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.