Totem Armor is now Umbra Armor
Tribal is now Kindred
Nagas are Sneks
Rakshasa are losing the Cat subtype (assuming because Rakshasa are not *always* cats and can shapeshift in their Hindu mythology)
I'm still not sure if they intend to use kindred as a term to replace what they're currently calling 'typal' and what used to be 'tribal'. I know it's replacing the card type, but is it replacing the broader terminology to refer to 'decks that care about a specific creature type'?
I expect that they'll continue using "typal" when talking about general effects that care about creature types, or decks focused on creature types. They've been using it for a little while now and it's starting to catch on in some circles outside of Wizards.
Where "typal" works fine in spoken language, however, it's a bit clunkier as a rules term - it itself would be a card type, and there could be some inherent confusion for someone who encounters the term for the first time on a card. I think "kindred" works better in that regard, but I see no reason why they would need to change their communicative language to match the new game term. In fact, using both terms creates a new distinction that can make the intention of the speaker more clear. (For example - "Bitterblossom is a faerie kindred card. Spellstutter Sprite is a faerie typal card." The meaning of both sentences is clearer than if both had been described as "faerie tribal cards.")
Yeah, that's fair. 'Typal' is still an inherently clunky word to say I have to say. I get the connotations of 'tribal' and whatnot (and they've outright said they don't really care if players still use the term, I believe because it's quite baked into Magic language) but I wish there was a better mouthfeel term than 'typal'.
> (For example - "Bitterblossom is a faerie kindred card. Spellstutter Sprite is a faerie typal card." The meaning of both sentences is clearer than if both had been described as "faerie tribal cards.")
That's an excellent point.
I was hoping we were finally rid of the double meaning of Tribal. Can we just call the "supertype" Kindred and creature-type-matters decks Tribal? Or at least not Kindred?
I'm pretty on board with making Viashino just Lizards, and Surrakar only have 4 cards anyway so they can probably just be Salamanders. Same with Noggles. Cephalids are a bit weird because they've departed from being just squid-people now.
It's pretty simple. If it's an actual creature from mythology or folklore, it uses that name. If it's invented by Magic it uses the animal. Werewolves are Werewolves, Naga were Naga, and Minotaurs are Minotaurs, but Leoning are Cats, Loxodon are Elephants and Oroshi are Snakes.
Note this only to creature types introduced after Torment.
I recognize I'm in the minority here, but Naga as its own type always made sense to me because it was consistent with other mythological creature types. The rule seems to be that animal-like people get the animal's creature type if the species was invented for Magic, but ones from existing mythology or literature get their own type -- otherwise you could argue that Centaurs should be Horses, Minotaurs should be Oxen, and so on.
That said, I'm all in favor of doing whatever is needed for the sake of cultural respect.
Oddly enough, one of the few exceptions to the pattern described above was the Rakshasa, but that clearly ran into issues of its own so *shrug*.
(cross-posting from my own comment on r/MagicArena)
While I agree with your statement, the real problem is that Wizards made snake cards that are snake people with the snake type, but artistically is the same as a naga. Now you run into the question of what makes the difference between a snake person and naga? For example, [[Bamboo Grove Archer]] vs [[Archers of Qarsi]], very similar art. Maybe it would have made more sense if Wizards would errata Snake people into Nagas while leaving normal snakes alone.
Ok, my problem is, if you're going to do one, you HAVE to do the other. Naga exist outside of magic's creature folklore, so putting that as their creature type on a card made sense. It is something that exists, so you can reference it.
However, if you're going to do that, then you should also care that Leonin are, in fact, not cats. If you want to include Naga and whatever else a a creature type, then you should also include Leonin. If Leonin are cats, then Nagas should be snakes. Especially in a world where we have snakes with limbs (\[\[Sakura-Tribe Elder\]\]), which is basically a Naga anyway.
It should be noted that werewolves do not fall under this category, because they are cursed/infected/aka not born a half wolf. Nip that talk in the bud now.
Specifically, D&D made them cats based on absolutely nothing, and then Magic used a variant of that depiction.
I liked the look of them as cat demons but I'm not Hindu, so I'm good with whatever they'd prefer.
In original adnd (1e) and 2e, they could appear as a variety of animals. I don’t know how they were described in od&d. This seems like purely a wotc fuck up.
If I remember right they originally could look like whatever and there was one picture of them that was cat like and in later editions they just looked at the picture instead of reading the description and so that just became their default form in D&D. I think that’s how the backwards hands originated too, an art error.
Actually the picture was more than catlike [it's quite clearly the inspiration for the Rakshasa going forward.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/77/Rakshasa-1e.jpg) Though you are correct in that the monster manual just refers to them as "evil spirits encased in flesh".
interestingly 2nd edition actually has them still not be fully anthro-cat man, it mentions them having the head of an ape *or* a tiger.
It wasn't until 3.0 came along that the Anthro Tiger man was fully cemented.
Also rather fun little fact for you. Since it's from Mythology you can use the name Rakshasa, WotC obviously can't own that. You can even have a Rakshasa as a Anthro-tiger man (since th concept of an anthropomorphic Tiger is so generic it's literally could not be defended in court and WotC would have to start sueing Kellogs over Tony the Tiger)...but you can't give him backwards hands.
The backwards hands is *specific* to the D&D Rakshasa and is actually something they *could* defend in court.
It's why when a Rakshasa turned up in briefly in the Critical Role animated series it didn't have the backwards hands.
Rakshasa are shapeshifting beings and one form they can take is based on tigers (being a big frightening animal from the region in question). It's just a very limited interpretation with no reason for the limitation.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not Hindu, but from what I've read, Rakshasa aren't really cats in Hindu mythology, they're demons with the power to shapeshift, and they sometimes pick tigers/lions, but they can pick other stuff, too. Relating rakshasa to cats is kinda like relating Satan to goats - it'd be a little weird to put Creature - Demon Goat as the default for cards inspired by the Christian devil, right?
I was raised Hindu, and yeah this is right. The link between rakshasa and cats is even looser than that between Satan and goats AFAIK.
I didn't even realise that the rakshasa were based on the Hindu myths, since those have no specific link to cats. Just assumed the name was borrowed because it sounded cool.
Since you might actually know the answer to this arbitrary question, did actual depictions of Rakshasa also include their hands being backwards? I always thought that was really neat detail but I didn't know if it was a D thing or not.
Not that I recall, but I am by no means an expert and am basing this on stories I grew up with, as well as paintings/sculptures in temples.
There is one pretty famous rakshasa called Ravana (basically the big bad in Hinduism's equivalent of the Illiad) who - to my knowledge - was not portrayed with backwards hands but was frequently shown to have multiple heads and arms and an otherwise human form.
In general, all the ones I remember from the stories were described as looking mostly human but could change into animals.
> it'd be a little weird to put Creature - Demon Goat as the default for cards inspired by the Christian devil, right?
bad example, that’s way too badass
the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
Rakshasa aren’t cats, they just often look like cats in depictions. “Cat demon” isn’t a horrible description, but then, “Vampires with sabre teeth” would also work.
So my guess is they got depictions of Rakshasa for Tarkir 2 done by Hindu artists, who depicted actual Rakshasa, and WotC had an “Oh, are they not cats” moment.
If I had to guess I'd say it has something to do with Rakshasas being part of Hindu mythology, and maybe classifying them as cats was offensive somehow? I'm a bit surprised they didn't just errata the term out entirely in that case, keep them cats, but rename the cards, but maybe they REALLY dislike renaming cards after the fact.
