Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Type 1 Deck Advice => Topic started by: Deathschythe on August 01, 2008, 09:33:25 PM
-
63 Cards
8 Dominants
- Son of God
- NJ
- Angel of the Lord
- Guardian
- Falling Away
- Christian Martyr
- Destruction
- Burial
8 Lost Souls
- Site Remover(nerd in the circle)
- Doubler
- Womens only
- N.T. only
- site doubler
- Anti-shuffle/exchange
- speed bump
- exchanger
7 sites
- Babylon (5)
- Babylonian Banquet Hall
- Pergamum
4(total) Artifacts/Covenants/Curses
- Holy of Holies
- Preistly Crown
- I am Holy
- Unknown Nation
2 Fortresses
- Chamber of Angels
- Storehouse
6 Silver Heroes
- Angel of God
- Gabriel
- Seraphim
- The Strong Angel
- Captain
- Michael (AW)
5 Silver Enhancements
- Angels Sword
- Gathering of Angels
- Three Angels
- Protection of Angels
- Spiritual Warfare (The only one of these without "Angels" in the title :))
5 Blue Heroes
- Jacob (FOOF)
- Dan
- Benjamin
- Zebulun
- Tribal Elder
4 Blue Enhancements
- Answer to Prayer
- Abraham's servant to Ur
- Obedience of Noah
- Jacob's Dream
1 Crimson Character
- King Rehoboam
7 Brown Characters
- unclean spirit
- foul spirit
- king zedekiah
- king jeroboam I
- king nadab
- abner
- uzzah
6 Brown Enhancements
- wickedness abounds
- gibeonite trickery
- dungeon of malchaiah
- land purchase
- taking naboths vineyard
- korahs rebellion
Questions? Comments? Critiques? Go.
-
Ugh.... another lockout. Just take out the sites for 7 more brown defense and it will work just as well. It will make the game more fun with more clash and it will be more enjoyable for everyone.
-
Well...I'm still experimenting with strategies myself, but I think this is a pretty good deck....I think....I should stop posting when I'm half-asleep.
-
Ugh.... another lockout. Just take out the sites for 7 more brown defense and it will work just as well. It will make the game more fun with more clash and it will be more enjoyable for everyone.
pfft.... lockout is teh wyn.
-
Ugh.... another lockout. Just take out the sites for 7 more brown defense and it will work just as well. It will make the game more fun with more clash and it will be more enjoyable for everyone.
pfft.... lockout is teh wyn.
right, but not fun for your opponent... ahem.... :P
-
it's suppose to be fun for your oppenent too?! :o
-
Yeah, that's kind of a strange thing to say. :-\
-
well, at least make for a good game... and not make their whole offense never attack...
-
Hey, I say if you can do it, do it.
-
What's Idolaters for? Initiative?
Foul Spirit might be useful for taking on site access characters.
Go Into Captivity (capture in a site deck?), Claudia (can only band to Michael and TSA, so realistically 1 character to band to), and Zebulun (to many non-Genesis heroes) seem out of place.
-
Yeah, that's kind of a strange thing to say. :-\
hey, i've played against the dreaded sin in the camp deck before..basically i just sit there..not much fun...:(
-
Yeah, that's kind of a strange thing to say. :-\
hey, i've played against the dreaded sin in the camp deck before..basically i just sit there..not much fun...:(
exactly. I don't like just sitting there or having my opponent sitting there... pretty lame.
-
What's Idolaters for? Initiative?
Foul Spirit might be useful for taking on site access characters.
Go Into Captivity (capture in a site deck?), Claudia (can only band to Michael and TSA, so realistically 1 character to band to), and Zebulun (to many non-Genesis heroes) seem out of place.
1- Yes, initiative.
2- Eh, I have a few battle winners if I need them. But that is a good idea.
3- Go into captivity- I can capture if I desperately need to win the battle or kill a site access character
- Claudia can band to Michael, TSA, and Gabriel (WA). Plus whatever opponents heroes are male NT.
- Zebulun - I can kill off claudia and send the angels to chamber and therefore my hand(by letting my opponent kill them) and then use them if I need to.
Do you really think I should take all of these out? And if so. what should I replace them with?
-
Yeah, that's kind of a strange thing to say. :-\
hey, i've played against the dreaded sin in the camp deck before..basically i just sit there..not much fun...:(
exactly. I don't like just sitting there or having my opponent sitting there... pretty lame.
Whatever wins you the game. :)
-
So, are you saying that people shouldn't make really good decks because that makes it harder for their opponents? :miss:
-
The object of the game is to rescue 5 lost souls. To win. Sure you can make decks based around silly or odd things just for fun, but when you go to tourneys(espescially the upcoming nats) you want to be using a deck that will do more than just make it hard for your opponent. You want to use a deck that will win games.
-
Took claudia out for tribal elder. Took go into captivity out for uzzah. More suggestions, ideas, criticism welcome.
