No they do not. Looking at the pertinent rule for devotion:
- 700.5. A players devotion to [color] is equal to the number of mana symbols of that color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls. A players devotion to [color 1] and [color 2] is equal to the number of mana symbols among the mana costs of permanents that player controls that are [color 1], [color 2], or both colors.
The keyword here being mana costs of permanents. This means that you'd count the mana symbols visible in the top line of cards on your side of the field. Since flipped cards have no mana cost, they don't contribute any devotion. Similarly, if a creature with Morph (e.g. Scornful Egotist) is facedown, it adds no devotion because the side you see is a colorless 2/2 creature with no mana cost.
It's also worth looking at a ruling from the rules for double-faced cards:
- 711.1a A double-faced cards front face includes its mana cost. Its back face has no mana cost.
April 4, 2016 8:11 a.m. Edited.
Then I'm slightly confused with this rule included in the SOI release notes.
202.3b The converted mana cost of a double-faced permanent's back face is calculated as though it had the mana cost of its front face. This is a change from previous rules. If a permanent is copying the back face of a double-faced card (even if the card representing that copy is itself a double-faced card), the converted mana cost of that permanent is 0.
English isn't my first language, so perhaps I misunderstand something.
April 4, 2016 8:31 a.m.
You are correct in that the rules will soon be changing regarding a transformed card.
April 4, 2016 9:49 a.m.
I had asked that same question actually. Interestingly, the rule you quoted actually says "converted mana cost of a double-face permanent's back face is calculated...", which by definition is an integer not associated with a color or number of pips. It doesn't explicitly mention anything in regard to the number of pips that would count for chroma or devotion. My guess would be that it does not count, as Elusive Tormentor Flip has , but when it transforms, it is a blue creature. Would a strictly blue creature contribute to devotion? Intuitively, I would say no, though some things are not intuitive in that manner, such as with devoid.
April 4, 2016 4:46 p.m.
As per the rules change of SOI, transformed cards now have the mana cost of their unflipped version and would count towards devotion. It's a little weird. If you're referring to pips that are in the typeline corner, those have no effect on the cards converted mana cost, just color. It's very similar to devoid. Wasteland strangler will count towards devotion to black, but not towards black creatures you control effects.
April 4, 2016 5:03 p.m.
The back face of a DFC doesn't add to devotion. The new rule only has to do with calculating a card's converted mana cost, just like it says. Devotion is based on a card's actual mana cost, and the back face of a DFC doesn't have a mana cost.
April 4, 2016 7:09 p.m.
Right, didn't see the "converted" in there. So no, no devotion, just a boring number.
April 4, 2016 7:23 p.m.
Just a couple nitpicky things:
The in-game term is actually "converted mana cost;" there is no such thing as a "calculated mana cost."
Also the.beanpole, a permanent most certainly can add to devotion of a color that it isn't. For example, Swirling Spriggan doesn't stop having two green mana in its mana cost even if you use its own ability to turn it red.
April 4, 2016 8:06 p.m.
I'm aware that the in game term is CMC. I said "calculated" because that is how it's determined according to the rules. Also why I put it in quotations. And I used the symbol because it's more prominent and easy to see in the text that a plain old 3.
April 4, 2016 8:21 p.m.
Since the answer to this question hinged on the presence/absence of a particular word indicating a very specific rules term, I think it pays to stick to the official terminology when you're able.
April 4, 2016 8:46 p.m.
sonnet666, I wasn't trying to use my example as a proof of the new ruling, but rather as an intuitive thought process of why the people who make the rules would want it to work a particular way under normal circumstances. My apologies if I've led anyone astray.