Has there ever been any thought to combining the Ox and Minotaur creature types? Such as simplifying both to simply "Cow?" I'm a huge fan of bovines in all forms and it would be nice if all of the Ox in magic worked alongside their more anthropomorphic cousins the Minotaur. As it is now we're lucky to really get cards of *either* type printed. There's resonance to the name Minotaur, no doubt, but it also has its share of baggage. It has Greek connotations and that's probably a big reason Minotaurs are almost strictly in Theros (although some favorites, such as Neheb, are from other planes). I was happy that Outlaws had more Ox cards, but it also highlights my dissatisfaction: Holy Cow is an *ox* not a cow, despite the name. It feels like a retread of the Hound or Naga debacle all over again. Hound was simplified to Dog and all Snakes, from rattlesnakes to Naga, are simply the type Snake now. This allows snakes and dogs of all walks benefit from a shared unity. Cats had it right, we didn't need Leonin as a separate type.I just feel like there's unnecessary separation being created by dividing Ox and Minotaur and it has the same resonance failings as all dogs being labeled "hounds" had. If it's important for a particular creature to *be* a minotaur then they can just *have* minotaur in their name, like ~30% of minotaurs already do. There's also the simple fact that Minotaur is a longer average creature type, limiting design space for other types to be included. It's hard to justify why a Minotaur is on a random plane, but much less so if it's simply a "Cow Warrior" for example. As for why I think "Cow" should just be the combined type name, I simply think it fits. Cow is a resonant name. Almost everyone, East to west, knows *of* cows if only because their milk is such a widely used commodity. We don't call it "Ox's milk" after all. More than that, it's fun! Cow is *funny* in the same way *squirrel* is funny. It's amusing to see "Squirrels you control" in this game full of fighting. In that vein, "Cows you control" is an amusing line that can help break up the seriousness of a setting. I know this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but magic is a game of different perspectives coming together and creating something new. Cows are my favorite animal and it's simply dissatisfying, to me, that my Holy Cow can't benefit from a Kragma Warcaller. That Angrath, colloquially named "Cow Dad" in the community, would have the creature type "Minotaur." The only downside I can see is that "Cow" *does* specifically refer to females of a bovine species. But that is a distinction few, if any, seriously take into consideration. If one sees a field of cows, they're not saying "I see lots of cows and 3 bulls!" They're going to say "I see cows!"So to bring the thesis back, has there been any discussion internally to simplifying the Minotaur and Ox creature types under a single banner, such as "Cow?" I would also happily settle for "Cattle" as the new type. I just feel the current Ox vs Minotaur divide has to go, for both flavor and mechanical reasons, and the sooner the better.

I have been on Team Cow (as I was on Team Dog) for many years. I even made Cows in Un-sets. I still believe Minotaur should be its own creature type though.

I'd like to voice my dislike of the paring down of some of the creature types, because I feel like differing viewpoints are good in game design and I've not really seen that many statements voiced in opposition to these changes. My view of it is that it strips out a lot of uniqueness of Magic as a setting. Other settings have humanoid lizards, but they don't have Viashino. Other settings have undersea-dwelling peoples, but they don't have Cephalids. Naga becoming Snake was completely understandable, and I think the justifications for it were valid. I do not think Viashino becoming Lizard or Cephalid becoming Octopus were remotely justified. On top of that, it creates some weird points, where you can see clearly crocodilian humanoids (the Viashino from Alara) now labeled as Lizards, which not only are separate types in Magic, they're not even closely related in real life (crocodiles are more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than lizards). I've seen a number of very loud people advocate for trimming all the "unnecessary" types in Magic out, but their proposals usually end up as "there should be about 20 creature types total." This is not only unsatisfactory from a game design standpoint--as it would make tribal decks a bit *too* easy to accomplish--but absolutely catastrophic from a flavor perspective as well. At that point, why not just have typelines be "TYPE1", "TYPE2", and so forth? Flavor and function have to work together, and sacrificing too much of either is a bad thing. Too little function, and the game becomes unplayable. Too little flavor, and the game becomes cold and sterile. This is not to say that trimming on creature types is a bad thing--I think Magic wouldn't be hurt by trimming on a few more creature types if you asked me--but just that I think the choice of creature types being trimmed is odd, to say the least. Why does a regularly printed creature type with new cards that were printed just earlier this year get the boot, and not something like trilobite, which has all of 5 cards, with a 4 year gap between the printing of the most recent one and the one before that? If this is to help tribal decks, why are there still one-off or two-off creature types being printed, like Varmint and Coyote?

We’re not getting rid of Viashino. They will continue to creatively exist. We will still refer to them in titles and flavor text as Viashino. All we’re doing is consolidating the creature types so that we’re consistent in how we use them. Magic has been treating animal humanoids this way (aka using the animal as the creature type) for two plus decades. All we’re doing is going back and fixing the few that got done before we adopted this policy back in the early days of Magic.

So, all Naga have been changed over to Snakes, but what is the substantial difference between Snake creatures and Serpent creatures? Is Serpent just big Snake?

The Serpent creature type in Magic is synonymous with sea monster. It’s not a big snake.

Re: drawing the line for humanoid type changes. Doesn't that mean Naga shouldn't be changed? They aren't an original mtg name. Also, I feel like getting rid of types just because the fantasy races were made by you guys and not storytellers of the past is a bit sad. There are a lot of creatures original to magic that I hope don't go anywhere, like Brushwaggs and Atogs which could be beasts, and Myr or Sliths that could be constructs, or an extreme that I doubt will happen, Eldrazi to horrors. It feels more special.

We’re not getting rid of original creatures we made up. Those will remain. We’re just being consistent with how we treat made-up animal humanoids. Again, a change we made in the late 1990’s.

In the new update, Cephalids have become Octopi, Viashino into Lizards, and Naga into Snakes. Why have Homarids not followed suit?

If Homarids return, I believe they will.

During the most recent creature type errata Naga are being changed to Snake. Jackals have fewer creatures than Nagas, so why weren't they changed to Dog? What's the criteria for a creature type errata if it's not based on creature types with fewer cards being rolled into larger ones?

The simple answer is Jackals aren’t Dogs in the vernacular of how people talk about them. We try to avoid using creature types that make for creative dissonance.

I think people feel differently about Viashino than they do about Naga because Viashino have been in the game for so much longer. The Viashino type even predates most Cat Warriors!

Again, we’re not getting rid of Viashino. The race will still exist and appear on cards. All that’s changing is what creature type we use.

Hi, Mark! Since animal humanoids seem to be getting rolled in with their animal counterpoints for typal reasons (Naga becoming Snakes, Viashino becoming Lizards, Leonin having always just been cats), will we see the Human creatures errata'd to just be Apes? Or will the Human exceptionalism continue?

We treat Humans a little different as they currently make up 100% of our playerbase.

With Naga and now Viashino on the chopping block what creature type is next? Why would homarids, for instance, survive? Or Noggles?

There is a move towards creatures types being more known words if such a thing applies.

With Naga now getting subtype Snake on a scale of 1 (Never going to happen) to 10 (happening soon) when are pegasus & unicorns getting subtype horse?

I don’t have a scale for possible creature variations. I don’t think it’s currently super likely.