Unfitting creature types

ITT: We post and discuss wizard's biggest blunders or our personal grievances regarding type lines.

Additionally, a question: if a creature fits an elsewise tribal deck well, flavourfully and mechanically, bit is off-tribe, do you run it?

What's wrong with Saskia? She's a human and she can be a solider. Like Soldier, Barbarian, Warrior, and Berserker all feel interchangeable. They're just "thing that bashes other things with weapons."

He probably wanted her for a tribal warrior deck instead of a tribal soldier deck, which i can understand. Personally i'm building a tribal human deck around her, though i have no idea what i am doing.

To me the term "soldier" implies a member of a standardized, trained, regimented, professional army, where "warrior" or "barbarian" imply a more informal, unrefined, tribal, individualistic sort of fighter.

She definitely does seem a lot more like a warrior based on MTG aesthetics. However soldiers are just warriors with militia training. The lore answer could be that she is a retired soldier or one of the first wave of semi-organized military coming from a barbarian tribe. AFAIK she's a new character from a new plane.

Based on the keywords, it could have gone either way. Vigilance is more common in soldiers, haste is more common in warriors.

More of a creature name problem really. Still gets me every time I go through my old bulk draft fodder.

I'm tiffed Arcbound creatures aren't all constructs, as a tribe. At least I don't play snakes, I guess.

While subtypes are typically pretty unimportant beyond flavour, it can have a pretty remarkable effect on interaction and synergy when stuff like door of destinies or coat of arms is out.

The fact that the Nagas in Khans were Nagas and not Snakes was a kick in the teeth.

Especially given precedence.

What pissed me off more was that Nagas had the Naga creature type but Rakshasas were Cats.

>Rakshasas
I can understand that for the sole reason that fitting "Rakshasa" on a card can be an issue.

Except Rakshasas have the type "Cat Demon". They could've made them their own creature type, but then they would no longer be compatible with two tribes, though I don't know any good Cat or Demon matter cards

We need another creature type overhaul
"Beast" would be a supertype, "Snake" would be a type and "naga" would be a subtype
because currently beast tribal doesn't interact with lions unless they have the word "beast" on them
which is retarded

>Demon matter
Shadowborn Apostle is great.

Not "good" but a bunch of onis/oni magic magic cares for demons. And like said, not having a specific creature type means rakshasas can be amongst non-khans cats and non-khans demons and share buffs from pick-a-creature-type cards.

Your sentiment is correct, but your syntax is off. "Supertypes" are before a card's dash, i.e., creature, enchantment, tribal, artifact, and whatever's right of it is a type, but also called a subtype. You might be looking for "race" and "class".

>Looks like a Barbarian but has Soldier type
>More toughness than power but she carries a 2h axe and no shield
>Blue Axe and Blue tattoo or body paint, but blue is the only colour not in the casting cost
>"The Unyielding" name but picture is of her standing still pointing for others to attack something

To be honest this looks like an artwork fail by the artist or art director more than WoTC card design. If it actually looked like a soldier and fit the card name I think it would be pretty cool.

Traditional woad was blue, user.

Naga should have been snake demon

What gets me is that in Saskia's official description she's described as rallying her warriors around her. Warrior tribal just got a buff, it's in these exact colors, it's as anti-blue as you can get in a creature type and Saskia fits their usual look pretty nicely. It's really weird she's a soldier especially when the RWUG guys are already soldiers.

I think someone saw BRG and went "oh, that's a barbarian"

I can't remember if wizard's prompts for artists actually spoil card color or not. I definitely recall a template existing for what an artist gets handed when he's assigned to make art for a card; it divulges some relevant information, but not information about where his art's going is revealed.

Personally I think the reason Saskia is a soldier is because she's sort of the "white" commander in the sense that pretty much all of the 2016 commanders have an implied color to them. Yidris is really the "red' one out of the bunch.

I always saw it as nagas being nagas since they're a natural race and that guy being an elf snake cause he's a horrible magical mutant

...

They aren't demons, though. They're a naturally occurring race. They all just happen to be dickheads on Tarkir

Simic has "Human Merfolk", "Human Insect Wizard", "Crocodile frog" and "Fish Crab".

This guy isn't a naga, he is Snake + Elf.
He should probably have mutant over druid though.

this.
this argument is irrefutable.

Yeah, I never got that. The Orochi, with their legs, lack of tails, and four arms are snakes, but nagas aren't?

this is my go to example for "tribal but not"

what happens when you put the axe on a stick?

...

...

barbarian confirmed for soldier+warrior?

Shouldn't this guy even be a berserker?

Norin isn't a coward.

Why isn't this a zombie?

This is also inexcusable.

It's still alive. He would either be among Erebos if her were dead or donning the mask of the returned as a zombie. Why it isn't a "triclops" however...

She's a soldier in an army that is otherwise composed of warriors.