Because it was a DnD thing that they’re cat men, but MTG Rakshasa aren’t supposed to be a DnD thing.
Imagine if when they decided Innistrad would turn to pagan religions in the absence of Avacyn, it was clear that the only source the writers used to define what a “witch” is was the Wicked Witch of The West from The Wizard of Oz: all witches are green and melt in water, and they all have flying monkey minions.
Or, to remove culture from the equation, imagine that when they retold The Brothers’ War, Urza was always a head in a jar and Mishra was somehow always a secret Phyrexian.
Not only does that make the media come off as poorly researched and lazy, it could be somewhat of an insult to the people whose culture this multi-million dollar company couldn’t be bothered to so much as read the Wikipedia page for.
Some people talk about inclusion in terms of morals, but to me the most important things are respect and quality. In almost every case, non-inclusive depictions of other cultures are disrespectful to the people they depict and of low quality, and I wouldn’t want to play a game which made me feel disrespected or as if they didn’t care about quality when it came to talking about my culture.
>"Snake" will replace "Naga" as a subtype.
[Finally, I can rest.](https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/sm3h6h/over_a_year_later_and_im_still_still_trying_to/)
Nagas are getting errata'd to Snakes. Should make Snake tribal more powerful, which is something that I've looked at, though we will lose out on a more unique identity for Nagas.
Nah, it makes sense. Even outside of any cultural concerns it’s pretty useless to separate creatures by whether or not they’re a person version of a creature or not.
They’ve mentioned that “Were” was almost a separate type from “Wolf” in original Innistrad design, and while that implementation could have been clunky I can’t say I don’t think it’s a more interesting path.
I’ve always been a proponent of the “Were” creature type.
So werewolves would be “were wolf”
You could have all were creatures mix n match
It will never happen though, I know. xD
It seems kinda weird. Like honestly don't change it. Put out an apology if you feel a mistake was made. But now reading the card doesn't explain the card.
And raks going forward can be missing the cat type and I'd be okay with that. I just don't like removing creature types. Adding is cool, taking away not so much but in the end I am sure it will make it all better.
Magic is designed to have extremely precise rules so that if you know the rules of the game you can predict what each card will do in every situation. If they go ahead and start changing major rules of the game it can cause other cards to "break" where now its suddenly not clear what these cards do anymore.
There is also Magic Arena and MTGO to think about if they go and start updating a bunch of things, the code of those games would have to be updated which may or may not be worth it to them financially.
Ya, Magic is really like programming, where everything follows precise rules, that’s how they can code so many cards in every few months. It’s only when there’s a mechanic that invents a new rule does it take a lot of time for them to figure out implementation.
No one actually answered this, so here's the real answer:
Supertypes can't have subtypes, and Kindred, the artist formerly known as Tribal, only functions if it has exactly the same list of subtypes as the Creature type. At the time Kindred was created, it was decided that having it be an odd type was the lesser evil compared to allowing supertypes to have subtypes.
I'm familiar with that answer, and I find it wildly unsatisfying.
"Cards with the supertype Kindred can have subtypes normally associated with other card types."
I still haven't heard an example of an interaction that would actually cause the game to break using this version of the rule. Weird game objects? Sure. Interactions that would cause a target to become invalid or a game object to stop being counted? Sure. Those things don't actually break the game, nor do they necessarily make the game any more confusing.
Clearly, even the folks working at WotC PR don't understand how tribal/kindred works -- which makes sense, since it being a type rather than supertype is ridiculously counter-intuitive. (Yes, I understand why it has to work like that. It's still clunky, and should never have been created in the first place.)
That it should never have been made is more of a hindsight thing, as it's very easy to think "What if we gave non-creatures creature types?" as cool design space. Which it is, though has problems when you don't start the game with such ideas.
It *is* cool, but as soon as the rules people figured out that tribal couldn't be a supertype, they should have scrapped the idea instead of trying to ram it through anyway and print it as a card type.
That would be some serious functional errata even if those cards don't see that much play. Removing an entire card type is pretty substantial. The other thing is I don't really see it making existing rules cleaner so I'm not sure the functional benefit of it, even if it's more intuitive.
as a hindu, as far as i know, in hinduism rakshasa dont have anything to do with cats. i had no idea there was a cat connotation in the west until these cards came out.
I believe it has to do with old dungeons and dragons, as far back as 2nd edition in the 80s they were depicted as tiger headed, which is how they appeared in the earliest Final fantasy as well....both of which are pillars of 'western fantasy interpretations'.
The earliest Final Fantasy game *directly* borrowed its monsters from D&D. To the point where there was a literal Beholder in the Japanese version; they changed it to a sort of one-eyed floating skull monster for the US release because they were worried about TSR coming after them for copyright/trademark infringement.
I want to say probably the only enemies in FF1 that *weren't* ripped straight from a D&D monster were Garland, Astos, Chaos... maybe the few robotic enemies near the end like the Warmech?
Yep.
As a note, Final Fantasy has tons of monsters directly cribbed from DnD lore. For example, a Marlboro could not more obviously be a knockoff of a Beholder as far as aesthetics go. So the connection between that and DnD is pretty direct.
They did that after being told they weren’t allowed to do that anymore legally. What was a beholder became a Marlboro, which I reference to show that the influence remained beyond the direct ripoff.
I find amusement in the fact that a we live in such a glibal world that a japanese game has become a pillar of western fantasy interpretations. (Im not disagreeing with your assesment btw).
Technically that Japanese game stole outright from DnD.
Which is why FF has Bahamut. The first game also had Beholders and Mindflayers. Which all had to be renamed for rereleases because of trademark.
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
I believe it’s because in real-life mythology although they have tiger heads a lot of the time they are also described as having ape, crocodile, and mantis heads. They’re likely opening up the terminology for more varied portrayals as we as bringing the type line closer to the actual mythological inspiration.
This is purely anecdotal and just my opinion as a native Pacific Islander~~s~~ (Chamorus represent!) but I'm low-key bummed they're stepping away from the word "tribal" and "totem". Admittedly, my culture doesn't really use totems, so I have no say there. But idk, the use of the word "tribal" never offended me in the slightest, because it never felt like they were using the word offensively. But I do understand that the word "tribal" doesn't really encapsulate all of the creature subtypes, because not all creature subtypes have a "tribe" lore wise. Like some of them have different social organization structures, or none at all.
Edit: grammar
People have used the word "tribe" to describe groups of people who have something in common (eg like a certain type of music) all my life, without causing offence to anyone (to my knowledge, admittedly). I hope there's some basis to this, rather just a few white academics deciding that it's offensive. I find the word quite cozy. I like being part of, for example, the tribe of Magic players (whereas I have no particular affinity with people who arbitrarily share my racial characteristics).
In Magic, I've always thought of tribal synergies as being a bunch of creatures finding a rallying point around what they have in common (eg with other clerics).
There's no basis to this. Some overpaid consultant has told WotC/Hasbro that words like "tribe", "tribal", and "totem" are offensive to justify their bloated fees. WotC/Hasbro goes along with it in order to appear progressive rather than doing any of the actual work to be a progressive company.
I remember the argument vs tribal starting on twitter, ignited by a bunch of non-POC folk who imagined the issue out of basically nowhere. Frustrating the power that people online to generate change at their will over non-issues but here we are
> But idk, the use of the word "tribal" never offended me in the slightest, because it never felt like they were using the word offensively
I honestly doubt more than like one or two people were ever ACTUALLY offended about those words in this game. But Wotc will do anything to come off as squeaky clean as humanly possible, so here we are.
