Can the rules handle a DFC that both can be cast on either side AND transforms between them?

The Transformers cards did something like that. The rules need to be tweaked to do both cleanly.

Hi Mark, could the rules batch cards that have two different spells on them? Can they mechanically group together split cards, certain MDFCs, cards with adventures?

We for sure can list it out. I don’t know if the rules can handle the description.

In ONE you should realy have included at least one non siege battle to make the fact that only sieges are defended by opponents and have two sides clear, several people including the YouTuber nikachu (who you shouldn’t check out because he does custom card reviews but is a good example of this) just don’t get it (as proven in any custom card reviews stream where he reviews any of the several non siege battles of different types made by the community)

Normally, we we introduce a new thing we limit how it gets used. For instance, we thought up MDFCs when we first put made TDFCs, but took our time putting it into a product. I believe including both in the same product would have been a mistake.

"Power creep is an actual term used in game design, so I’m going by the technical definition." - I think this is a problem: you're too hyper-focused on the specific jargon you use at work, and forget that the general public uses terms more generally. (e.g. you used to have this issue when people referred to DFCs as "flip" cards, although you did eventually learn what they meant.) I suggest working at understanding how the public uses these terms vs. the jargon you use at work.

This blog was started, so I can talk about game design. I’m using the technical terms because I’m trying to give you an insight into how we make the game. Vernacular speech causes confusion, and clarity is important to me. This is how we talk at work. This is how I choose to talk on my blog. That’s the power of starting your own blog. You get to dictate the rules of how it functions. : )I do hear what people are saying. I’m not trying to deny their reality. I’m just trying to accurately label it in technical terms. Anywhere outside this blog, feel free to label things however you like. On this blog, for clarity, we’re using technical terms.

Do sets with double-faced cards generally want a certain proportion of cards to be DFCs?

Double-faced cards have to be on their own sheet, so the sheet math dictates their as-fan. We have some wiggle room with how many cards of each rarity we have, but the collation math steers as-fan.

Assuming both options are equally valid in a given set, would you rather have a Saga that flips into a creature or a Saga that makes a unique token on the final chapter?

Double-faced cards (which I assume is what you meant as flip cards couldn’t possibly work on a Saga) allow more design freedom as we’re much more limited what text we can put on a token, but DFCs have larger logistical and production issues, so there will be sets where it isn’t an option, and tokens are what we would do.Basically, both are good, but have different limitations, so it depends what other things your set is doing.

"25 is a decent amount, comparative to other DFC sets." There were 61 dfcs in March of the Machine

March of the Machine had two different DFC sheets, one for Battles and one for the rest, so it’s twice of a normal DFC set. Innistrad, the set that introduced DFCs had 28.

When you first previewed MH3 you made a big deal about the inclusion of DFCs. I was hoping that meant we’d get a big variety of MDFCs and TDFCs and - especially as a pauper player - some MDFCs at common. Having just the 5 flipwalkers and 20 mdfc lands is a lot less both in quantity and variety than I thought we might see.

25 is a decent amount, comparative to other DFC sets. I agree the variety is on the low side, but it did do the two most popular executions, the DFC planeswalkers and MDFC lands.

Do you know why the planeswalkers in MH3 use the generic triangle symbol for DFCs instead of the one used in Magic Origins and M19?

I think we’re moving towards all DFCs using the triangles and not making unique symbols for different flavors of DFCs.

Why is one side is a MDFC arbitrarily considered the “Front”? unlike with transform cards that doesn’t seem necessary. But I may just be missing something.

The rules have to have a designated front and back. It has to specifically be something in each zone. For example, if it’s in your library, and it’s a creature on front and a land on back, you can’t tutor for the land, but you can tutor for the creature.