Discussion in 'CPA Voting Forum' started by Lotus Mox, Nov 22, 2002.
Should Human be introduced as a new creature type?
I personally think that it isn't necessary. They already represent humans by using Wizard, Cleric, Soldier, etc. If they did add it, would they errata all previous cards to be "Creature - Human Wizard" or "Creature - Human Soldier"?
(- Steve -)
With how Humanity acts twards itself, I really don't think it should be.
Any generic human should be a Townsfolk, and any with jobs should be either Cleric, Soldier, or Wizard. All Heros should be changed into whatever class they should be, and all occurences of "hero" be changed to "Soldier."
Personally, I don't like the "Beast" creature type, as it seems too general.
I'd feel the same way about "Human" as a creature type. Mabe "Family," but not "Human." "Uncle Istavan" should have the same type as "Brothers of Fire" and "Sisters of the Flame" and whatever other family members there are...
but not just "Human," that would be... kinda icky.
Besides, the artist had an "Are We Not" appropriatly placed, then used the word "Brothers" insted of "Men?"
I'm still pissed at the absense of an APPROPRIATE DEVO REFERENCE that was MISSED COMPLETLY!!
Are we not Men? We Are Devo.
Mabe all humans could have the type Devo! We're ALL DEVO!
I basically agree with Jigglypuff. It's unnecessary.
If human were introduced as a creature type then they would bring up whether or not to classify them according to their economic status...
But if a lawyer card were made would he be demon, or human... they're not human now!!!...
Separate names with a comma.