FYI Atraxa's Fall has "Destroy target artifact, battle, enchantment, or creature with flying."

True.

"Which color(s) are the main one(s) for battle removal?Red and white usually have slightly more “combat tricks”. Green also always has a Giant Growth like effect that’s good in combat."I think this ask was about removing battles (the card type).

Red has direct damage, which removes battles. We haven’t chosen a color to destroy them.

alright mark unrulings question
so me and my opponent both control infinity elementals, however a third player has crookclaw transmutered my opponent's meaning its' infinite power is actually infinite toughness
I attack them with infinity, they block with infinity, what happen

A creature with infinite power can’t destroy a creature with infinite toughness.

If I destroy your vehicle why does the creature that crewed it get to live? You sound have to flip a coin to see if your creature survived the car crash

It’s better gameplay. Also, most drivers walk away from crashes.

What colors would a card that said destroy target permanent or counter target spell be?

White/blue/black or black/green/blue.

"Innistrad is one of my best designs."Yeah, Innistrad was great when it was unique, and gothic horror is an incredibly deep well to draw from. There's tons of source material, and it's easy to make it feel "universal".These days, it feels like every premier set is trying to be Innistrad, unless it's a Storyline Set or a Return Set. The Innistrad-likes all feel like "Magic does [genre]" instead of something actually original, Storyline Sets are practically Return Sets, and the actual Return Sets are half Innistrad-likes anyway.The Modern Horizons sets are the last bastion of bottom-up, Magic doing Magic sets, but they're infrequent, expensive, and overshadowed by how they destroy the Modern metagame every time.I just want a new world that makes me feel like I'm reading the Planeswalker's Guide to Alara again. A world that only makes sense in Magic the Gathering, instead of Magic fitting itself into something that already exists.

I want to begin by stressing something. You’re talking to me, the Head Designer of Magic. I, along with rest of the designers, are in charge of the mechanical execution of design. We create the larger structure of how the set is build, weave in flavorful themes, and design mechanics to play into that structure and theme(s). When I talk about sets I’ve done I’m talking about the part of the process I’m in charge of. With that said, let’s talk about the latest design I led (vision design), Outlaws of Thunder Junction. I hold up its game design to any other set I’ve lead. The mechanics are sharp, useful, and lead towards new play patterns. The limited play and constructed play involving its themes are novel. And while it’s all forward facing, it was designed to be more backwards compatible than previous sets. Plot, in particular, is one of the most exciting new mechanics I’ve designed in a long time. It’s simple in description, but surprisingly deep in strategy. Having the primary focal point of villainy, with a secondary theme of the Western genre, led my team to create something new. Top-down is just an input. Good design can come from any input. Bottom-up design is no better at making good mechanic designs than top-down. I believe current mechanical design is on point, and Outlaws of Thunder Junction, in particular, is my team being on their A game.

Re: gate to phyrexia is a breakApparently the person I was having an argument with has a new claim. He says that even if you say that it’s break, the reason is because it’s too good of a card, and black is supposed to have bad artifact removal. I tried to explain that they are thinking of enchantments, I even pointed out cards like feed the swarm and shatter the oath, and that black isn’t supposed to remove artifacts at all. Can you please clarify this point, the argument has turned into a bet and I really want those 5 dollars

Black is not suppose to be able to destroy/exile artifacts. It’s a weakness of the color, so doing it is specifically a break.Gate to Phyrexia was made before we were monitoring the color pie. Early sets made a number of breaks because they weren’t caring about it.

Do all colours have some kind of non-basic land hate in their part of the pie? Blue and Red certainly do, but could white, green, or black target non-basic lands in their own ways?

We let white turn non-basic lands into basic lands (of the opponent’s choice). Blue can turn lands into the basic land of its choice. Black, green and red are allowed to destroy a land, which includes non-basic lands.We don’t use most of these very often.

"Could Hydroblast fit as a white-blue card? On the assumption that white can destroy any permanent except lands but lands are almost never going to be red?""Maybe, but it sure wouldn't cost one. : )"What about an Un-Card that costs half a white (like Little Girl)and half a blue?

White doesn’t get “destroy target red permanent” cheap.

You’ve said before that “destroy target permanent” should only be printed on WB and BG cards. Teferi, Hero of Dominaria gives you an emblem with “Whenever you draw a card, exile target permanent an opponent controls.” despite being a WU card. Is this a break, or a bend?

It’s a bend. White can pinpoint destroy any permanent type except land, and by the time you jump through the hoop, it’s late enough in the game that destroying a land is just going to be a very low option.