Infinite Coursework

It can neutralize a resolved creature and strip abilities, but three mana and Aura exposure make it much narrower than efficient Standard interaction.

Could be wrong if A prepared-focused creature deck or unusually weak removal environment could make the tap and unprepared clause more valuable.

A one-for-one lock that costs three mana is slow for Pioneer and vulnerable to removal, leaving only a narrow answer to specific creatures.

Could be wrong if It could earn sideboard slots if an ability-based creature threat becomes both prevalent and difficult to answer otherwise.

Modern generally demands cheaper or more immediate interaction; this sorcery-speed Aura is a poor tempo exchange and is easily undone.

Could be wrong if A dominant creature threat that must stay tapped and has few ways to remove enchantments could create a small niche.

Three mana sorcery-speed creature interaction is far below Legacy efficiency, while the Aura can be removed or bypassed too readily.

Could be wrong if A highly central creature-based engine vulnerable specifically to ability loss could justify isolated sideboard testing.

It is slower than Lignify (57) and Aura-vulnerable, but blue can value a hard answer that taps and disables a large creature.

Could be wrong if Existing blue tempo tools may prove preferable, while sparse enchantment removal could make this more effective than expected.

It can shut down a commander without changing zones, but three-mana single-target Aura removal is fragile and narrowly applicable.

Could be wrong if Commander-centric tables with few sacrifice outlets or enchantment answers would substantially improve its practical performance.

This is efficient functional removal: it taps a creature, removes abilities, and normally prevents future combat, despite Aura-removal risk.

Could be wrong if Draft speed, enchantment-removal density, and the practical value of prepared are unknown, creating substantial Limited uncertainty.