Author Topic: Site Lock Decks (Cookies welcome) (Read 3574 times)

Korunks · « **on:** January 19, 2010, 02:56:14 PM »

SO I have heard a lot about Site Lock, how it is either epic win, or sinisterly evil. Also that they are so easy that any monkey can win a game with them and something about cookies or cookie cutters or some such thing like that. And yet I have yet to find an example of this "cookie cutter" site lock deck. I would like to invite some one to help me find the cookie cutter so I can try this interesting deck archetype.

Sean · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2010, 03:04:11 PM »

Babylonian Banquet Hall
Babylon
Pergamum
Hormah

3 Site Takers/Discarders

stefferweffer · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2010, 03:04:42 PM »

7 sites is really simple. I usually use 10 cards minimum though, by adding Wastelands, Captured Ark, and Confusion of Mind. It should be pointed out that Destruction of Nehushtan is in every tournament deck I use, so I don't even consider that one "additional". Also, if you are using only NT heroes, throw in Golden Calf to really mess them up.

Others will comment on SERIOUS, expanded site-lockout strategies, but with just those 10 cards you are already frustrating your opponent to have to locate that artifact or multi-color site that they need.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2010, 03:06:18 PM »

The problem with site decks is that basically their only weapon is site stealing. That's why I almost never use MC sites in my deck, because it's practically futile to try to keep them. There are just so many other ways to make lost souls available without using site access. TAS, Mayhem, Hopper, and Revealer are cards that can go in just about any deck, and most brigades have other ways of making lost souls available or making your opponent draw as well. So yes, "cookie cutter" sitelock decks will stall for a while, and will probably win against 50% of decks, but smart, well-constructed decks will usually beat sitelock hands-down.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2010, 03:13:01 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on January 19, 2010, 03:06:18 PM

The problem with site decks is that basically their only weapon is site stealing. That's why I almost never use MC sites in my deck, because it's practically futile to try to keep them. There are just so many other ways to make lost souls available without using site access. TAS, Mayhem, Hopper, and Revealer are cards that can go in just about any deck, and most brigades have other ways of making lost souls available or making your opponent draw as well. So yes, "cookie cutter" sitelock decks will stall for a while, and will probably win against 50% of decks, but smart, well-constructed decks will usually beat sitelock hands-down.

they also have site discarding. I don't like cookie cutter site decks... Philistine sites are lame. brown is where it's at. even if they Mayhem/hopper/revealer me, I can punish them with a arsenal of enhancements. I usually don't attack them until they are completely locked out.

but basically all serious site decks will use Crimson, Brown or Black. I prefer Brown.

speaking of which, I think I'll make a site deck...

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2010, 03:18:03 PM »

My favorite kind of site deck is a Brown/Crimson, High Places/Gates of Jerusalem site deck. Next would be the black/brown, purple-sites-only, hero-basher site deck. Cookie-cutter site deck just don't cut it for me (no pun intended).

Korunks · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2010, 11:05:25 AM »

Quote

Babylonian Banquet Hall
Babylon
Pergamum
Hormah

Wouldn't this be a bad idea, thats an awful lot of colors, wouldn't that help access?

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2010, 11:09:34 AM »

The point of those, is you hope your opponent isn't playing Green so you stuff all of your lost souls in the banquet hall. You know most people don't use red so your covered there with multiple Babylons. Hormah is to put a lost soul on the bottom of your deck, when your evil character is discarded, say if they use Angel of the Lord on you. And Pergamum stops Dragon Raid from entering battle.

Sean · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2010, 12:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on January 20, 2010, 11:05:25 AM

Quote
Babylonian Banquet Hall
Babylon
Pergamum
Hormah

Wouldn't this be a bad idea, thats an awful lot of colors, wouldn't that help access?

Not really. With those 4 Sites (one of each). You really only have to worry about one of them being accessed each game. SoG+NJ+Burial on your own leaves 4 LSs. One of those is the Site Doubler so you just load that one into a color they don't have or can't use effectively.

Having one color of Sites is more of an old school style. The 4 Site cookie above takes advantage of special abilities on Sites whereas the one color Site tactic will normally play off of a Site like Egypt that has civilization support. The 4 Site cookie allows for a smaller deck while the single color tactic tends to need more defensive support and therefore a bigger deck.

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:16:30 PM »

So it is 4 sites only, not 7? I was thinking:

BBH
Babylonx3
Lion's Denx2
Ashdod

and then after your post I am now thinking:

BBH
Hormah
Pergamum
Ashdod
Babylon x 3

or is that too much?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:19:40 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on January 20, 2010, 03:16:30 PM

So it is 4 sites only, not 7? I was thinking:

BBH
Babylonx3
Lion's Denx2
Ashdod

and then after your post I am now thinking:

BBH
Hormah
Pergamum
Ashdod
Babylon x 3

or is that too much?

if you're going with Philly's, I'd say that that looks good, yeah.

Korunks · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:31:29 PM »

I was thinking Philly's with some Brown, for more site control and Delilah doesn't hurt anything.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:32:07 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on January 20, 2010, 03:31:29 PM

I was thinking Philly's with some Brown, for more site control and Delilah doesn't hurt anything.

light offense?

Sean · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2010, 03:36:06 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on January 20, 2010, 03:16:30 PM

So it is 4 sites only, not 7? I was thinking:

BBH
Babylonx3
Lion's Denx2
Ashdod

and then after your post I am now thinking:

BBH
Hormah
Pergamum
Ashdod
Babylon x 3

or is that too much?

