Are there any flavor/biological reasons why phoenixes don’t count as either birds or elementals?
Lore forum
Posted on Oct. 16, 2024, 4:06 p.m. by StopShot
I’m sure there’s game balance reasons to make the distinction, but I was wondering if there are any lore reasons why phoenixes would neither count as birds or elementals. Especially since some are referred to as “firebird.”
Bonus Question: is there anything keeping WoTC from making an errata on all phoenix creatures by giving them the bird and/or elemental creature type in addition with their phoenix creature type?
I don't think there's any in-universe reason. As a game device, the concept of a Phoenix is pretty recognizable to the core and target audience of the game, so it doesn't need to be defined. Same thing why Minotaur is a type, and they're not all Ox or whatever. So I would say it's pretty much familiarity, continuity (they did it in the past, so it's easy to keep doing), and a little bit of game balance.
There's nothing really stopping them from making turning all Phoenixes into Elemental Birds, but they don't need to and I don't think they want to.
October 16, 2024 5:20 p.m.
Also, saying Phoenix bird in the type line makes me think back to the days of cards like: summon Ali from Cairo. Speaking of which, I feel like they should errata him to make him a legend.
October 16, 2024 9:21 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #5
I think Phoenix as a type lives in the same boat as Ninja, where the creature type is evocative of its mechanical function; Ninjas could just be called Rogues, but they're attached to being either unblockable and/or the Ninjutsu mechanic.
As for could they change them, I would like to say no, but they literally just changed all Nagas to Snakes, erasing their cultural baggage their inclusion had, and changed Viashino, an original race that's closest to the Dragonborn from D&D in origin, into just being lizards. The latter I'm personally upset by because not only is it something that only exists in Magic, but you may as well call Dragons lizards as well, or combine Demons, Devils and Tieflings into one race.
October 19, 2024 2:24 p.m.
SteelSentry The viashino change had to with out-of-game recognizability. Not everyone knows what a naga is, and you have to know M:tG to even guess what a viashino is, but most people can recognize and understand a dragon, or a ninja, or a phoenix. There's a huge difference between identifying a hrodbevdkmadeupword as a lizard, and identifying a dragon as a lizard.
Tieflings only get a pass because they're from a sister product, and I honestly have no idea what makes an azra distinct. The tail, apparently? Azra and tieflings can be combined without any issues, as far as I'm concerned.
Not to mention that sea anemones are grouped with jellyfish even though they're closer to starfish; centipedes, millipedes, and whatever Acridian is are insects; old Kamigawa snakes have four arms, two legs, and hair (making them more like awkward centaurs?); Zombie Human isn't anything, but Zombie literally-anything-else is; Sable, Ferret, and Stoat get unique creature types while Wall of Pine Needles, Grappling Sundew, and Vinelasher Kudzu are all the same thing...
Basically, creature types are entirely a game mechanic and mean absolutely nothing outside of how much it gets pumped by a Coat of Arms.
October 19, 2024 7:16 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #7
I don't like that line of logic, because if that's the case, viashino should be Dragons, based on their origin. Dragonborn from AFR have shown no issue with players identifying humanoid dragons.
And as for Nagas, Phoenixes are closer to being just birds than Nagas are to being just snakes, and it's a regional bias against the original mythos to argue otherwise. My point is that I wouldn't be surprised if they make the change; I'd rather they changed neither honestly. Phoenixes are a creature type with a mechanical undercurrent, but there are precious few of those around.
I would also disagree with the point that creature types are pointless without tribal synergy; I'm not sleeving up The Pride of Hull Clade for the crazy Elk synergy it has. Design uses every part of the card for top down design, and all the of these underrepresented creature types have mythological or lore baggage attached to them.
October 19, 2024 11:08 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #8
I agree on the Zombie part, as well, they should get rid of the other creature type. Why would a Priest of Titania become more powerful from an elf that's already become a mindless abomination? It's just cramming more types onto it to make incentivize flavor fails in a mechanically flavorful archetype.
October 19, 2024 11:23 p.m.
SteelSentry Yeah, my last sentence was more absolute, I guess is the right word, than it needed to be. Creature types do have an important role in flavor and identity. My point, poorly stated as it was, is that M:tG creature types don't represent real-world taxonomy well, and fantasy taxonomy is exactly as precise or arbitrary as the creators make it.
I don't know enough about the cultural history of nagas to really speak on them, other than they're important in southern and southeastern Asia, so I didn't really address that one. I understand there's a similar story with rakshasa from Tarkir vs. real-world culture. Something I need to learn about.
The viashino could have become Dragons instead of Lizards, and I wouldn't see a problem with that. You have a good point with the dragonborn. (AFR has its own flavor and mechanical fails, though, running off D&D rules. An Owlbear would last about two seconds against an Adult Gold Dragon, not fight it to the death, and Barbarian Class leaned too heavily into the D&D class mechanics. For M:tG Barbarians, it's a stupid-expensive Fervor. No Barbarian or Berserker card so far rolls dice, and only Vrondiss, Rage of Ancients
has anything to do at all with dice rolling. Hey, look, a Dragon!)
But I don't think there's much risk of further changes. Most of the other M:tG-original humanoid-animal creatures already belong to the animal creature type: nacatl, leonin, all kinds of aven, wolfir, ainok, rhox (which were usually animalistic before 10th Edition), loxodons, everything from Bloomburrow... It's just kind of bringing the old stuff in line with the new stuff.
And now that I'm thinking about it, I want to see snail people. Move over, Toxrill. The Snail Wizards are coming in.
October 20, 2024 1:43 a.m.
For me, I hope they instead class characters in a hierarchy rather than remove. Like outlaws are mercenaries, pirates, etc. and party is wizard, warrior, etc.
I think more archetypes makes the game confusing, but removing archetypes already printed on cards doesn't help.
It's always going to be confusing to pick up an old visashini in a box and have to realize it's a lizard.
For instance, I felt hurt when Nagas were errated, as Nagas are a very big part of Asian culture. They are also very distinct from snakes, which are often characterized as sinister in western mythos and symbolism.
To your point, i don't see any reason why a phoenix couldn't be an elemental bird. But from an economic point, we already have so many of all 3 archetypes that person wanting to build x tribal commander deck and pump Coat of Arms has a lot to work with.
FormOverFunction says... #2
I think bird would be reasonable, but the concept of “avatars” comes to mind when I think of a phoenix. I don’t know any actual history on the topic, but many of the avatars also aren’t humans or knights or angels or any of the other things that they look like, but I think that’s because they’re actually a manifestation of something. I feel like a phoenix is similar, though that points strongly towards “elemental” in the argument… and I think that’s where we get to the “elementals are already pretty strong, and adding phoenixes to that cohort would likely be problematic” position. I would wager phoenix will remain an avatar-like thing, forever on their own pedestal.
October 16, 2024 4:28 p.m.