Nah, still testing the right setup. I can send you what I'm testing now.

Which in turn made auras basically extinct. Although, in slight defense of MU's position, non-instant speed removal was probably going the way of the do-do in any case.

I stopped playing sweepers and started relying on instant speed removal and value blockers.

The only arguably good and cheap sorcery speed removal spell in the meta is Declaration in Stone.

EDIT: Fragmentize is decent too for it's purposes.

And congrats, you've brought back go-wide aggro and Ormendahl decks.

I hope you're happy.

Languish continues to be amazing. whether that qualifies as "cheap" at 4cmc I don't know.

I'm theory crafting a few decks here.

Abzan: Blisterpod, Carrier Thrall, Nantuko Husk w/ Renegade Rallier, Treasure Keeper, and Fatal Push. Add in Pious Evangel for spice.

UW Mech: Expose Evil, Press for Answers, Erwald Illuminator w/ Heliod's Pilgrim to find Mechanized Production.

Fatal push takes care of ormendahl, altho I haven't faced it yet. A plaethora of first strikers, vehicles, liefelinkers and deathtouchers takes care of go wide.

Sweepers are dead draw vs too many decks. We're approaching a paper rock scissors meta.

Fatal push does nothing against Ormendahl.
Destroy target indestructiwhoops

True, my bad.

You still could play dec in stone for the ocasional go wides and blessed alliance.

So what you're saying is that I was right when I said that Vehicles sounded like the worst idea they've ever had? Because I said that before KLD dropped.

You've supposedly been playing since 1994, and vehicles are the worst idea they've ever had, in your mind? Are you kidding?

Maybe he blanked the Raffinity era from his mind. I know I did.

They have done many things that are worse than vehicles (which are basically stat altering equipment), for example: Banding, Epic & Shadow.

Banding was the tits tho

Yeah, except that nobody knew how it worked. Even Richard Garfield had trouble with it, I remember there was a special box set with one deck made by him and another made by a pro player and they had a special match and about halfway through Richard had to be corrected on how Banding works, and he invented it!

What was complicated about it? This is from memory, refusing to look it up, so I can be proven wrong if I remember wrong:

On defense, if there are multiple blockers and 1 of them have banding, the defender assigns damage.

On attacks, you could stick your banding guys with one non-banding guy (X banding guys with 1 non-banding guy) and they attacked like one monster and the attacker got to assign any blockers damage.

It turned a generic W 1/1 Banding into a complete combat math wrecking ball for a defensive deck.

I did not play back then; but reminder text from http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Banding:

Banding (Any creatures with banding, and up to one without, can attack in a band. Bands are blocked as a group. If any creatures with banding you control are blocking or being blocked by a creature, you divide that creature's combat damage, not its controller, among any of the creatures it's being blocked by or is blocking.)

So yeah; sounds about right. That ability is terrifying on defense though; assigning all combat damage to a Servo is guaranteed to stop attacks.

Banding is insane in limited. I played a Mirage block sealed deck event when they released it on Magic Online. Drafted Noble Elephant in the top 8, and it wrecked opponents in combat. If they can't remove it, it basically means your opponent can't attack without trading their best creature for your worst.

Banding was indeed very good and actually was not complicated at all. I never had a problem with it and don't recall anyone else having a problem either.

"Bands with Other Legends" was redundant and stupid but on a basic level Banding was actually a great idea and was a cool part of White's color identity at the time. RIP Benalish Hero you were too good for this world.