Why should types that are original Magic IP like Viashino be folded into generic types like Lizard, but the same is not true for UB types like Astartes or Cyberman? Is there no value to building resonance for Magic's IP?

The Viashino are still flavorfully Viashino. It’s still a unique race of creatures. That’s what they’re called. All we’re changing is their creature type. We’ve decided to be consistent with how we’re labeling animal humanoids such that they and their animal equivalent are connected typally.

I know this is something you're still testing out, so I'd like to give some feedback on it: I'd rather see fewer new creature types created for Universes Beyond. For example, for the upcoming doctor who decks, I would have liked to have seen "Artifact Creature- Alien Mutant" and "Artifact Creature- Robot Zombie" intead of "Dalek" and "Cyberman" respectively. It would allow for more synergies for one thing, since they can tie into existing typal synergies as well as give more members to types that were previously lacking, and just overall makes them feel more at home in magic as a whole. For all the same reasons magics own creature types were consolidated, I think UB ones should be too. But beyond that, I also just think it often sounds cooler. "Alien Mutant" is a lot more descriptive than "Dalek", telling magic fans who aren't familiar with doctor who a little about them, and imo just has a punchiness to it. It's also just less redundant. There's something to be said for the power of specific words, yes, but i think the name and art can do a lot of work there. You don't need "creature type: dalek", when you already have a picture of a dalek and "dalek" in the name.Thank you for listening!

Universes Beyond is young, so we’re still figuring out how best to handle creature types. I agree with you that I lean towards more general terms where appropriate.