What qualifies as a counter deck?

[Ringel]

What counts, to you, as a counter deck?

I decks with15+ counters which clearly qualify, and decks with 0 counters that clearly do not. On the other hand, I have decks with around 8 or 9 counters... Do they qualify?

Oddly, one I think of as a counter deck, but the others I do not.

[Joek]

7 is the line for me, but if you want to sell your soul to the counter gods, (15+ 0_o), I can't stop you. I guess any deck which relies on counters is considered a counter deck.

[Ringel]

7? Why 7? Was that a joke?

What does rely on mean? For example the latest deck I included counters for was to not die from the wave of Wrath of the Righteous/Doomsdays that appeared over the last couple of days. Is that "rely"?

Here's an example: acreedrecollection.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=comp&action=display&thread=1801

Pete's deck uses 9 counters (and has 5 tutors). Is it a counter deck?

[lurifaxb]

I would call a counter deck "a deck whose main strength and purpose is to disrupt opponent via counters". I know that is fluffy, but counters can be defensive, like protecting your critical cards from certain cards (like wrath of the righteous). Basing your deck on winning with effects from counters like sulieman or that site, is a counter deck. As is a deck that plays to counter until a very late card winner (e.g. Da Vinci).

A deck with more Than 7 cards I call counter heavy. May not the a dedicated counter deck, as they can have "a purpose" besides counters.

[lurifaxb]

I would call Pete's deck counter heavy.

I like this discussion btw. Good initiative

[Ringel]

Why 7? I'd guess the cutoff number to be 5.

Good definition though. I'm starting to cement in my mind why I consider one deck a counter deck and another a not, even though they carry the same number of counters.

[Tuism]

I really don't care what a counter deck is defined as for example, a deck with 30 card drawers and 5 counters effectively can mean 25% counters so.... Who cares?

[TemplarTyler]

Hmm, I would class a counter deck as; when the only plan is to stop you doing anything... and then pull out a high scorer to win

I usually pack between 5-10 counters in my decks... sometimes up to 15.... just depends what you may need them for...
e.g keeping your decks weakness away and then those that keep away deck/game killers and the ones that decks should pack just to slow the opponent down and get rid of their best cards.

[lurifaxb]

Jul 28, 2012 14:39:06 GMT -5 Ringel said:

Why 7? I'd guess the cutoff number to be 5.

Good definition though. I'm starting to cement in my mind why I consider one deck a counter deck and another a not, even though they carry the same number of counters.

I ran with 7 from authors post, but it fits nicely. 5 is not heavy. 5 scientific espionage can be mainly defensive.

[Joek]

(this post assumes a 50 card sequence is being played)

Why seven? Well, 7.5 rounded down is seven.
5 all-purpose counters, (Court Order, Preemptive, Guard Duty)+ 2 or 3 auxiliary counters for specific threat types/situations (suleiman, untimely end, deadly message, guard duty again for Silvio, faux pas/mentor's wake for when you want to rush)
I play 4 Court Orders and 3 Suleiman, or 3 Yerebatan and 3 Suleiman, (with tutors), if I use any counters at all.

(random hating on counters below; don't take it personally, counter players)
Counters stop the opponent from advancing and defend you from attack. They are not an instant win button. They are an instant stop button, and speed and timing are (some of) ACR's fortes. Slow game = boring, at least for a Johnny/Timmy like me. I like to weigh priorities and think quickly, and counters slow the game. Choosing what to counter/sacrifice to lure out a counter is fun, (that meta is a neat little minigame), but if you just hurl counters at absolutely everything, it's just slowing down this wonderfully fast-paced game. Any deck that just vomits up counters at everything is a deck I consider a counter deck.
(hating on counters complete. You can open your eyes now =P)

[Brontobeuf]

It's a matter of strategy. Do you rely on counters to win, are they just here as a solution, or not. I built decks with 5 Suleiman and 5 Preemptive that were counter decks. It's only 10.

[Pete]

25% or more is a counter deck to me, since this almost guarantees one in your opening hand.

[Brontobeuf]

See, if my strategy is to counter a maximum of cards before playing mine in order to exhaust my opponent's hand, I'm a counter deck regardless of the number of counters I have in hand. If my strategy is to play cards and then to defend them with counters, then I'm not really a counter deck, even if I have 20 counters in it.

Does this clarify my last post? :]

[Pete]

It clarifies it, but i disagree that a counter deck has to counter first, then play memories, since it could be like mine - play quick then defend the memories.

[felixschroeter]

Jul 28, 2012 14:33:54 GMT -5 lurifaxb said:

I would call a counter deck "a deck whose main strength and purpose is to disrupt opponent via counters".

Lurifaxb nailed it with his fuzzy description, I think. One could ask why we even have to discuss which decks qualify as a counter deck. My guess: Some (most) of us don't like pure counter decks, so we're looking for some common notion about what is "appropriate" and what isn't. As this again is a tricky question we might agree on a definition like "a counter deck is a deck whose main strength and purpose is to disrupt opponent via counters and which really sucks". I don't think that the argument "I only use counters to defend my own cards" works because then countering IS a major part of your winning strategy. And (referring to my definition given above) it DOES suck.