Yes, serpent is a synonym for snake, absolutely (...dragon also means snake). But I presume serpents in Magic are typically not snakes, as those are separate types (which have never occurred on the same card!), and the art typically portrays them as a mix of fish and snake characteristics.

Serpents are sea monsters in Magic. The question that came up with Serpents was we felt a lot of people would say yes “serpents” are an Earth animal as it’s a synonym for snake.

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.

If everyone vegetarian in Bloomborrow ? What do the snakes eat?

The animalfolk. The snakes are predators.

Hello Mark!

Sorry if this already got answered, Pinnacle Monk in Modern Horizons 3 seems to be an efreet from Tarkir, but in its typeline it's noted as a djinn. Is it the sign that efreet might come to have the same treatment as viashinos, nagas and cephalid in the future? (for thos who dont know, now with MH3 they are respectively lizards, snakes and octopuses)

We are no longer supporting the Efreet creature type. New “Efreets” will be Djinns.

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.

With viashino, naga, and cephalids becoming lizards, snakes, and octopi, I am a bit concerned for other humanoid animal based races. Will minotaur become ox? Will merfolk become fish? I'm very curious where you guys will draw the line on such things

The line is we’re not using names we made up for animal humanoids as creature types. (They’ll still be used in names and flavor text.) Pre-existing names from things like mythology are fine, so Minotaur and Merfolk aren’t going anywhere.

Mark, I've given myself time to think on it, and this one Goose's opinion is that we shouldn't do more creature type batches. I'm going to use a fictional card called "Dr. Marten, Herpetologist" as a framing device. I understand how "Reptiles you control have [the curiosity effect]" may ring as flavorful and also save space. However, I feel like saying "Reptiles (Lizards, Snakes, and Crocodiles are reptiles)" rather than "Lizards, Snakes, and Crocodiles you control have [the curiosity effect]" makes it seem like the team has little confidence in our ability to make the connection. Given how many context clues Magic cards provide, I think you should have more faith (a gripe I share with flavor words).That being said, happy Earth Day! and do you have any research that shows players aren't able to make the connection as well as I think?

Batching came about in Dominaria. We were tying artifacts, legendary cards, and Sagas together as things that represented the past. We tried numerous templates and the playtesters just didn’t get it. Backed into a corner (Bill, our VP, told me he was going to force me to cut the mechanic if people weren’t getting it), I tried something new, giving the combined items a flavor word and then listing them in reminder text. It worked. Playtesters finally got it. So yes, I have little confidence in the audience making the connection, but that’s because I tried the alternative, many alternatives actually, and the audience didn’t get it.

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.

With creature types being grouped together like with Party and Outlaw, I imagine this trend will continue if received well. Do you think there is a limit on how many creature types could be grouped together at one? For example, if there was a grouping for "Reptiles" you realistically could include Lizard, Salamander, Turtle, Crocodile, Snake, Hyrda, Dinosaur, Basilisk, and Kavu. There might be some others I'm forgetting, but 9 seems like a lot. Do you think that the amount of possible creature types would prevent potential groupings from being made at all, or would some just be left out?

Our default rule is two to five items in a batch. Getting over that gets unwieldy, both to remember and to fit on the card.

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.