Golem

Card Function Alignment with Printing

As the number of creature type erratas grow, so do the number of cards that work differently than what is printed. Some cards exist currently with none of their printed creature types. For example, when the dog update came out, "leashling" went from golem to dog while its not relevant card to most constructed formats I'm sure there are plenty of others. This card functions differently than what is printed on the card. For what seems like no reason other than art looks like dog = now dog not a golem. I have zero qualms with the calling hounds dogs, but I do feel that cards should also, as often as possible, do what they say. My question is, is this not also an internal vision as well to maintain the integrity of what's printed on many players' cards?This opinion does not apply to erratas relating to cultural sensitivity changes.

Yes, our goal goal is to make cards function the way people intuitively expect. There are different factors that sometimes get in the way of that goal, but that is our vision.

Art Card Printing Constructed Creatures Dog Golem Leashling

Difference Between Constructs and Robots

I started paying attention to creature types more, and it got me thinking - what is really the difference between Golem, Construct, an Robot? I feel like what separates Golems is that golems are "alive" in that they have something that humanifies them, whether it be rational thinking or something magical or spiritual, where as constructs and robots are tools created to serve a specific purpose and don't have that higher awareness. But what separates a construct from a robot? Sci-fi vs fantasy?

Construct is a catch-all, like Beast, when we don’t have a creature type that properly catches something.

Beast Construct Creatures Golem Robot

Monocolor Deck Rewards

Why do we see so few cards that reward playing specific basic land types in Standard, such as Blanchwood Armor, Armored Ascension or Flow of Ideas? These seem like a slam dunk for encouraging monocolored decks in Constructed, something that we see less and less of as dual lands are released. Take the Darksteel Affinity for Land Type golems for instance: they solve the high mana value playability issue very well while asking for a meaningful commitment.

Those effects work best in uncommon, especially if that’s all they’re focused on. At uncommon, those cards are draft traps though if the set doesn’t support monocolor play. So, they’re not something we can just drop in most sets.

Affinity Armored Ascension Blanchwood Armor Constructed Darksteel Draft Formats Dual Lands Dual Lands Flow of Ideas Golem Lands Mana Value Monocolor Standard Uncommons

Hat Usage Feedback

Hats can also be a fashion statement, which is why you sometimes see them in art for things like Golems or Robots. But what is cute or special in limited use becomes somewhat generic or even banal in repetition sometimes. It's no longer a special quirk for someone, and now usst a general thing around

I hear the note that we’ve gone a little heavy on hats.

Art Colorless Golem Limited Robot

Hats on Non-Humans

"Less hats?"Hats on Humanoids with eyes makes sense. Hats on creatures like golems, robots, or things thay don't have fleshy eyes makes no sense, as the purpose of a hat is moot on them.I don't mind hats, but putting it on things that literally would not need a hat in general feels like ya'll didn't really think things through when giving the artist a prompt/direction.

A fine distinction.

Art Creatures Eye Golem Robot

Artifact Enchantment Volume

There is an Artifact Enchantment token already! The Hammer of Purphoros produces golems that are artifact enchantments.

I think they were asking for something like Treasure or Food that shows up in volume.

Artifacts Enchantments Food Golem Hammer of Purphoros Tokens Treasure

Mirrodin's Typal Futures

splicer style golem typal & myr typal seem to be at risk given the plane their from is kinda gone.Is this a case of those two.types geing forced to only appear in Mirrodin/Phyrexia sets bc of their identity Or can we hope to see Splicer Golems & Myrs elsewhere?

Omenpaths do exist.

Golem Kindred / Typal Mirrodin Myr Omenpaths

Golem Representation

Do you forsee the Golem creature type being changed to Construct due to the Golem of Jewish mythology?

No. As a Jew, I’m happy to see Golems in the game. They’re not misrepresented in any way.

Construct Creatures Golem

Constructs vs Golems

Is there a mechanical or flavor difference for there being both constructs and golems as creature types? In my mind, golems would be a subset of construct. (Then again, the gnomes in LCI should also be subsets of constructs if that's the case) Is there an intended identity between them to make the distinction worth it? Because otherwise it feels like some things are named as constructs and some as golems for arbitrary "because we felt like it" reasons.

Constructs are a larger group for non-natural artifact creatures that don’t have a more localized creature type.

Artifacts Construct Creatures Flavor Gnome Golem The Lost Caverns of Ixalan

Gnomes and Golems

Everyone is talking about the Gnomes but I think the Golems are cool too.

They are.

Gnome Golem

Commander Cards Availability

My favorite part of the previous (new) sets were the commander cards seeded in set boosters, like the Myr commander and the Food Golems commander, with them gone, are there plans to find a way to bring them back somehow? or are they gone for good

There gone from premier play boosters, but we make a lot of products, so we can find other homes from those type of designs.

