Why is "Shark" Now its Own Creature Type?
General forum
Posted on April 10, 2020, 3:17 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Ikoria has made "shark" is own creature type, when, before, all sharks had the "fish" creature type, because that made sense and there was no reason for sharks to be separate from other fish.
This change makes no sense, and I cannot think of any reason for sharks to be separate from other fish, especially when all cats share the same type and dolphins and whales share the same type as well. This is similar to how snakes and serpents are two different types, despite the fact that the words are synonyms of each other.
What does everyone else say about this subject? Why is "shark" now its own creature type?
ThePerilousRealm says... #3
Great point. The "shark" creature type makes no sense when we already have "fish".
April 10, 2020 3:52 p.m.
I mean, of course it wasnt necessary. By all means, biologically theyre different, flavorfully they're different (and I could see that as one potential reason why they differed the types) and realistically, if they created a waterworld, sharks and fish might even differ colorwise. But all of that doesnt give enough reason atm to differentiate them.
But lets face it, its not like there were a good enough amount of fish or powerful enough fish to have a fish tribal deck, and differentiating the sharks makes it so you can be like "Yo, meet Jaws a**hole" while playing.
Its a meaningless change for the sake of fun.
April 10, 2020 3:54 p.m.
I found that a little strange too. All of the three Fish decks will be prejudiced. XD
That said, I think it was just for flavor. In Ikoria Sharks are very different from fish. Anyway I don't think it will be much impactful
PS: Snake and Serpent, at least in MtG, seem to be very different tho
April 10, 2020 3:59 p.m.
I think WOTC is just acknowledging this game has jumped the shark.
April 10, 2020 4:47 p.m.
@dbpunk "But lets face it, its not like there were a good enough amount of fish or powerful enough fish to have a fish tribal deck"
Oh, really? Twin Fins
To the actual point of the discussion; creature types are simply not assigned in an organised or logical way. Take, for example, the fact that Dryad of the Ilysian Grove is somehow not a Dryad or that Stonecoil Serpent is a Snake but definitely not a Serpent. As for why, I think it's because the vast, vast, vast majority of the playerbase simply don't notice or care and it's only the tribal nutcases - like myself - who mind, so WotC just does whatever they feel like in the current moment.
April 10, 2020 4:56 p.m.
triproberts12 says... #9
It's because of freaking Sharknado. Someone felt that a card with a tornado made of sharks that makes tokens with sharks on them just wasn't getting the point across strongly enough with Fish tokens.
April 10, 2020 7:35 p.m.
Lame_Duck I loved the Twin Fins deck!! Sadly Shambleshark will have to go I guess
April 10, 2020 7:39 p.m.
seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #11
Lame_Duck: As another tribal person, I definitely agree that they haven't really cared enough about the flavour of creature types for a long time. I have a feeling though that in the last couple of years, they really increased the amount of thought put into creature typing.
I feel like this is the actual reason for type inclusions like Shark as they seem to be trying to differentiate between creatures more. I have to admit, this hammer hasn't yet hit any of my tribals, and I will definitely be sad if they ever split my precious turtles into turtles and tortoises.
Regarding the main topic: I agree with dbpunk. It's a useless change for the sake of fun. And definitely because of Shark Typhoon being way less cool without the change.
April 11, 2020 1:36 a.m.
triproberts12 says... #13
seshiro_of_the_orochi, if Wizards really loved you, they wouldn't have printed a mono-red turtle legend. Por que Yidaro, Wandering Monster, Wizards. ¡¿POR QUE?!
April 11, 2020 11:53 a.m.
seshiro_of_the_orochi says... #14
triproberts12: It's been pretty tough indeed, and I'm actually considering going Temur turtles. There simply is no other use of that for the deck. On the other hand, there is Aegis Turtle in IKO, which will basically become the new premium attacker.
April 11, 2020 12:17 p.m.
Lame_Duck Dryad of the Ilysian Grove actually is going to be a Dryad now. Along with the Oracle changes that are adding the "Shark" subtype to a few former "Fish" they're also going to add the Dryad subtype to Dryad of the Ilysian Grove. They admitted it was an oversight for the original printing.
These don't appear to be entered in to Gatherer yet.
April 11, 2020 9:26 p.m.
LordBlackblade says... #16
My question is: If WOTC was planning to add sharks as a new creature type, why not start with Sharktocrab and it’s ilk durning Ravnica Allegiance last year?
