Please tell me where the quote, "Have you tried playing removal?" comes from?Are you paraphrasing?Edit: Nevermind, no good would come from that post.
There's not really any point arguing when people are seriously throwing out "Have you tried playing removal?", no matter how good the intentions are.
Are you just looking for a fight?
This has been a habit for far too long, to not be addressed. This has happened quite a bit, with me in particular. I'm happy to settle this with you publicly or by PM. Because I don't get it? Let's stop jumping to conclusions through personal reasoning, without asking clarifying questions first. Less stress, and we will live longer
How are examples of what it means to remove "synergy" from a deck, have anything to do with "arguing", or suggesting that people try removal? It has everything to do with the current arena does not allow fishbowling to succeed for a large majority of decks. Decks need to veer off in other directions to compensate for crazy challenges in the arena.
I'm not even disagreeing with your advice on how to beat FRA 2.0. I'm disagreeing that it's good design for your advice to be correct.
To go further, adding Morphology to your example deck isn't even going to really solve any problems. Hogarth will still end you and a tempo play (at the cost of a card) against Poet or Periwinkle isn't saving you either. You can start playing the equipment, but then you're taking out the equipment for something else. Then you're likely not playing the card the equipment was for. Then it cascades and you end up with an Illuminate deck with six Illuminate cards.
You need cards from a very small subset that are generally over-tuned or at least under-costed. You get backed into playing degenerate decks to fight the degenerate decks. And, well, there's a reason people playing kitchen table Magic yell at people who bring combo decks to multiplayer.