I don't play Neheb so I have no feelings there, but I am genuinely curious. Why is it okay to change the rules/wording and make a major functional errata to how Neheb works, but not make the nephilim and Godsire legendary in the name of avoiding functional errata? It's not like Companion where it was an emergency thing.

I know we’re looking into this issue.That said, there is a difference between changing a card and changing a rule which results in a card playing differently. The first is functional errata (we’re actively changing how the card works). The latter isn’t. We’re changing how the game works and the relevant cards play with the rules as they now exist. Here’s an example. Lifelink used to stack. If you had two copies of lifelink on a creature you gained twice the life. We then changed how lifelink worked. Every card with lifelink now worked differently, but that wasn’t us specifically redoing any card.

I noticed that "tap this creature, It gains indestructible until end of turn." Seems to be used occasionally as psuedo regeneration. Since regenerate target creature exists mainly as reminder text anyway, has there been any thoughts about just functionally errataing regeneration into the new tap+indestructible combo that we see lately?

It’s a bit more functional errata than we tend to do.

Hi Mark! Just saw the spoiler for The Infamous Cruelclaw. Its an awesome card! I was wondering since the creature type Weasel is now a thing would the Bronze Sabel be errated to Weasel instead of Sabel? Thanks again!!!

I did check and yes, sables are Weasels. I don’t know if any errata is planned.

Why Threshold wasn't given the same errata as Hideaway and renamed "Threshold N"?
So you could've used as it was in the past (threshold 7) or like the "current" one (threshold 8)

We want to be consistent and not have two sets in the same format using different numbers.

If/When: A noncreature artifact that can be your commander and If/When: A battle that can be your commander? If i remember correctly, those are the ONLY permanent types that do not have a non creature that can be your commander.

The first has been done. The card has errata allowing it to be your commander.

The second is an if.

Was the Lizard typal in Bloomburrow part of the motivation for making the Viashino errata at this specific time?

I’m sure it influenced the timing.

Why not errata devoid to a super type?

We missed our window. Doing it would be about first impressions, and it’s too late for that.

Can you guys errata out ante so we can play with those cards?

Those cards are all built around ante. You can’t just take the ante out.

Howdy Mark!I sat with my thoughts and the replies you've given recently about not changing Minotaur or Merfolk to Ox and Fish respectively, and I gotta say, I can't square this circle.You say that WotC won't be changing these specific humanoid-animal races because they have prior mythological notoriety. But to be honest, one could make that excuse for every humanoid-animal race. There are a lot of Mythos that exist throughout the world, and finding a name for every humanoid-animal race wouldn't take too long if someone took the task seriously. I say this to show it doesn't feel like a really consistent or genuine reason to resist a rule that WotC is taking big lengths to adhere to (they are doing errata, which you've said is something that isn't done lightly).However, my biggest issue comes down to consistency with this "rule" you are mentioning. WotC changed Cephalids, Viashino, and probably Homarids soon so that they would fall in line with a rule that WotC wants to follow. Nothing drives me more insane than a rule that isn't applied equally to all, especially when as I mentioned above, the reasoning for the exception doesn't feel like a particularly strong one; at the very least, it doesn't feel strong enough to resist a rule WotC is taking seriously enough to errata 100's of cards so they fall in-line with said rule.I try to be open-minded as often as possible, but even after mulling over the things you've mentioned here on Blogatog, I don't think there is anything you can say that will change my mind on this. I suppose I will just have to sit and wait patiently until ya'll decide to finally finish what you started.Yours Truly,A fellow Ape

The thing you’re missing is the bar is not “does a mythological version exist anywhere in the world?” The question we ask - “is there a popular and well known version of it?”Here’s a different way to think of it. If we picked 100 random people (not specifically Magic players) and gave them a list of creature types, which ones are words they know and which ones aren’t?Some they wouldn’t know because they’re made up things we created that have no well known equivalent. Outside of those, we want to use words people recognize. It makes the game more resonant and lowers the barrier to entry. Our fanciful made-up terminology does have a place - in names and flavor text (aka the text areas focused on flavor). In mechanical rules space, familiarity is more important.

Hi Mark,I've seen that some people are upset about the whole cephalid are octopus errata but as someone who plays a Kenessos deck I am pretty excited! "Sea creatures" are 4 pretty uncommon types so it's rare I get any fun pieces for that deck, this errata brought a lot of new (old) cards into the fold that I am excited to play. Bonus points the flavor is still perfect! So it seems like a great choice to me, please pass along many high fives.

Will do.