Hello Mark! I’m loving Bloomburrow so far, but have only one nagging question scratching at my brain;I love mustelids, so the separation of weasels, otters, and badgers all into their own creature types without being able to really play them together with typeal synergy bothers me immensely. This feels like the hound/dog/wolf problem but like a 100 times worse for me specifically :( Do you know why it was chosen to make them all separate? And, if it was the body shape/habitat thing, might I suggest making martens a creature type, since they’re tree dwelling mustelids, and a lot lankier and longer limbed than ground dwelling weasels?

We tend to use words people are more familiar with, and “mustelid” doesn’t reach that bar.

why are canids all split in different types (Dogs, wolves, Jackals, Foxes, and up to a certain point, Hounds), while all felines, no matter what variance in taxonomy, are typed as just Cat? It seems a bit unfair, specially if you are trying to do any sort of Canine kindred deck, as support for them is just scattered between all of these types.

It helps greatly that people refer to all felines as Cat (often jungle cat for the large ones).

So far, all transforming werewolves have humans as their base race, which makes sense since Innistrad is very human focused. (Assuming that Eldrazi werewolves were human originally.)If/when for werewolves based on other humanoid races (elf, dwarf, etc)?

Probably when.

I understand why some older creature types are being rolled together, like Naga and Snake, or Lizard and Viashino. However, is there a reason coyote was introduced in Thunder Junction instead of using Dog?

The problem is we tend to use creature types to match the words people use and not what lines up by species. People call lions and tigers “cats”, but don’t refer to wolves and coyotes as “dogs”.

Ignoring the logistics of tracking day/night for the rest of the game, which transformation mechanic for werewolves was more liked, the original one or the day/night one? What if you do account for the logistics?

The loudest voice from Werewolf players is they want all Werewolves working the same, which I am sympathetic with. With 20/20 hindsight, I wish we had stuck with building Werewolf states into the definition of day/night (aka Werewolves enter as Werewolves at night).

Hi Mark, could something like "non-horror, non-eldrazi double-faced werewolves you control have a timebound" work to unify the werewolves at least on commander? Timebound would function as daybound on the front face and nightbound on the back face.

If we want to align them, there are cleaner fixes.

if or when: a batching subtype for effects like cavern of souls (eg.: Canine for wolves, foxes, jackals, werewolves and so on).

If. We can make batches such that a particular card cares about the batch, but its trickier to make a batch that a card making you pick a creature type can care about.

Now that it's been around for a while, any further reflections on Daybound/Nightbound?

I wish we made Werewolf/Human transformation built in to it and made it stop progressing when no card on the battlefield cared about it.

What color(s) is the big bad wolf? On one hand, it's a wolf that just wants to satisfy his hunger, so green. But he's also very deceiving and shapeshifts in some versions. Maybe blue/green?

He’s monogreen. Hunger is a drive.

Re: werewolves, having had a Tovolar EDH deck since he came out, I've always found their day/night mechanic more a hindrance for playing them than a reason to. WOE featured werefoxes both in flavor and art as well as cards that didn't flip, and AFR featured a non-flipping werewolf. I personally don't think their previous mechanical identity needs to prevent them from appearing elsewhere or branching out in how their cards work, especially when they clearly have a fandom going.

My gut is we’ll find a world where they make sense and we’ll probably make them single-faced. Once we do that, we can give them another mechanical focus which will help us making one-ofs.