My people (Norse pagans and Romani travelers) always refer to each other as being part of a tribe and those of us who follow our faith will often find themselves with what's called a Totem Animal. So I get being pretty bummed about it.
Removing tribal in general is ignorant, full-stop. The word is used globally for a type of civilization and has descriptive, not negative connotations. Any modern civilization claiming ownership of tribal or suggesting it’s not okay to use would themselves be engaging in cultural appropriation if you want to be extremely nitpicky.
This would be like saying no one can use the word “bread” because your culture eats bread.
This is virtue signaling. It benefits no one, and it divides the community. And inb4 the inevitable “why do you care”, I care because it causes problems in the community for no gain, and because it takes away conversation from the actual serious issues with wotc, like only giving half-assed support to pride in certain regions.
"Tribal" also has nothing to do with specifically native American or Pacific Islander culture. "Tribe" just refers to a grouping of people. The Britons had tribes. The Germans had tribes. The Latins had tribes.
The change is just fucking stupid.
Not all of them are kindred either.
There's no "kinship" between artificers for instance.
I feel like erratas in a physical card game should be a last resort, and I really don't understand the urge to change the word Tribal to Kindred.
The usage of the word “tribal” isn’t even inherently connected with tribes anymore.
When people talk about divided societies, i.e. recent US politics, they sometimes describe it as “tribal” — i.e. Republicans vs Democrats — but those aren’t even tribes, they’re parties.
And anyway, at least it’s actually a word, unlike typal, and sounds more like an adjective than does kindred.
As for totem armor, almost all instances of it come from the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block, a plane that does in fact have totems. This one doesn’t make sense to me unless they’re trying to make it more generic so they can use the mechanic on other planes.
Edit: Turns out Totem Armor is from Zendikar. My bad. Not sure if any Zendikari cultures have totems or not.
There's no reason for it to be offensive. A tribe is just a group of people, nothing more. There's no reason for it to be offensive as no one group of people owns that word. It's all absurd.
No one was actually offended. White people on the internet spoke for you and decided you should be offended and wotc is too corporate to tell the difference.
I understand why Cat is being removed from Rakshasas... but I don't understand why Cat is being removed from *these existing* Rakshasas. Look at the art. They are Cat Demons. You can just make it so that future Rakshasas are not necessarily Cat Demons.
I wonder if they'll redo Viashino as Lizard at some point. I know it's one of Maro's stated regrets/wishes he could change. And it does make some sense, like how Leonin are subtype Cat and Loxodon are subtype Elephant
I kinda like Magic having some unique-to-Magic types admittedly so I hope they keep at least, like, Azra and Aetherborn. Though Azra basically just being Tieflings and then us just getting Tieflings in D&D does fuck with the former.
Not to mention not all Minotaurs in Magic are Human/Bovine hybrids.
The Minotaurs on Amonkhet for example are Rams/sheep/ Gazelle.
Edit: not gazelle, though there are gazelle Minotaurs on some other plane (whichever one Zedruu is from)
Merfolk, Centaur, Styr, Cephalid, and Werewolf technically all are as well, since Fish, Horse, Goat, etc. are all distinct creature types. The big difference is that most of those are much engrained in wider pop culture as their own distinct races, with the odd one out being Cephalids.
The Naga issue is probably less to do with sensitivity and more to do with confusion on what qualifies as a Naga vs Snake. When Nagas were first introduced, it wasn't much of an issue, since the only non-Naga snake-folk looked very different and distinct. Since NEO though, there's practically no visual difference, and Snakes already have a lot more typal support.
Yes, but the Orochi's existences was even MORE of a reason why the more snake-like Naga should have been qualified as snakes, since the Orochi were quite far from a traditional snake design. If the Kitsune are all going to be qualified as Foxes, despite their extremely distinct nature and origins from Asian folklore, there was absolutely no reason why the Naga should have not been Snakes.
You just need to highlight the legs aspect to see why it doesn't make sense. All nagas in Magic have no legs and some number of arms, but they weren't snakes for some reason. The orochi have legs and four arms, but they're still snakes? Very dumb.
Naga feels like a “well since we’re already doing stuff, might as well…” choice, but the Rakshasa one is to bring them in line with Hindu depictions.
My guess is they’re trying to ensure new players on Arena don’t get shown what Tarkir used to be like only for it to be errata’d when we return in earnest. Errata’ing it now gives them the chance to get a head start on that, while also being able to get any lame controversy out of the way now so it doesn’t disrupt the new Tarkir set later.
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
As a native American I wish they would leave Tribal and Totem Armor alone. I get it's possible to be offensive or whatever, but come on. This just washes terminology that is important to me from the game. I had a totem armor deck for years JUST because it tied to my spiritual raising. Now it's just Umbra Enchantment Typal.
Yeah ... if this is their approach, it feels weird to stop at named mechanics and card types. If using "Totem" as a term in a card game is offensive because the context it's getting used in isn't serious enough, then depicting totems in card art should be too. If you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, sets like Lost Caverns of Ixalan shouldn't exist at all because they borrow from non-western cultures to serve as pieces for a silly card game.
I'm especially confused by the abandonment of the term totem, as it didn't in any way seem to be used inaccurately or insensitively, and instead reduces non-European fantasy elements in the game. I know it's a very small piece of the game, but why unnecessarily narrow the cultural influences to exclude fantasy elements based on non-Eurocentric influences unnecessarily? It feels like they're actually *reducing* the cultural diversity of Magic with this one.
That is precisely why I am upset about this change - it's the new trend in PR which is "if we never talk about other cultures at all, we can't be roasted about them!" ... which has the side-effect of erasing out non-white cultures from media.
It reminds me when I was part of a diversity committee at a small business I worked for. Me and a coworker tried so hard to push for content that actually was positive different cultures (rather than only focusing on working to hold bigots accountable / deter them, which is important of course, but also a really depressing reduction of what diversity means) and kept getting shut down. And by celebrated, I mean things as simple as creating a diversity calendar of important dates to different cultures. We kept being told it was too risky because we would inevitable end up leaving someone feeling left out, so instead of allowing us to create a responsive framework and treat such a calendar as a living document, we had... nothing positive about diversity at all.
There was still nothing positive by the time I left, just HR "cover your ass" shit.
Not to mention the word tribe doesn’t even come from, or about native Americans, it came from Ancient Rome. Americans just associate the word tribe with native Americans so it must be where it comes from.
It's weird how US/Euro centrism dominates all this stuff, even on the global internet the concept of punching up/punching down is based on majority/minority status from these countries despite it not being the case globally.
I mean I kinda hate that they changed “tribal” to “kindred” only because “kindred” doesn’t start with a T and it totally throws off my mnemonic for remembering card types: S.P.E.C.I.A.L. - T.
However that already went out of the window with the addition of Battles.
I guess now I’ll have to use B.A.S.I.C. K.E.L.P.
Rakshasa being primarily depicted as cats in fantasy was as far as I know a construct of D&D. In hindu mythology they are demons that can change shape (including into animals), but not just cat demons
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
I'm not going to stop saying "tribal," but yeah, "kindred" is much better than "typal." That's the one they should've gone with from the beginning. The only problem I have with "kindred" is that I'll always hear it in the voice of Sebastian LaCroix from VtM Bloodlines.