Boosters Commander Food Golem Myr Play Boosters Set Boosters

Artifacts vs Constructs

Artifact Creature vs. Construct ReduxThe comments in my previous ask about the relevance of "Construct" tell me I could have been more clear. Cards on the table, obvious as they are, I believe the creature type was a mistake. I'm well aware that I'm in the minority, and that even if it were possible to reverse course my opinion wouldn't hold any weight."Beast" is often mentioned as a 'catchall' type similar to Construct. However it isn't just a catchall -- it adds its own flavor. When I say it refers to a subset of "wild animal" that isn't a negative -- that tells the player something.Now, what does "Construct" tell us? It would tell us that the creature was artificial -- except we already know that due to the Artifact type. This makes "Construct" redundant unless it servers another purpose. To paraphrase a favorite saying of yours, anything not serving the set should be cut.The heavy overlap between Artifact Creature and Construct results in a not-quite-parasitic environment where caring about Constructs means you inherently want to care about Artifacts; and caring about Artifact Creatures is going to push you into trying to make Construct work. This limits players' creative agency.So does it serve the set? The other explanation I see given is that it serves as a catchall because every creature needs a creature type. The implication being that there's no possible way Design could create the same number of Artifact Creatures without having that stopgap...

I call bull; even if the bar wasn't as low as Akroan Horse being a Horse, I have more faith in Magic Design than that. More Artifact Creatures that are Soldiers, Fish, or any other type wouldn't hurt their presentation as Artifacts -- but it would allow them to see play in non-Construct focused decks. And if it does provide a relevant Design challenge? Well, to quote a designer a greatly respect:Restrictions breed creativity.

Let me explain the creation of the Construct creature type. When Magic first came out, artifact creatures didn’t have creature types. I felt that was wrong, so I campaigned to get them added. I was successful and we added the “every creature needs to have at least one creature type” rule to artifact creatures. Some artifact creatures had simple solutions. They could have clear artifact unique creature types. Golems could be Golems and Gnomes could be Gnomes. Other creatures felt close enough to existing creature types that we could use those. Yotian Soldier could be a Soldier and Clockwork Avian could be a Bird.There was a group of artifact creatures that didn’t have a clear creature type. For example, what exactly is a Su-Chi? We chose to pick a general creature type as a catch-all. It had to be pretty vague though because it has to work for any artifact creature that we couldn’t otherwise identify. What you see as a bug is actually a feature of Construct. It needs to be vague, so that it can be flexible. If an artifact creature can have a better option, it won’t be a Construct.

Akroan Horse Artifacts Beast Bird Clockwork Avian Construct Creatures Fish Flavor Gnome Golem Horse Rules Soldier Su-Chi Yotian Soldier

Construct, Golem, Robot

A construct, a golem and a robot get into a fight, who wins?

It depends which Construct, which Golem, and which Robot.

Construct Fight / Bite Golem Robot

Feedback on Food Type

I still wish Food got its own card type. When I think Artifacts, I think metal, weapons, robots, not perishable food. Making it play with artifacts also makes it compete with artifact synergies and means creatures can’t be “Food Creature - Golem” without being “Artifact Creature - Food Golem”. I know why you made the decision, I just wish to provide feedback that I’m not a fan

It has to be some card type, and we weren’t going to make a brand new one just for Food. Tangible, nonliving things are artifacts.

Artifacts Card Types Creatures Food Golem Robot

Bottle Family Expansion

Big fan of the Bottle Gnomes/Bottle Golems cards. Do you think we could one day see another member of the Bottle family?

I do.

Bottle Gnomes Bottle Golems Gnome Golem

Constructs vs Robots

"Both are fair game for a set where they make sense. I'd put Robot at 6 and Clown at 7."
Wouldn't robot just be a construct?

Not in a set where it was clearly a Robot. Think of Construct like Beast. We use it as a catch-all when there’s not a more specific creature type available. For example, all Golems and Scarecrows are technically Constructs, but we don’t call them that.

Beast Clown Construct Creatures Golem Robot Scarecrow

Card Name Uniqueness

Can there be different cards sharing a name?- "Karn, Silver Golem" - Legendary Enchantment- "Karn, Silver Golem" - Legendary Land- "Karn, Silver Golem" - Legendary Instant- "Karn, Silver Golem" - Legendary BattleI suppose you don't plan to do this, but if it ever happens, how will the rules be applied to them?

We have no plans for two different cards (save for some Un-shenanigins) sharing the same name.

Battles Card Names Enchantments Golem Instants Karn, Silver Golem Lands Rules

5-Color Golem Potential

I must ask; When or if, 5 color legendary golem?

If.

Colors Golem

Batching Constructs

Do you think batching Constructs, Golems, and Robots is possible?

It’s for sure possible. It needs the right set where it makes sense to the set to do it. Also, does it just want to say “artifact creatures”?

Artifacts Batches Construct Creatures Golem Robot

Robot vs Construct Clarified

What is the difference between a Robot and a Construct? (and I guess Golem while we're at it .)

Construct is a lot like Beast, it’s a larger category we use when there’s no better smaller category available. A Construct is a being that was mechanically built that isn’t an existing creature type.

Beast Construct Creatures Golem Robot