MTGNexus

In a more ideal reality of Magic the Gathering, beetles would be a supported card type instead of just being labeled as an "insect." So here I am to show off an idea for what one looks like in my futuristic atmosphere ravaged by these creepy creatures. These beetles would be spread out among all five colors. This is one of the cards to show off a card from this set.

Scrappy Beetle B
Creature-Beetle (Common)
When Scrappy Beetle enters the battlefield, you lose 2 life.
2/1
They are what you make of them.

I like it, feels very black, and very classic sui-black at that. Small life cost up front for a higher power in the front. I like.

Design is good - definitely something people would not mind picking up repeatedly in Limited and if a suicide black deck is supported in Standard then it fills a need.

As far as the creature type goes - I can see arguments for plenty of types being added or changed (Lord knows one of my colleagues on the mod team keeps going on about changing Nagas to be Snakes ) but I don't see the argument for Beetle being separate from Insect. Taxonomically, that's what they are - Beetle being its own type would be like Lion and Tiger being separate creature types from Cat, or maybe more accurately Raptor, Passerine, and Corvid being separate from Bird.

I'm with [mention]void_nothing[/mention] on the type. To the extent Insect Tribal can be a thing, I'd rather beetles get to share in that rather than being the odd one out, exactly how Naga being its own type means it doesn't get to participate in Snake Tribal. Even Maro thinks the Naga type was a mistake.

spacemonaut wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'm with @void_nothing on the type. To the extent Insect Tribal can be a thing, I'd rather beetles get to share in that rather than being the odd one out, exactly how Naga being its own type means it doesn't get to participate in Snake Tribal. Even Maro thinks the Naga type was a mistake.

I honestly like the Naga subtype, but then again I've been playing D&D and CRPG's for as long as I've been playing magic so... But the discrepancy between Naga and Snake can easily be fixed with batching now that it is a thing. (I really need to start a card creation thread about it, but I don't really have the mental capacity to do so today.)

Krishnath wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I honestly like the Naga subtype, but then again I've been playing D&D and CRPG's for as long as I've been playing magic so... But the discrepancy between Naga and Snake can easily be fixed with batching now that it is a thing. (I really need to start a card creation thread about it, but I don't really have the mental capacity to do so today.)

My inner Vorthos is really happy with the Naga subtype.

My inner Melvin and J*nny look at Seshiro the Anointed and the snake tribal EDH deck I was making with Hapatra, and then at all the nagas that don't fit in because they're not Snakes, and then they all cry together while my inner Vorthos makes them tea and gets them nice blankets and comforts them.

I'm with [mention]spacemonaut[/mention] - flavorfully I prefer Nagas to be their own thing, for synergies with things like Kaseto, Orochi Archmage I would prefer them to be Snakes. Ultimately there's little enough Snake tribal that it's alright. I would like to see Nagas that were more like the original mythical version, with humanlike upper bodies and snakelike lower bodies, to justify the existence of the creature type better.

void_nothing wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'm with @spacemonaut - flavorfully I prefer Nagas to be their own thing, for synergies with things like Kaseto, Orochi Archmage I would prefer them to be Snakes. Ultimately there's little enough Snake tribal that it's alright. I would like to see Nagas that were more like the original mythical version, with humanlike upper bodies and snakelike lower bodies, to justify the existence of the creature type better.

Like the Seventh Edition version of Serpent Warrior (A card, which to be honest, should be errataed to be a Creature - Snake Naga Warrior).

I gotta echo that I like the design.

I could totally see a reason for wanting to break off a creature type, but from what I've seen so far I'm unsure if it is necessary?

That said, I imagine there could be plentiful examples that would change my mind!

Here's a series of three beetles, each one a different rarity. A bigger sample size to see if a theoretical set could be built on these feisty creatures.

The Izzet Beetle 1UR
Creature - Beetle (Common)
Instants and sorceries you control that target a beetle you control cost 1 less to cast.
2/2

Beetle Propeller 2UG
Sorcery (Uncommon)
Beetles you control with power 3 or less each get +1/+1 and gain flying until end of turn. Scry 2.

Reanimating Beetle BG
Creature - Beetle (Rare)
Deathtouch, Dredge 2
At the beginning of each opponent's end step, if Reanimating Beetle is in your graveyard and you lost life this turn, exile three cards from your graveyard.
2/2

I really like what you've done with Reanimating Beetle's built in balancing drawback; it's a rather neat idea in my opinion.

I'm unsure how I feel about the other two. They feel a bit too situational for me, perhaps?