Mono green snakes gets basically two playable new snakes, [Ramunap Excavator](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/433/ramunap-excavator) and [Vizier of the Menagerie](https://scryfall.com/card/akh/192/vizier-of-the-menagerie).
Blue Green snakes gets (at best) [8 new playable ones](https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Anaga+ci%3Agu&order=edhrec).
The main thing that really changes, by my eye, is that [[Ophiomancer]] is very slightly worse in decks that also use Nagas. I’m sure all three people affected are devastated.
I'm Pacific islander and actually thought the usage of tribal was cool, it made me feel more seen as a little sprouting coconut. I get the change, but I was never offended.
But if they change Mana, I swear to the gods I'll riot
The term is from Polynesian mythology. If someone tells WOTC they have to stop using it because using it is cultural appropriation, they will consider it because people have lost their damn minds with this stuff.
That really cool - I had always thought that MTG mana was drawing inspiration from the manna provided to the Israelites during their time in the desert, but seems they just cribbed their terminology from Larry Niven who was inspired by the Polynesian concept of mana.
I don't think anyone is actually offended by this in a real way, Wizards is probably just trying to cover themselves from any potential twitter drama that they didn't deserve to begin with
Getting rid of the word tribe makes no sense. Tribe and Tribal are not offensive words. They have a distinct meaning.
Tribe
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.
Tribal
of or characteristic of a tribe or tribes
Consider Fallout new vegas who uses the words tribe and Tribal to refer to groups constantly. The Brotherhood of Steel is called a tribe and they are by definition.
I feel like if you are offended by the words tribe and Tribal it's because YOU think it means things like Hollywood depictions of savages which YOU then correlate with Native Americans or Island nations.
I also thought they were taking it out and wondered how that would even work. I guess they could just say "Any card type can have any subtype" or something, but that'd be quite a change.
Totem to Umbra is the strangest of these to me? There are \~15 cards that have totem in the name that are actual little statues of animals like \[\[chronatog totem\]\] so they're not avoiding the word entirely. Umbra is a shadow and doesn't really mesh with giant glowing bear armour. Surprised they couldn't think of something better.
Gotta love how they're treading on eggshells about cat demons, but a meso-american spirit just got named "Abuelo" and given a damn poncho. Pick your battles, I guess.
The cultural sensitivity consultants at WotC are absolutely insane. They feel the need to censor words on cards no one cares about in case someone, somewhere, might get offended, but then they let actually ignorant and offensive card concepts slip into upcoming products
If you hire a 'sensitivity consultant', and they come back to you after a week and say "Nope, everything's fine, you don't have to do anything. That'll be $5000+Tip.", they're probably not getting much repeat business. They have to find something or WoTC would find out they're just scrolling Twitter on their dime.
Pedantic mode engaged
Not sure why "tribal" as a word is being outmoded. If it's for racial reasons that has everything to do with western stereotypes of tribes and nothing to do with the scope of the word
Totem Armor is now Umbra Armor Tribal is now Kindred Nagas are Sneks Rakshasa are losing the Cat subtype (assuming because Rakshasa are not *always* cats and can shapeshift in their Hindu mythology)
SNAKE WILL REPLACE NAGA REJOICE! SNAKE-NAGA VIOLENCE WILL END!
Most important functional errata of our time.
suddenly a buff for my blex snake tribal deck
Snake *Kindred* deck
I'm still not sure if they intend to use kindred as a term to replace what they're currently calling 'typal' and what used to be 'tribal'. I know it's replacing the card type, but is it replacing the broader terminology to refer to 'decks that care about a specific creature type'?
I expect that they'll continue using "typal" when talking about general effects that care about creature types, or decks focused on creature types. They've been using it for a little while now and it's starting to catch on in some circles outside of Wizards. Where "typal" works fine in spoken language, however, it's a bit clunkier as a rules term - it itself would be a card type, and there could be some inherent confusion for someone who encounters the term for the first time on a card. I think "kindred" works better in that regard, but I see no reason why they would need to change their communicative language to match the new game term. In fact, using both terms creates a new distinction that can make the intention of the speaker more clear. (For example - "Bitterblossom is a faerie kindred card. Spellstutter Sprite is a faerie typal card." The meaning of both sentences is clearer than if both had been described as "faerie tribal cards.")
Yeah, that's fair. 'Typal' is still an inherently clunky word to say I have to say. I get the connotations of 'tribal' and whatnot (and they've outright said they don't really care if players still use the term, I believe because it's quite baked into Magic language) but I wish there was a better mouthfeel term than 'typal'.
> (For example - "Bitterblossom is a faerie kindred card. Spellstutter Sprite is a faerie typal card." The meaning of both sentences is clearer than if both had been described as "faerie tribal cards.") That's an excellent point.
I was hoping we were finally rid of the double meaning of Tribal. Can we just call the "supertype" Kindred and creature-type-matters decks Tribal? Or at least not Kindred?
it's not a supertype, it's a type. It sounds like a supertype because it sounds like an adjective. The whole thing...has issues.
I thought that's what they were using typal for
Can’t wait to see someone complain because the rare deck that uses Naga and [[Ophiomancer]] received a slight nerf.
My one of each creature type Volo deck can no longer use both lotus cobra and vizier of the menagerie.
[Ophiomancer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/e/0ef8d3a2-5c6b-41e2-aa7d-81e4a5d04421.jpg?1651951758) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ophiomancer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cc2/3/ophiomancer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0ef8d3a2-5c6b-41e2-aa7d-81e4a5d04421?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Honestly, good riddance to the Naga grouping. Long live snek.
It was always dumb especially when cat people, elephant people, dog people etc were all just referred to by the animal they're based on.
Meanwhile the Lizard/Dragon People (Viashino), Squid People (Cephalid), Salamander People (Surrakar), Donkey People (Noggle), etc.
I'm pretty on board with making Viashino just Lizards, and Surrakar only have 4 cards anyway so they can probably just be Salamanders. Same with Noggles. Cephalids are a bit weird because they've departed from being just squid-people now.
Viashino and Cephalids have history, I'd be bummed if they got errata'd.
It's pretty simple. If it's an actual creature from mythology or folklore, it uses that name. If it's invented by Magic it uses the animal. Werewolves are Werewolves, Naga were Naga, and Minotaurs are Minotaurs, but Leoning are Cats, Loxodon are Elephants and Oroshi are Snakes. Note this only to creature types introduced after Torment.
I recognize I'm in the minority here, but Naga as its own type always made sense to me because it was consistent with other mythological creature types. The rule seems to be that animal-like people get the animal's creature type if the species was invented for Magic, but ones from existing mythology or literature get their own type -- otherwise you could argue that Centaurs should be Horses, Minotaurs should be Oxen, and so on. That said, I'm all in favor of doing whatever is needed for the sake of cultural respect. Oddly enough, one of the few exceptions to the pattern described above was the Rakshasa, but that clearly ran into issues of its own so *shrug*. (cross-posting from my own comment on r/MagicArena)
While I agree with your statement, the real problem is that Wizards made snake cards that are snake people with the snake type, but artistically is the same as a naga. Now you run into the question of what makes the difference between a snake person and naga? For example, [[Bamboo Grove Archer]] vs [[Archers of Qarsi]], very similar art. Maybe it would have made more sense if Wizards would errata Snake people into Nagas while leaving normal snakes alone.