My understanding is the grand creature type update more than a few years ago was supposed to preclude retcons like that.
April 11, 2020 10:06 p.m.
@mn6334 Thanks for letting me know. Do you have a link to the announcement of that?
April 12, 2020 3:50 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #20
TypicalTimmy, why do you want that? What reason is there for baloths to be their own creature type?
April 12, 2020 11:06 p.m.
Honestly Id love to see more creature types used in creative ways, which is kind of why I support the babysharks that came with Ikoria. Giving them flash makes them feel like something different from fish.
April 13, 2020 4:23 a.m.
Since no card refers to a specific creature type of Shark, it might as well be "mrlbrlasd", for mechanicanically, it is the same thing.
For now. Getting a creature update like this is a great way to indicate future support. Whelming Wave still sucks for sharks though.
April 13, 2020 8:13 a.m.
TriusMalarky says... #23
They created the "dinosaur" creature type for Ixalan. Why didn't they use "lizard" like they had for 20+ years? Because Dinosaur is cooler than lizard. Also, it would be pretty depressing if you had a literal T Rex ready to bite your opponent but it's just a lizard. Technically correct, but the connotation makes it feel bad.
Same thing with Shark and Fish, the only difference being we don't get Shark tribal yet.
April 29, 2020 4:55 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #24
TriusMalarky, dinosaurs are actually not lizards; they belong to a different order of reptiles than do lizards, so it makes sense for them to have two separate creature types, but all sharks are fish, so it does not make sense for sharks to have a separate creature type from other fish.
April 29, 2020 6:22 p.m.
DemonDragonJ thats not taxonomically correct though. Sharks take up a number of different orders, as do fish. Dinosaurs and lizards also make up several different orders.
If you're claiming sharks and fish should be the same based on taxonomic similarities, you eugnathostomata, the subgroup of the infraphylum, or jawed aquatic vertebrates before they are part of vertebrata. In which case, dinosaurs and lizards are the same creature type, as are humans, elves, goblins, birds, beasts, etc.
So, my question is, are you going to bring an alt-art token of a plucked chicken and claim its a human token with your reasoning?
April 30, 2020 6:12 p.m.
Also.you are taxonomically correct on dinos not being lizards. But by your same argument, all squamates should be the same creature type. So now all lizards are actually snake tokens.
April 30, 2020 6:14 p.m.
TriusMalarky says... #27
dbpunk I think that's a little extreme, and also where'd my post go? I thought I made a response to Demon.
Anyways, I think the reasoning for any sort of creature type shouldn't be IRL biology, but preferably flavor. I mean, I really don't care if sharks and fish are really similar, and I definitely don't care about any argument that says sharks should have stayed fish. I like sharks. Sharks are big bitey fish. It's the fact that I get to play with this cooler thing that matters. I mean, you can't say "eldrazi don't exist" and get rid of them. But having eldritch aliens in the game? Fun flavorwise. They were imbalanced, but they're still cool.
Really, it's fun to play with your Catto deck with i can haz cheeseburger sleeves, or your doggo deck 'cos you like doggos, or your dinosaur deck to smash things, or your shark deck because sharks, or a snake deck because danger noodle, or spider deck because hairy nope-nope eating all the birbs, or your eldrazi deck 'cos you like cthulu, or you can make a squirrel deck, or a jank deck using only food cards like Hot Soup and Just Desserts and some of the Eldraine stuff. Nobody needs to care about the logic of this. The only reason I can think of someone to be mad is if they didn't get as much support as they wanted, but then again, top tier support for any of those great creatures would make them expensive and less fun to play.
Sorry for wall of text.
April 30, 2020 6:31 p.m.
Its not a problem. I know I was a bit rude, but Im just so tired of people using biology incorrectly in arguments. Especially when being pedantic about it.
April 30, 2020 9:32 p.m.
TriusMalarky says... #29
Eh, a lot of people are rude online. I think I accidentally come across as arrogant a lot. I don't blame anyone for acting a little off, it's only when it's blatant aholery that it's a problem.
Flooremoji says... #2
Probably the only reasons were a possibility of Shark tribal and the novelty of having sharks as a creature type. However there was no great need to add the type, and I am inclined to believe that it was not nessecary by any means.
April 10, 2020 3:46 p.m.