Experimenting with common Nonpermanent -> Artifact Research ALT cards. Not sure this is actually doable, but why not try it?

Could the front side be a 2dmg shock?

No, because the backside would have to also be "creature or player", which wouldn't be possible at common.

Does it have to be? Making it more playable seems important and I doubt the inability to target creatures on the backside would make the sides feel unconnected.

I think you're most likely right, and I guess it'd count as a 'double-halving' in a way.

Remember that if the back side looks like it would be a playable card by itself than the front side should look like it would be playable if it said "Draw a card". If the front side is removal, it either needs to cost what you would expect to pay for a 2 for 1, or the back side needs to be less valuable than "a card".

Precisely. If we made this a shock, we (of course) couldn't keep the front-side at , simply because it'd become way too efficient then. We'd definitely have to raise the cost.

The problem is, while this is 'fine' for its cost, it also is much more of a fringe playable. Compare it to Lava Axe - at it matches Lava Axe's damage output, but it lets you pay over many turns, and eventually surpass it. Does that mean this is playable? I'm not sure. A lot of the value of Lava Axe is in the surprise.

Also, do note this becomes much more playable with Canisters, which can accelerate damage output.

I was suggestion shock on the front side. Also note that Razortip Whip isn't really considered playable in limited though you could make the backside cost . if you where really worried about it.

Here is a render of how I was thinking the card could be:

http://tinyurl.com/guomjfv

I think that's a fine change, I actually quite like it. Let's go for it.

The fact you can get these type of cards back from your graveyard forever might pose a problem.

That's only if they end up in your yard again. It is a good point, though... perhaps they should be rare for that reason.

As long as the back sides of these are simple, how do we feel about adding "If ~ would go to a graveyard from play, exile it instead"?

Seems fine.

I think that clause is too wordy. I don't think there are any good methods here for these if any of them become troublesome, only lesser evils.

Is there a reason we're keeping this mechanic but removing its label?

Yeah. We discussed this a while back (I think in the general Comments page, but maybe on a specific Develop card's page - sorry that I can't remember) but Develop just fell to numbers. To support not one (Revolution) but two mechanics that relies on DFCs, we'd have to spend too many DFC slots. There's only five rare slots, and three slots per color at uncommon, and only four at common. To support Revolution as well, that means we basically only had room for an uncommon cycle.

We kept Alchemic Blaze and Psychic Insight because they were the best of the Develop cycle (though they've changed a bit to be fitting uncommons, as one can see). The others became Heroic Valor, So-So Cop, and (((Aetherguard Armadillo))).

If this were Wizards, I'd fight to save develop for when we can do it fully. Since it's not, and we don't care about future sets, sure.