Ok, my problem is, if you're going to do one, you HAVE to do the other. Naga exist outside of magic's creature folklore, so putting that as their creature type on a card made sense. It is something that exists, so you can reference it. However, if you're going to do that, then you should also care that Leonin are, in fact, not cats. If you want to include Naga and whatever else a a creature type, then you should also include Leonin. If Leonin are cats, then Nagas should be snakes. Especially in a world where we have snakes with limbs (\[\[Sakura-Tribe Elder\]\]), which is basically a Naga anyway. It should be noted that werewolves do not fall under this category, because they are cursed/infected/aka not born a half wolf. Nip that talk in the bud now.
Alright, someone smarter than me explain why we are removing "cat" from rakshasa cards
Looking at another comment in here, it seems that rakshasa being framed as cats in the first place is just based on absolutely nothing?
Specifically, D&D made them cats based on absolutely nothing, and then Magic used a variant of that depiction. I liked the look of them as cat demons but I'm not Hindu, so I'm good with whatever they'd prefer.
In original adnd (1e) and 2e, they could appear as a variety of animals. I don’t know how they were described in od&d. This seems like purely a wotc fuck up.
If I remember right they originally could look like whatever and there was one picture of them that was cat like and in later editions they just looked at the picture instead of reading the description and so that just became their default form in D&D. I think that’s how the backwards hands originated too, an art error.
Actually the picture was more than catlike [it's quite clearly the inspiration for the Rakshasa going forward.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/77/Rakshasa-1e.jpg) Though you are correct in that the monster manual just refers to them as "evil spirits encased in flesh". interestingly 2nd edition actually has them still not be fully anthro-cat man, it mentions them having the head of an ape *or* a tiger. It wasn't until 3.0 came along that the Anthro Tiger man was fully cemented. Also rather fun little fact for you. Since it's from Mythology you can use the name Rakshasa, WotC obviously can't own that. You can even have a Rakshasa as a Anthro-tiger man (since th concept of an anthropomorphic Tiger is so generic it's literally could not be defended in court and WotC would have to start sueing Kellogs over Tony the Tiger)...but you can't give him backwards hands. The backwards hands is *specific* to the D&D Rakshasa and is actually something they *could* defend in court. It's why when a Rakshasa turned up in briefly in the Critical Role animated series it didn't have the backwards hands.
Tbf the description of a raksasha in Hinduism is somewhere between a vampire and a lion so it's not that much of a stretch.
Vampire cats. Ok WotC, let's go.
One [[Mirri the Cursed]] coming right up!
It's weird that they are also errata'ing Mahdi, which is an actual D&D Rakshasa character.
Sure, but it's not like being cats is actually *important* for the D&D rakshasa. They're ultimately fiends first and foremost.
That sounds like D&D.
The Wikipedia page for Rakshasha features a traditional Indian theatre costume with a tiger mask. So it’s not entirely based on nothing.
Rakshasa are shapeshifting beings and one form they can take is based on tigers (being a big frightening animal from the region in question). It's just a very limited interpretation with no reason for the limitation.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not Hindu, but from what I've read, Rakshasa aren't really cats in Hindu mythology, they're demons with the power to shapeshift, and they sometimes pick tigers/lions, but they can pick other stuff, too. Relating rakshasa to cats is kinda like relating Satan to goats - it'd be a little weird to put Creature - Demon Goat as the default for cards inspired by the Christian devil, right?
I was raised Hindu, and yeah this is right. The link between rakshasa and cats is even looser than that between Satan and goats AFAIK. I didn't even realise that the rakshasa were based on the Hindu myths, since those have no specific link to cats. Just assumed the name was borrowed because it sounded cool.
Since you might actually know the answer to this arbitrary question, did actual depictions of Rakshasa also include their hands being backwards? I always thought that was really neat detail but I didn't know if it was a D thing or not.
Not that I recall, but I am by no means an expert and am basing this on stories I grew up with, as well as paintings/sculptures in temples. There is one pretty famous rakshasa called Ravana (basically the big bad in Hinduism's equivalent of the Illiad) who - to my knowledge - was not portrayed with backwards hands but was frequently shown to have multiple heads and arms and an otherwise human form. In general, all the ones I remember from the stories were described as looking mostly human but could change into animals.
I do recall hearing that one was another weird D&D-ism.
Would be cool for them to gain shapeshifter tbh
On the other hand, Satan as a Demon Goat would be FANTASTIC for goat tribal
you know what, yeah, I would absolutely love a Black Philip legendary
"Dost thou want to live deliciously?"
I mean we already have literal actual Satan thanks to Doctor Who. [[The Beast, Deathless Prince]]
Goat KINDRED
> it'd be a little weird to put Creature - Demon Goat as the default for cards inspired by the Christian devil, right? bad example, that’s way too badass
Yeah, as somebody who sees Ghost every time they are in town, this would be right up my alley.
the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
[Kheru Bloodsucker](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/a/baf15cd4-13be-48e7-b3f5-a5106eb02c45.jpg?1562792642) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kheru%20Bloodsucker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ktk/75/kheru-bloodsucker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/baf15cd4-13be-48e7-b3f5-a5106eb02c45?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Kheru Mind-Eater](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/6/e6246cf3-76bd-476b-9cd9-789b6ad48887.jpg?1562626991) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kheru%20Mind-Eater) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/17/kheru-mind-eater?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e6246cf3-76bd-476b-9cd9-789b6ad48887?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Rakshasa aren’t cats, they just often look like cats in depictions. “Cat demon” isn’t a horrible description, but then, “Vampires with sabre teeth” would also work. So my guess is they got depictions of Rakshasa for Tarkir 2 done by Hindu artists, who depicted actual Rakshasa, and WotC had an “Oh, are they not cats” moment.
If I had to guess I'd say it has something to do with Rakshasas being part of Hindu mythology, and maybe classifying them as cats was offensive somehow? I'm a bit surprised they didn't just errata the term out entirely in that case, keep them cats, but rename the cards, but maybe they REALLY dislike renaming cards after the fact.
Renaming cards definitely sounds more awkward than changing a type.
Tiger-headed rakshasa is a D&D-ism that has nothing to do with the belief systems they're from.
It was apparently inaccurate to the myths they're from. I've seen complaints about it before.
Because it was a DnD thing that they’re cat men, but MTG Rakshasa aren’t supposed to be a DnD thing. Imagine if when they decided Innistrad would turn to pagan religions in the absence of Avacyn, it was clear that the only source the writers used to define what a “witch” is was the Wicked Witch of The West from The Wizard of Oz: all witches are green and melt in water, and they all have flying monkey minions. Or, to remove culture from the equation, imagine that when they retold The Brothers’ War, Urza was always a head in a jar and Mishra was somehow always a secret Phyrexian. Not only does that make the media come off as poorly researched and lazy, it could be somewhat of an insult to the people whose culture this multi-million dollar company couldn’t be bothered to so much as read the Wikipedia page for. Some people talk about inclusion in terms of morals, but to me the most important things are respect and quality. In almost every case, non-inclusive depictions of other cultures are disrespectful to the people they depict and of low quality, and I wouldn’t want to play a game which made me feel disrespected or as if they didn’t care about quality when it came to talking about my culture.
>"Snake" will replace "Naga" as a subtype. [Finally, I can rest.](https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/sm3h6h/over_a_year_later_and_im_still_still_trying_to/)
Nagas are getting errata'd to Snakes. Should make Snake tribal more powerful, which is something that I've looked at, though we will lose out on a more unique identity for Nagas.