No, I strictly meant one of each that I listed. Lion's Den should be Persian, not Babylonian. Last I checked the REG about it it was listed in two different places as two different things. I believe Persian to be the correct one so it shouldn't count towards BBH.

The 4 Site cookie is exactly that, 4 Sites. You then add in 3 Site discarders/takers and you're on your way. That's why it allows for a smaller deck.

If you were going to use Philies I would substitute Hormah for Ashdod because Outpost stops Hormah.

Korunks · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2010, 04:15:32 PM »

So the 4 site cookie is for a 56 card deck? It might be a stretch for a 50. Would A 7 site cookie fit better in a 63'ish card deck?

Master KChief · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2010, 04:25:19 PM »

you want 7 sites for a 50/56 card deck for optimal performance. most any seasoned site-lockout player will tell you that...you want as many lost soul sites as you have lost souls in your deck. with anything under, you run the risk of having a lost soul outside of a site, which doesnt serve the purpose of your deck. with a philly defense, my setup usually looks like:

1x pergamum
1x ashdod
1x bbh
2x kir
2x babylon

hormah is pretty much hit or miss with phillys. hopper is also hit or miss, as it would allow you to add an extra site, but you run the risk of it being revealed/harvest time'd, making it one more lost soul you have to defend and stick in a site. pretty much the less lost souls, the better.

Bryon · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2010, 04:43:17 PM »

Actually, Hopper does not allow you an extra site for deck building. Hopper does not count as a soul for deck building. That just adds to your point, though, that it is best not used.

Also, Sean, you were right about Lion's Den being Persian.

Master KChief · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2010, 04:52:29 PM »

ah, wasnt completely sure about that. i never use the hopper lost soul in a site deck as a rule of thumb, though.

Sean · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2010, 05:17:36 PM »

Quote

So the 4 site cookie is for a 56 card deck?

I'd try it at 50 but 56 would probably be better. If you go to 63 I'd definitely use 8 Sites and be much heavier on the defensive cards.

Quote

you want 7 sites for a 50/56 card deck for optimal performance

I would agree with this if you said it 3 years ago. There are enough good ways to get your Sites out now so 1 Site per LS isn't necessary like it was in the past. With cards like Large Tree and Well Reopened you can use less Sites with the same effectiveness as 7 Sites were in the past. That said, 4 Sites probably is on the light side but I think 7 is overkill. You have to keep in mind that you need access yourself so if you take up all your Site slots with single color Sites you are forced to have access from your Artifact pile.

Master KChief · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2010, 05:29:42 PM »

4 sites is way on the light side, i used to play that way as well, but i've found myself many times with a lost soul and nothing to put it in. large tree is also in a brigade not exactly the best for sites (i consider black and brown the best). even so, thats only 2 cards that can tutor outright (and restrict you to two restrictions...genesis and crimson kings)...why not just cut the middleman and make them sites?

you also dont need access yourself. site vs site will always usually have access against each other. not to mention if you're packing site stealers like land dispute/taking naboths vineyard. a site vs site match usually comes down to the person smart enough to tech high places/set fire in their deck.

12tipton3 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2010, 10:21:52 PM »

reading this, Daniel realised how easy it is to get site-locked. he made changes to his awesome angel deck.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2010, 03:57:18 PM »

I played brown sitelock for several months straight... and the defense below is the result of that. This not-so-little charm has worked very well for me in the past, and it still does today.

Cards in deck: 63
Lost Souls: 8
   Lost Soul (*/4)
   Lost Soul (Color Guard)
   Lost Soul (deck discard)
   Lost Soul (Female Only)
   Lost Soul (N.T. only)
   Lost Soul (Site Discard)
   Lost Soul (site doubler)
   Lost Soul (Wanderer)

Lamb Dominants: 5
   Angel of the Lord
   Grapes of Wrath
   Guardian Of Your Souls
   New Jerusalem
   Son of God

Grim Reaper Dominants: 4
   Burial
   Christian Martyr
   Destruction of Nehushtan
   Falling Away

Fortresses: 2
   High Places
   Wall of Protection

Red Sites: 4
   Babylon
   Babylon
   Babylon
   Babylon

Gold Sites: 1
   Kir

Green Sites: 1
   Babylonian Banquet Hall

Blue Sites: 1
   Hormah

Purple Sites: 1
   Pergamum

White Covenant Cards: 3
   Captured Ark (Crimson)
   Plagued with Diseases (Brown)
   Wastelands (Orange)

Brown Evil Characters: 8
   Complainers
   Foul Spirit
   Gomer
   Idolaters
   King Jeroboam I
   King Nadab
   King Zedekiah
   Morgan

Brown Evil Enhancements: 11
   Desolate Gateways
   Dungeon of Malchiah
   Face of Death
   Gibeonite Trickery
   Image of Jealousy
   Korah's Rebellion
   Land Purchase
   Stiff-Necked
   Taking Naboth's Vineyard
   Threatened Lives
   Weakness

Korunks · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2010, 06:26:44 PM »

If Plagued with Diseases, doesn't actually disease a hero, should I use face of death or weakness? I thought it did, but the long thread that was had about it left it undecided Tim against, Mike for.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2010, 07:19:06 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on January 25, 2010, 06:26:44 PM

If Plagued with Diseases, doesn't actually disease a hero, should I use face of death or weakness? I thought it did, but the long thread that was had about it left it undecided Tim against, Mike for.

Weakness doesnt require them to be diseased, hence the addition of Morgan in my defense.

News:

Author Topic: Site Lock Decks (Cookies welcome) (Read 3574 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

12tipton3

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo