sad to see the more unique creature types go but at the same time glad to see some of these cards may get to see some real play now in kindred decks, can't really say Ive ever seen a Viashino deck
Is there a reason Time Lords couldn't be Time-Lords?
Well, the reason is simply that this is not how Doctor Who spells the name. It's similar to why Transformers cards "convert" instead of "transform" -- if the rights holder doesn't want to use a specific term or requires a particular spelling, Wizards have to take that into account. Note, for example, that Warhammer 40K and LotR cards consistently use the spelling "Grey" (\[\[Gandalf the Grey\]\], \[\[Grey Knight Paragon\]\], \[\[Soldier of the Grey Host\]\]) while "regular" Magic cards use "Gray" (\[\[Gray Harbor Merfolk\]\], \[\[Gray Merchant of Asphodel\]\], \[\[Graypelt Refuge\]\]).
It sucks to see more unique and different names for creature types get folded into generic animal types, but it makes mechanical sense, technically makes both tribes more powerful, and flavor-wise, I think it will be fine as long as they keep using the fantasy name in the card name when appropriate. That way, they can have the flavor of the interesting "anthropomorphized animal" name but the mechanical robustness of being kindered with their regular animal counterpart.
I get that they are trying to aggregate creature types for playability/simplicity, but there's so much charm in the fringe types that I hope doesn't continue to be eroded.
Forgotten Cave got a reprint in modern horizon 3 and is still not classified as a Cave subtype. Guess they just "forgot" to update that one 😉
Being part of a cycle of untyped lands, it makes sense not to change it.
A win for Sea creature decks, but at what cost
Can someone explain the 702.11g new hexproof wording. In dumb dumb wording
Basically that "hexproof from each color" on \[\[Breaker of Creation\]\] is a shortcut that really means "hexproof from white", "hexproof from blue", etc.