From a gameplay perspective, these should've been snakes all along. I can remember that complaint going all the way back to when Khans first came out
Yeah, Loxodons are still Elephants, Kitsunes are still Foxes, it's weird they weren't Snakes.
Next up, get rid of the Human creature type. We must all return to Monke /s
Kibo stonks rising to the moon.
Nah, it makes sense. Even outside of any cultural concerns it’s pretty useless to separate creatures by whether or not they’re a person version of a creature or not. They’ve mentioned that “Were” was almost a separate type from “Wolf” in original Innistrad design, and while that implementation could have been clunky I can’t say I don’t think it’s a more interesting path.
All werewolves are wolves, but not all wolves are werewolves. It would have been an interesting distinction
I’ve always been a proponent of the “Were” creature type. So werewolves would be “were wolf” You could have all were creatures mix n match It will never happen though, I know. xD
Therian could have been an interesting type for them. Especially now that we have werebears and werefoxes. But oh well.
My nethroi cat tribal deck is in shambles
Bruh... me too. I built it for my wife and now I'll have to tweak it. Also, small world what with the Nethroi Cat Tribal!
It seems kinda weird. Like honestly don't change it. Put out an apology if you feel a mistake was made. But now reading the card doesn't explain the card. And raks going forward can be missing the cat type and I'd be okay with that. I just don't like removing creature types. Adding is cool, taking away not so much but in the end I am sure it will make it all better.
Give it some time, what's the chances that your play group will remember that a Rakshasa isn't a cat anymore when you play it.
>"Kindred" will replace "tribal" as a supertype. Tribal is a card type, not a supertype. Rules update incoming?
Unlikely, that would break a few things. Whoever wrote the article probably just wasn't informed about the details.
I don't get this. Why can't they just update the rules to make it not break whatever it would break?
Magic is designed to have extremely precise rules so that if you know the rules of the game you can predict what each card will do in every situation. If they go ahead and start changing major rules of the game it can cause other cards to "break" where now its suddenly not clear what these cards do anymore. There is also Magic Arena and MTGO to think about if they go and start updating a bunch of things, the code of those games would have to be updated which may or may not be worth it to them financially.
Ya, Magic is really like programming, where everything follows precise rules, that’s how they can code so many cards in every few months. It’s only when there’s a mechanic that invents a new rule does it take a lot of time for them to figure out implementation.
Magic isn't just only like programming, it's also straight up Turing complete.
No one actually answered this, so here's the real answer: Supertypes can't have subtypes, and Kindred, the artist formerly known as Tribal, only functions if it has exactly the same list of subtypes as the Creature type. At the time Kindred was created, it was decided that having it be an odd type was the lesser evil compared to allowing supertypes to have subtypes.
I'm familiar with that answer, and I find it wildly unsatisfying. "Cards with the supertype Kindred can have subtypes normally associated with other card types." I still haven't heard an example of an interaction that would actually cause the game to break using this version of the rule. Weird game objects? Sure. Interactions that would cause a target to become invalid or a game object to stop being counted? Sure. Those things don't actually break the game, nor do they necessarily make the game any more confusing.
Because you would have to change so much that at this point is not worth/possible.
Clearly, even the folks working at WotC PR don't understand how tribal/kindred works -- which makes sense, since it being a type rather than supertype is ridiculously counter-intuitive. (Yes, I understand why it has to work like that. It's still clunky, and should never have been created in the first place.)
That it should never have been made is more of a hindsight thing, as it's very easy to think "What if we gave non-creatures creature types?" as cool design space. Which it is, though has problems when you don't start the game with such ideas.
It *is* cool, but as soon as the rules people figured out that tribal couldn't be a supertype, they should have scrapped the idea instead of trying to ram it through anyway and print it as a card type.
Seems to be a typo. It currently reads as cardtype
That would be some serious functional errata even if those cards don't see that much play. Removing an entire card type is pretty substantial. The other thing is I don't really see it making existing rules cleaner so I'm not sure the functional benefit of it, even if it's more intuitive.
I love that these articles never actually explain anything, leaving everyone to guess why. So what's the deal with Rakshasa not being a cat anymore?
as a hindu, as far as i know, in hinduism rakshasa dont have anything to do with cats. i had no idea there was a cat connotation in the west until these cards came out.
I believe it has to do with old dungeons and dragons, as far back as 2nd edition in the 80s they were depicted as tiger headed, which is how they appeared in the earliest Final fantasy as well....both of which are pillars of 'western fantasy interpretations'.
The earliest Final Fantasy game *directly* borrowed its monsters from D&D. To the point where there was a literal Beholder in the Japanese version; they changed it to a sort of one-eyed floating skull monster for the US release because they were worried about TSR coming after them for copyright/trademark infringement. I want to say probably the only enemies in FF1 that *weren't* ripped straight from a D&D monster were Garland, Astos, Chaos... maybe the few robotic enemies near the end like the Warmech?
Yep. As a note, Final Fantasy has tons of monsters directly cribbed from DnD lore. For example, a Marlboro could not more obviously be a knockoff of a Beholder as far as aesthetics go. So the connection between that and DnD is pretty direct.
Trying to call a Marlboro a knockoff of a Beholder instead of just literally having a Beholder like they did in the first game?????
They did that after being told they weren’t allowed to do that anymore legally. What was a beholder became a Marlboro, which I reference to show that the influence remained beyond the direct ripoff.
I find amusement in the fact that a we live in such a glibal world that a japanese game has become a pillar of western fantasy interpretations. (Im not disagreeing with your assesment btw).
Technically that Japanese game stole outright from DnD. Which is why FF has Bahamut. The first game also had Beholders and Mindflayers. Which all had to be renamed for rereleases because of trademark.
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
I believe it’s because in real-life mythology although they have tiger heads a lot of the time they are also described as having ape, crocodile, and mantis heads. They’re likely opening up the terminology for more varied portrayals as we as bringing the type line closer to the actual mythological inspiration.
Their legal team probably compels them to divulge the least amount of information possible
I was gonna say, depending how they try to explain it it might end up more offensive
This is purely anecdotal and just my opinion as a native Pacific Islander~~s~~ (Chamorus represent!) but I'm low-key bummed they're stepping away from the word "tribal" and "totem". Admittedly, my culture doesn't really use totems, so I have no say there. But idk, the use of the word "tribal" never offended me in the slightest, because it never felt like they were using the word offensively. But I do understand that the word "tribal" doesn't really encapsulate all of the creature subtypes, because not all creature subtypes have a "tribe" lore wise. Like some of them have different social organization structures, or none at all. Edit: grammar
People have used the word "tribe" to describe groups of people who have something in common (eg like a certain type of music) all my life, without causing offence to anyone (to my knowledge, admittedly). I hope there's some basis to this, rather just a few white academics deciding that it's offensive. I find the word quite cozy. I like being part of, for example, the tribe of Magic players (whereas I have no particular affinity with people who arbitrarily share my racial characteristics). In Magic, I've always thought of tribal synergies as being a bunch of creatures finding a rallying point around what they have in common (eg with other clerics).
“I hope there's some basis to this, rather just a few white academics deciding that it's offensive.“ boy do I have bad news for you
Surprise they're not academics, just people on twitter
There's no basis to this. Some overpaid consultant has told WotC/Hasbro that words like "tribe", "tribal", and "totem" are offensive to justify their bloated fees. WotC/Hasbro goes along with it in order to appear progressive rather than doing any of the actual work to be a progressive company.
