Decks that you won't GG on principle

+

Guest 4344268

Guest
Probably sounds petty (and it probably is), but in old beta Gwent, there were some decks/cards that I refused to give "good games" to, win or lose, because they were just so [Nope.] god awful to play against. (Sabbath, Letho/Regis, and mill all come to mind.)

Granted, it's not exactly taking the high road, but are there any filthy net decks or dirty tactics that you refuse to GG on (beyond obvious dick moves, like roping/running the clock)?

I'm sure Nilfgaard will come in for some hate for all its disruption and deck-jamming cards, but I'm personally getting much more fed up with auto-pilot point-slam Woodland decks. (Nilfgaard has a way higher skill quotient than any Woodland variant.)

Anyway, what's the most detested deck/strategy in HC?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As soon as I see the Unicorn/Chironex combo I'm inclined to not give a GG.

Point-slam Monster decks are pretty annoying but like, they ALWAYS leave units really vulnerable to removal... I started using a lot of counters for big units in my decks and it's no problem. I'm kinda starting to hate Commander's Horn though...
 
When someone plays the exact copy 1:1 of a deck from the internet, I don't 'gg'.
That is in most cases, a total standard no-skill straight forward deck. Eg. a typical Usurper or Witchers Emhyr. Just too many of them and too boring.
Also when someone plays Viper Witchers and this damned Aep Whatever who mills 1 of 3 cards. I would 'gg' if it was a total mill deck that is about milling all opponents cards till round 2, but just mill the essential cards is a nope.
 
Don't hate the player... hate the game?

If people play Gwent from a competitive standpoint, they will play Uni/Chiro, they will play Big Woodland, they will play Commander's Horn.
:rolleyes:

I always send a GG. You shouldn't be bitter about somebody using the tools available in the game to be as competitive as possible.
 

rrc

Forum veteran
I send GG immediately if I win the game no matter how annoying the opponent player deck was (or even the player was). Whenever I lose, I give GG if the opponent gives GG (Yes, I wait for 5 to 10 seconds before Closing, giving sufficient time to the opponent) or if I found the game to be interesting and unique (I don't mind losing to a not-very-common deck, like have-less-number-of-unit-MO). I don't give GG when I lose and the opponent doesn't give GG and he/she used a net-deck which I have faced exactly in the same way multiple times.
 
Last edited:
I do not give "good game" to obvious netdecks in casual mode. I have different criterions for ranked mode, but there I decide individually based on players' behaviour, not players' deck, instead of "automatic no GG for deck type", so that is something different than what original poster asked about. I also check opponents' profile after game and there are often even more indicators of netdeck. At example today, I did not give GG to certain player, then checked his profile and he was rank 30 with very few duels played, very few cards owned, but his netdeck was full of powerful legendaries (at example Geralt: Professional) and it was typical pro player decklist including "ponnies combo".
 
I do not give "good game" to obvious netdecks in casual mode. I have different criterions for ranked mode, but there I decide individually based on players' behaviour, not players' deck, instead of "automatic no GG for deck type", so that is something different than what original poster asked about. I also check opponents' profile after game and there are often even more indicators of netdeck. At example today, I did not give GG to certain player, then checked his profile and he was rank 30 with very few duels played, very few cards owned, but his netdeck was full of powerful legendaries (at example Geralt: Professional) and it was typical pro player decklist including "ponnies combo".

Anyone who cares about winning will have the unicorns in most decks. They are going to get nerfed pretty soon I'm sure.
Post automatically merged:

Also just want to say in general that I don't even look to see if I got a GG or not. I couldn't care less about them.
 
I don't GG if I lose and I'm on the end of an obviously terrible deal, which I think is fair enough. If I get to end game and literally all the finishers haven't appeared whilst the opponents has a board full of golds, there's no point in GG'ing because they could have randomly placed cards and most likely still won! So how is that a "good game"?

Similarly will always good game an opponent when they're the 'victim'.
 
There aren't any such decks. I decided whether to GG based on each match, regardless of what deck the opponent played.

Sometimes I have great games against popular netdecks and really not-good games against custom decks, sometimes vice versa. It varies a lot.
 
Anyone who cares about winning will have the unicorns in most decks.
What do you think, how many rank 30 players with less than 200 cards in collection have them in deck? You obviously do not see how much netdecking is hurting game environment. I have seen it ruining several card games already.
 
What do you think, how many rank 30 players with less than 200 cards in collection have them in deck? You obviously do not see how much netdecking is hurting game environment. I have seen it ruining several card games already.

I don't agree at all and I can't fathom how people are still trying to complain about netdecking. As if there is some way to magically eliminate it from the game.

For crying out loud if the internet didn't exist people would STILL do it. It's not hard at all to watch your opponents cards and simply make the same deck off of that.
 
I can't fathom how people are still trying to complain about netdecking. As if there is some way to magically eliminate it from the game.

Totally agree with this. Some of us do not have the time to spend creating decks. Additionally, we all know there are archetypes out there....you would be a fool to not play certain cards within that archetype/leader.

To stay on topic, I tend to be so [censored..by me] when losing I will often not GG. Like @rrc I will almost always GG in a game that I win, though there are a few exceptions...mostly relating to those who play No-funilfgaard. I really dislike that faction, though I will indeed play it occasionally just to see how it plays.
 

Guest 4344268

Guest
For the record, I almost always GG unless the opponent ropes. The only deck I would never GG to on principle was beta Sabbath.
 
I usually GG, except when I didn't get to mulligan my hand due to the stuck at deterium bomb loading screen & lose, I would do so if I won. Ropers: never GG. Impolite players can be fun from time to time so I might GG them as well. Netdeckers, goodluck in reckognizing those and it doesn't matter at all actually, it's good for experience in building a deck when you're new in the game, find it's flaws and strengthen them. I GG netdeckers, they could need the points given and it will ease their losing pain a bit.
 
Top Bottom