You know, if we wanted to play "hardcounter-or-lose", we could have just played rock-paper-scissors in lobby chat without wasting time on building decks and moving pieces.
Might be an observation but it reads like a "well this deck is ok because there is a counter in existence." Vs that deck should we scry like a madman over 6 rounds so we can get to our counter? That'd be smart, right? Scry down to get the counter? Yeah? ...
counter??after the nerf backlash is pretty useless and I guess it will take 20 turn to counter that bg
It takes exactly 1 turn -- the turn on which the combo player attempts to combo off. It blows up the Infestors after about 3 spells.
Well, that was not indended and I didn't think there could be any misconception about this. This is one of my decks, and we have been discussing how to treat my decks for 6 years now. I thought the matter was pretty much settled already.
"Need counter rune to counter broken bg that does not allow counterplay". "Include scry rune to scry better to counter broken bg". "Opponent's broken bg spell spamming and wins game ". " I better in clude this anti spell rune". "Removing these 8 runes from my bg to include these other 8 counter runes". Anti spell rune check! Backlash rune check! Scrying rune check! Hmm this isn't my bg at all. I have now created an anti broken bg so I can have a remote chance to beat fat warcraft guy's broken creation. Tournament such fun. Much competition.
ok...good to know...but still why to run a counter to just one bg?? (because at its state backlash is useless against other stuff)
That's actually what you do in lots of games. Run a counter or two to a single strategy because you might run into it at some point. Bonus points if said counter does something useful apart from countering.
