I think the issue on the power creep discussion is that you're using vocab from a game designer pov. Whereas players are talking about a practical pov. Overall power level might not increase when we look at eash standard release. But it obviously impacts eternal formats much diffrently. In those formats, the ebb and flow of power level from each standard release makes the top end in each release last forever. Because there are more realeases, obsolecense is becomming a real issue.

I’m not trying to ignore the larger issue being discussed. The choice to make sets that are designed for higher power level formats increases the influx of relevant cards for the format which speeds up the format churn. That churn is a real issue, and I’m happy to talk about things that can and can’t be done to address it. (For example, the data shows that’s it’s a polarizing issue - some enjoy the churn, so it’s a complex issue.)As this is my blog to discuss design issues, I’m using designer language and am going to refer to the problem as “format churn” and “relevant card influx” as those are the actual issues at hand. External to my blog, players can refer to things as whatever they like. Call TDFCs “flip cards”. On this blog, that causes confusion, so I’m calling them TDFCs.Design blog -> designer language.

Are we likely to ever get more mono blue coin flip cards? Recently they've all been mono red or Izzet, which makes building a coin flip deck 90% red. Rolling dice is available to all colors, it seems odd to keep coins locked primarily in red anymore

The Un-sets are much more casual and thus are allowed access to randomness in a way most Magic sets aren’t. Even D&D sets which used the d20, had to be very careful how random the cards were. Mostly coin flips have been used to show randomness in red. Coin flips are a bit harder than die rolls to keep the variance low, so it’s not something we use too often. I’m not even sure die rolling exists outside of an Un or D&D set.

Can i put in a request/do you think it's possible for a supplemental (like a Horizons) set to have 1 or 2 new flip cards like the old Kamigawa ones? i really like those and would love a new one or two!

The Flip cards have some issues, the biggest being it’s hard to tell which state the card is when it’s attacking as different players rotate their cards differently. That doesn’t mean we’ll never make another one, but the bar is high.

In response to the "Saga flipping into a sorcery" bit, Invasion of Alara and Invasion of Kylem are both flip cards that turn into sorceries.

Those are both double-faced cards. And yes, double-faced cards can have a spell (instant/sorcery) on the back. Flip cards cannot.

Would you guys be willing to do pseudo-functional reprints of Kamigawa flip cards as DFCs?

We have no current plans to do that.

is there any chance we'll get a 1-of flip card in a future supplemental product like modern horizons? i know that y'all feel the execution is less than optimal but for a card from old kamigawa it would be very flavorful and i think the novelty factor has value. consider this my vote for it.

I never say never, but transforming double-face cards just do what flip cards do so much better, it’s hard to go back.

Where do each of the "2 cards in 1" mechanics fall on the storm scale? Things like the Fire//Ice classic split cards, but also things like Aftermath, Fuse, Transform, Flip and the Modal Dual cards.

Each one of those is a different thing.Split cards are a 2, as they’re deciduousAftermath is a 7, as the frame was much disliked (I can see us doing something similar but reworking the frame)Fuse is a 5, as it’s a mechanic that only goes on split cards.Flip cards (the Kamigawa mechanic) is a 9.TDFCs and MDFCs are also a 2, as they are also deciduous.

Do you take Secret Lair requests? I’d like to see versions of popular flip cards where on one side you have all the rules text but the art and layout clearly represents the default state, and then on the other side you have all the rules text again but the art and layout clearly represents the flipped state. While they would physically have 2 faces the game would still see them as flip cards and the different sides are just for clarity.

Changing flip cards to DFCs is functional errata.

Ok, so does this mean with battles so far all being flip cards that DFCs are now evergreen, or are battles just going to be a card type that pops up every now and again?Or are we going to get Battles that don't transform (noticed that all the battles so far have the subtype Siege and flip.)

Sieges don’t have to inherently transform, although all thirty-six in March of the Machine do, as it allowed us to get more detail into each world. We can also make Battles that aren’t Sieges and they can be single-faced.

How exactly is changing the Kamigawa flip cards to double faced a functional errata? Is there some subtle rules difference between the two ways of flipping the card that I’m not realizing?

Yes. There are cards that turn a card to its other face. Those react differently between DFCs and flip cards.