Does design feel a certain obligation to put all of the mechanics that don't break or bend roles for certain colors within that color, or is there also a "rule flavor" factor taken into account? Like, take Treasure - it's not a bend or a break in Green from the rules end, but Green is traditionally not so keen on artifacts and now we have cards that make the color generate chests of gold and jewels. As a temporary ramp or color fixing mechanic in other colors that serves an important supplementary role, but it's already a core competency of Green (in other words, the color has about a billion other ways to accomplish the goals of the mechanic) and the rule flavor feels "off," does that come into play into deciding whether the specific mechanic goes in or not at the design level?Another example might be directly killing flyers and only flyers. Traditionally (and repeatedly, to the point that I think some heads would explode if there wasn't one of these in a set), that's something Green does, but it's not a bend or a break for Black, which directly kills stuff all the time. Would design then include a card with a Plummet effect (dropping any Enchantment or Artifact effects - something like Terror for flyers at Common), even though it feels like Black hedging in on something traditionally Green in nature, or would that just not enter the discussion?

It boils down to does that color need that resource in how the set is structured? If green needs mechanical access to treasure, then it’s allowed because it’s in its color pie. Note that treasure can have many different flavors and doesn’t have to be a chest full of gold. There are many natural treasures that are valuable that green would be happy to have. Also, while green hates artifacts representing artificial things, there are plenty of natural artifacts it actively uses. It’s why there are green artifacts.Black could have a spell that just kills a flyer if it was necessary, but just giving black it’s normal kill spell usually will solve the issue of black dealing with flyers without having to call it out.

"green/blue doesn’t get pinpoint creature destruction" - That's not what Plummet does?

Sorry general creature destruction. Green can have pinpoint creature destruction for fliers and/or artifact creatures.

I have a pretty narrow question about Dominaria. Why “Pierce the Sky” over “Plummet”? Pierce does 7 to flyers, so without buffs, the cards are nearly identical, and there are no flyers with more than 7 base toughness in the set.

I assume the creative team had a preference.

Green is a #1 in anti-flying but Plummet is a bad maindeck. Should bimodal plummet (like Stinging Shot) be a staple in every set to correctly represent Green's strength?

Being #1 is about more than just power level. Simplicity of message is also important, and not every card is made for tournament level constructed.

If green cant deal with creatures without creatures, why are cards like Plummet ok?

There are two exceptions built into the color. Green is anti-flying and anti-artifact so it is allowed to have spells that destroy those two subsets of creatures without requiring a creature.

Which bends the colour pie more: Plummet or Clear a Path?

Both are technically in color.

If Green gets Reach, Plummet, and cheap artifacts that grant flying at common to answer enemy flyers, then why can't Red get the same things for enchantments? I would really like to understand what's the difference?

Because creatures are a much bigger and more prevalent problem that needs to be dealt with especially in limited.

Why hasn't plummet yet been reworked to use the fight mechanic? It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch given that most green monsters already dwarf fliers, and destroy does seem a little out of the color pie.

While green does not normally do creature destruction, there have always been two exceptions since the early days of Magic. Green can destroy fliers and artifact creatures.

Dear MaRo, Since Giant Spider in Alpha, green has been the color of flyer hate. Green has cards like Plummet designed to knock flyers out of the sky. My question is how this fits into green's color philosophy; Cards like Birds of Paradise and Hornet Queen don't seem to contradict green's love of nature. Aside from mechanical balance, is there a reason green disdains flying creatures so? Could things like other birds or drakes could be interpreted as within flavor for green?

The flying hate comes more from a mechanically need than a flavor one.

What are your thoughts concerning Plummet? Is it okay because it only destroys creatures with flying, or does it not quite fit into Green's slice of the color pie because it isn't a creature-based answer to an opponent's creature?

Green is allowed to kill two subsets of creatures and has been since the game’s early days: flying creatures and artifact creatures.