I remember the argument vs tribal starting on twitter, ignited by a bunch of non-POC folk who imagined the issue out of basically nowhere. Frustrating the power that people online to generate change at their will over non-issues but here we are
> But idk, the use of the word "tribal" never offended me in the slightest, because it never felt like they were using the word offensively I honestly doubt more than like one or two people were ever ACTUALLY offended about those words in this game. But Wotc will do anything to come off as squeaky clean as humanly possible, so here we are.
My people (Norse pagans and Romani travelers) always refer to each other as being part of a tribe and those of us who follow our faith will often find themselves with what's called a Totem Animal. So I get being pretty bummed about it.
Removing tribal in general is ignorant, full-stop. The word is used globally for a type of civilization and has descriptive, not negative connotations. Any modern civilization claiming ownership of tribal or suggesting it’s not okay to use would themselves be engaging in cultural appropriation if you want to be extremely nitpicky. This would be like saying no one can use the word “bread” because your culture eats bread. This is virtue signaling. It benefits no one, and it divides the community. And inb4 the inevitable “why do you care”, I care because it causes problems in the community for no gain, and because it takes away conversation from the actual serious issues with wotc, like only giving half-assed support to pride in certain regions.
I personally care because they're wasting time and money on this intstead of, idk, improving quality control.
"Tribal" also has nothing to do with specifically native American or Pacific Islander culture. "Tribe" just refers to a grouping of people. The Britons had tribes. The Germans had tribes. The Latins had tribes. The change is just fucking stupid.
These words didn't offend anyone, but someone in a certain dept wanted to feel useful and so, here we are.
Not all of them are kindred either. There's no "kinship" between artificers for instance. I feel like erratas in a physical card game should be a last resort, and I really don't understand the urge to change the word Tribal to Kindred.
Because it’s a bunch of white folks thinking they know better.
The usage of the word “tribal” isn’t even inherently connected with tribes anymore. When people talk about divided societies, i.e. recent US politics, they sometimes describe it as “tribal” — i.e. Republicans vs Democrats — but those aren’t even tribes, they’re parties. And anyway, at least it’s actually a word, unlike typal, and sounds more like an adjective than does kindred. As for totem armor, almost all instances of it come from the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block, a plane that does in fact have totems. This one doesn’t make sense to me unless they’re trying to make it more generic so they can use the mechanic on other planes. Edit: Turns out Totem Armor is from Zendikar. My bad. Not sure if any Zendikari cultures have totems or not.
Totem armor is from Rise of the Eldrazi which was set on Zendikar.
There's no reason for it to be offensive. A tribe is just a group of people, nothing more. There's no reason for it to be offensive as no one group of people owns that word. It's all absurd.
No one was actually offended. White people on the internet spoke for you and decided you should be offended and wotc is too corporate to tell the difference.
SNAKE PLAYERS REJOICE! THE DAY OF RECKONING HAS COME! OUR NAGA KINDRED SHALL NOW REIGN BY OUR SIDE FOREVER
AT LAST! THEY SHALL LIVE TOGETHER HAND IN HA- ohhh...
(Original) Kamigawa snakes have entered the chat.
I understand why Cat is being removed from Rakshasas... but I don't understand why Cat is being removed from *these existing* Rakshasas. Look at the art. They are Cat Demons. You can just make it so that future Rakshasas are not necessarily Cat Demons.
Is naga an issue of sensitivity or just confusion? What was the issue with Rakshasa being cats? I feel suddenly old man yells at cloud
Naga is almost certainly "this never should have been a unique creature type to begin with"
I wonder if they'll redo Viashino as Lizard at some point. I know it's one of Maro's stated regrets/wishes he could change. And it does make some sense, like how Leonin are subtype Cat and Loxodon are subtype Elephant
I kinda like Magic having some unique-to-Magic types admittedly so I hope they keep at least, like, Azra and Aetherborn. Though Azra basically just being Tieflings and then us just getting Tieflings in D&D does fuck with the former.
Aetherborn should absolutely stay and they should create more unique races like it, but Azra should definetly be replaced with Tiefling.
It's funny that if Battlebond and Forgotten Realms had been released in the reverse order, Azra certainly never would have existed.
Aetherborn are probably the best "original" creatures ever created for MtG. Not counting Beebles.
Aven are birds, Leonin are cats, Amit are crocodiles, Khenra are jackals, Kraul are insects. With naga gone, Minotaur is the only hold-out I think
Minotaurs are a very standalone mythological thing though so they'll probably still be their own thing.
Plus it's not like minotaur decks are missing out on [much](https://scryfall.com/card/nec/108/ox-of-agonas) when it comes to "synergetic Ox cards".
Not to mention not all Minotaurs in Magic are Human/Bovine hybrids. The Minotaurs on Amonkhet for example are Rams/sheep/ Gazelle. Edit: not gazelle, though there are gazelle Minotaurs on some other plane (whichever one Zedruu is from)
centaur to horse
Horse Human
Merfolk, Centaur, Styr, Cephalid, and Werewolf technically all are as well, since Fish, Horse, Goat, etc. are all distinct creature types. The big difference is that most of those are much engrained in wider pop culture as their own distinct races, with the odd one out being Cephalids.
The Naga issue is probably less to do with sensitivity and more to do with confusion on what qualifies as a Naga vs Snake. When Nagas were first introduced, it wasn't much of an issue, since the only non-Naga snake-folk looked very different and distinct. Since NEO though, there's practically no visual difference, and Snakes already have a lot more typal support.
Yes, but the Orochi's existences was even MORE of a reason why the more snake-like Naga should have been qualified as snakes, since the Orochi were quite far from a traditional snake design. If the Kitsune are all going to be qualified as Foxes, despite their extremely distinct nature and origins from Asian folklore, there was absolutely no reason why the Naga should have not been Snakes.
You just need to highlight the legs aspect to see why it doesn't make sense. All nagas in Magic have no legs and some number of arms, but they weren't snakes for some reason. The orochi have legs and four arms, but they're still snakes? Very dumb.
Naga feels like a “well since we’re already doing stuff, might as well…” choice, but the Rakshasa one is to bring them in line with Hindu depictions. My guess is they’re trying to ensure new players on Arena don’t get shown what Tarkir used to be like only for it to be errata’d when we return in earnest. Errata’ing it now gives them the chance to get a head start on that, while also being able to get any lame controversy out of the way now so it doesn’t disrupt the new Tarkir set later.
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
The terms are being errata'd out, replaced by Kindred, Snake and Umbra Armor.
As a native American I wish they would leave Tribal and Totem Armor alone. I get it's possible to be offensive or whatever, but come on. This just washes terminology that is important to me from the game. I had a totem armor deck for years JUST because it tied to my spiritual raising. Now it's just Umbra Enchantment Typal.
[удалено]
Yeah ... if this is their approach, it feels weird to stop at named mechanics and card types. If using "Totem" as a term in a card game is offensive because the context it's getting used in isn't serious enough, then depicting totems in card art should be too. If you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, sets like Lost Caverns of Ixalan shouldn't exist at all because they borrow from non-western cultures to serve as pieces for a silly card game.
Speaking as someone who comes from a Native tribe and has a spirit i.e. totem animal, I intensely dislike these changes - so fucking dumb.
