Heh. Fire is vulnerable to Pikemen. It's like the worlds oddest game of RPS up there in mtg-land :)

Does this need to be a Shaman and a Warlock?

I used Dread Warlock as precedence.

I should have commented on the edit. The edit was adding the type warlock as that became a creature type in Throne of Eldraine and this card had "warlock" in its name.

Cleric, wizard, warlock, shaman, and druid are mutually exclusive caster types for the 5 colors. Dread Warlock is only both caster types because it got errataed. It would not be a wizard if it were printed today

I created this card in 2012, when warlock was not a type. I did not do a complete scouring of the whole five types, but at least for Shaman and Druid, those types were added to some cards later without removing their original profession or class, presumably because the cards had those positions in their card name. Based on that, I added warlock to the type here to reflect the name while honoring the original type of shaman and choosing to keep that as well.

Fair enough. With creature type updates, Wizards doesn't remove the type(s) that was printed on the card even when they add new ones. I supposed that strategy also applies to "finished" card sets on here

"I supposed that strategy also applies to "finished" card sets on here"

Hmmm... this is interesting, actually. I think this shows that some people design their cardsets as if they had designed their cardsets (past tense) AND some people design them without that layer of 'pretending'; they will update cards from a set even if that cardset was 'released' (read: stopped being worked on, but not published [obviously]) a long time ago.

Kind of a mind-bender, but something I've though about for a while. Not sure which way is 'better', or if both of them are equally fine.

I'm willing to update and work on cards mechanically and alter their p/t and mana costs, based on hearing cards are overpowered, underpowered, oror just can be written in a more streamlined manner.

I view those errors that need to be fixed as problems that should have been solved before the card was finished. However, creature types and (often) names are not generally pieces of the card I believe were in need of change prior to adding the card to the set at that time. Sometimes I may have cards that have similar names in a set and not realize such until later. In those cases, I view that as a problem that I should have been aware of when making those cards, so in those situations, I am likely to change the card's name.

­
Also, in Okundwa I had one or two cards referencing shamans, so I wanted this to keep its shaman type.

That's a pretty good approach, I think.

"However, creature types and (often) names are not generally pieces of the card I believe were in need of change prior to adding the card to the set at that time"

Especially when the errors didn't exist when the cardset was made, because the 'proper' creature type wasn't supported :)