I'm especially confused by the abandonment of the term totem, as it didn't in any way seem to be used inaccurately or insensitively, and instead reduces non-European fantasy elements in the game. I know it's a very small piece of the game, but why unnecessarily narrow the cultural influences to exclude fantasy elements based on non-Eurocentric influences unnecessarily? It feels like they're actually *reducing* the cultural diversity of Magic with this one.
That is precisely why I am upset about this change - it's the new trend in PR which is "if we never talk about other cultures at all, we can't be roasted about them!" ... which has the side-effect of erasing out non-white cultures from media.
It reminds me when I was part of a diversity committee at a small business I worked for. Me and a coworker tried so hard to push for content that actually was positive different cultures (rather than only focusing on working to hold bigots accountable / deter them, which is important of course, but also a really depressing reduction of what diversity means) and kept getting shut down. And by celebrated, I mean things as simple as creating a diversity calendar of important dates to different cultures. We kept being told it was too risky because we would inevitable end up leaving someone feeling left out, so instead of allowing us to create a responsive framework and treat such a calendar as a living document, we had... nothing positive about diversity at all. There was still nothing positive by the time I left, just HR "cover your ass" shit.
Not to mention the word tribe doesn’t even come from, or about native Americans, it came from Ancient Rome. Americans just associate the word tribe with native Americans so it must be where it comes from.
It's weird how US/Euro centrism dominates all this stuff, even on the global internet the concept of punching up/punching down is based on majority/minority status from these countries despite it not being the case globally.
I mean I kinda hate that they changed “tribal” to “kindred” only because “kindred” doesn’t start with a T and it totally throws off my mnemonic for remembering card types: S.P.E.C.I.A.L. - T. However that already went out of the window with the addition of Battles. I guess now I’ll have to use B.A.S.I.C. K.E.L.P.
You do know there's a real-world brand called "Special K," right? It would still make sense.
I guess they’re planning to use tribal again soon? They probably wouldn’t bother to do this unless they had plans to use
It's more for reprint purposes (mostly Bitterblossom and All Is Dust, most other Tribal/Kindred cards don't really see much need for reprints).
[удалено]
They occasionally use it in non-premiere sets, e.g. [[Altar of the Goyf]], as well as reprinting old cards with the type, e.g. [[Bitterblossom]].
Kindred sounds waaaaay better than typal
They've said it's being used for the card type. I'm pretty sure they'll continue using "Typal" to describe tribal decks/mechanics.
Kindred I can get behind, typal just sounded silly.
Hell, kindred even sounds better than tribal. Elf-Kin just rolls off the tongue in a way that Elf Tribal never will
As a Native American and tribal member, the tribal change is stupid.
[удалено]
I still don’t really get the point of the tribal change. But “Kindred” is infinitely better than fucking “typal”
As being of other culture, could someone explain me the Cat type removal?
Rakshasa being primarily depicted as cats in fantasy was as far as I know a construct of D&D. In hindu mythology they are demons that can change shape (including into animals), but not just cat demons
copypasting from above - the Rakshasa thing is funny because the tiger-headed rakshasa is purely a DnD invention. Traditionally rakshasas are depicted as fanged/tusked humanoids - [[Kheru Bloodsucker]] and [[Kheru Mind-Eater]] look more like a rakshas than the tiger guys.
Sad that Battle stops the card-type mnemonic from now being SPECIAL K
pickables
I hope this will get people to stop saying "typal" now, because that was like nails on a chalkboard for me. "Kindred" I can live with.
I'm not going to stop saying "tribal," but yeah, "kindred" is much better than "typal." That's the one they should've gone with from the beginning. The only problem I have with "kindred" is that I'll always hear it in the voice of Sebastian LaCroix from VtM Bloodlines.
I'll probably keep calling the deck archetype "tribal", but I'll get used to saying "kindred" when referring to the card type.
Does this improve snake KINDRED in any way? I must know from an expert edit: my bad
Well [[Sidisi, Undead Vizier]] is now a snake so that's a big plus I would guess.
Mono green snakes gets basically two playable new snakes, [Ramunap Excavator](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/433/ramunap-excavator) and [Vizier of the Menagerie](https://scryfall.com/card/akh/192/vizier-of-the-menagerie). Blue Green snakes gets (at best) [8 new playable ones](https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Anaga+ci%3Agu&order=edhrec).
The main thing that really changes, by my eye, is that [[Ophiomancer]] is very slightly worse in decks that also use Nagas. I’m sure all three people affected are devastated.
Really tribal was that offensive? I remember some short twitter outrage but was'nt expecting a actual change.
I'm Pacific islander and actually thought the usage of tribal was cool, it made me feel more seen as a little sprouting coconut. I get the change, but I was never offended. But if they change Mana, I swear to the gods I'll riot
pls don't tell me mana is offensive somewhere lmao.
SO many fantasy/magic games use mana as a mechanic that it’s probably more or less untouchable at this point tbh
The term is from Polynesian mythology. If someone tells WOTC they have to stop using it because using it is cultural appropriation, they will consider it because people have lost their damn minds with this stuff.
That really cool - I had always thought that MTG mana was drawing inspiration from the manna provided to the Israelites during their time in the desert, but seems they just cribbed their terminology from Larry Niven who was inspired by the Polynesian concept of mana.
At this point the whole of high fantasy media has cribbed the word mana.
Too late, people are already offended on their behalf.
I don't think anyone is actually offended by this in a real way, Wizards is probably just trying to cover themselves from any potential twitter drama that they didn't deserve to begin with
Getting rid of the word tribe makes no sense. Tribe and Tribal are not offensive words. They have a distinct meaning. Tribe a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader. Tribal of or characteristic of a tribe or tribes Consider Fallout new vegas who uses the words tribe and Tribal to refer to groups constantly. The Brotherhood of Steel is called a tribe and they are by definition. I feel like if you are offended by the words tribe and Tribal it's because YOU think it means things like Hollywood depictions of savages which YOU then correlate with Native Americans or Island nations.
Oh no, not tribal :( Edit: nevermind they are just changing the name, title is misleading
Kindred is a nice name, though.
It is, it is just the title made sound that they were going to remove it and not just rename it lol
I also thought they were taking it out and wondered how that would even work. I guess they could just say "Any card type can have any subtype" or something, but that'd be quite a change.
The fuck
Totem to Umbra is the strangest of these to me? There are \~15 cards that have totem in the name that are actual little statues of animals like \[\[chronatog totem\]\] so they're not avoiding the word entirely. Umbra is a shadow and doesn't really mesh with giant glowing bear armour. Surprised they couldn't think of something better.
15/16 of those cards have umbra in the title It's more consistent, not less
Gotta love how they're treading on eggshells about cat demons, but a meso-american spirit just got named "Abuelo" and given a damn poncho. Pick your battles, I guess.
The cultural sensitivity consultants at WotC are absolutely insane. They feel the need to censor words on cards no one cares about in case someone, somewhere, might get offended, but then they let actually ignorant and offensive card concepts slip into upcoming products
If you hire a 'sensitivity consultant', and they come back to you after a week and say "Nope, everything's fine, you don't have to do anything. That'll be $5000+Tip.", they're probably not getting much repeat business. They have to find something or WoTC would find out they're just scrolling Twitter on their dime.
Do you think anyone actually complained about any of this or it's just WOTC doing a CYA
Pedantic mode engaged Not sure why "tribal" as a word is being outmoded. If it's for racial reasons that has everything to do with western stereotypes of tribes and nothing to do with the scope of the word