-
I win a lot of games. And I don't use sites. Every game I play(and yes, pretty much every game) my opponent and I are laughing and not mad at our draws. He knows that I beat him, or lost against him, fair and square. I didn't just let him never attack, but rather blocked every rescue I could and played enhancements that would attempt to kill him, or at least stop him.
I have seen countless games, where people are frustrated or mad because they could never attack. They just sat there, and did their best to try and stop rescue after rescue, and eventually lost.
My deck has to have lots of access cards. I have dragon raid to gain access, covenant with levi with lampstand, set fire, and other cards that help to get ls like harvest time and the hopper ls. And all these cards are completely worthless against ANY other deck; but the sad fact is that they normally do come in handy, because too many people use sites.
Many people joined MASK, simply because speed decks were taking over. And people were in support of it, to provide variety to the game and not have everyone using speed decks. Sites are becoming the speed for t1 2p, and it makes for less fun games. And what's more, everyone that places at my tournies, except for Eric wolfe, pretty much uses no sites. So site decks don't even place all that often, and still make for a less fun game(for your opponent). I very much hate site decks. And I wish people would stop being lame and defend against my rescue attempts like a man. :P
-
Mmkay, my site lock can do that too.
About your point of "site locks dont place well"...
Notice the common factor of most of those winning decks? Extremely heavy offenses. How does one counter this? Very effective defenses.
-
Mmkay, my site lock can do that too.
About your point of "site locks dont place well"...
Notice the common factor of most of those winning decks? Extremely heavy offenses. How does one counter this? Very effective defenses.
Right, and I pretty much always build heavy defenses. And they can destroy an entire offense and kill all their heroes. But without sites. I am all for killing big offenses, but not locking them out so that they can't do much.
-
3 - Claudia can band to Michael, TSA, and Gabriel (WA). Plus whatever opponents heroes are male NT.
Claudia can NOT band to TSA because TSA's SA would kill the band, and therefore give your opponent a successful block by Claudia's ability being negated, so therefore TSA can no longer be in the battle.
So, i would take out Claudia or TSA, for less characters and so that doesnt happen
-
3 - Claudia can band to Michael, TSA, and Gabriel (WA). Plus whatever opponents heroes are male NT.
Claudia can NOT band to TSA because TSA's SA would kill the band, and therefore give your opponent a successful block by Claudia's ability being negated, so therefore TSA can no longer be in the battle.
So, i would take out Claudia or TSA, for less characters and so that doesnt happen
Never take our tsa! he is one of the best heroes in the game.
-
I win a lot of games. And I don't use sites. Every game I play(and yes, pretty much every game) my opponent and I are laughing and not mad at our draws. He knows that I beat him, or lost against him, fair and square. I didn't just let him never attack, but rather blocked every rescue I could and played enhancements that would attempt to kill him, or at least stop him.
I have seen countless games, where people are frustrated or mad because they could never attack. They just sat there, and did their best to try and stop rescue after rescue, and eventually lost.
If sites were that cheap, they probably wouldn't boost them the way they did with FOOF. Locking your opponent out may make them mad, but how are you going to win if you're buiding your deck and playing your games with the mind set of trying to be nice to your opponent. I'm not saying you shouldn't be respectful to your opponent. You definately should be respectful. I'm talkin about being like "I'm not going to do this because it's a mean strategy. Here's your 5th lost soul. You win."
My deck has to have lots of access cards. I have dragon raid to gain access, covenant with levi with lampstand, set fire, and other cards that help to get ls like harvest time and the hopper ls. And all these cards are completely worthless against ANY other deck
Lampstand, set fire, harvest time, hopper: these cards are useful against decks other than site decks.
Many people joined MASK, simply because speed decks were taking over. And people were in support of it, to provide variety to the game and not have everyone using speed decks. Sites are becoming the speed for t1 2p, and it makes for less fun games. And what's more, everyone that places at my tournies, except for Eric wolfe, pretty much uses no sites. So site decks don't even place all that often, and still make for a less fun game(for your opponent). I very much hate site decks. And I wish people would stop being lame and defend against my rescue attempts like a man. :P
Site decks may not place at your tourneys, but how do you know that they dont place at other tourneys and at nats?
-
3 - Claudia can band to Michael, TSA, and Gabriel (WA). Plus whatever opponents heroes are male NT.
Claudia can NOT band to TSA because TSA's SA would kill the band, and therefore give your opponent a successful block by Claudia's ability being negated, so therefore TSA can no longer be in the battle.
So, i would take out Claudia or TSA, for less characters and so that doesnt happen
Thak you for your input. But, I took out claudia before you even posted that. Any way, if you wanted the battle to be fight by the numbers with just claudia in battle, you would have that option. Or, if Holy Of Holies is active, you can band.(and I have Holy Of Holies in this deck).
But, I've already taken claudia out so it doesn't matter.
-
I very much hate site decks. And I wish people would stop being lame and defend against my rescue attempts like a man. :P
You are entitled to your own opinion. However, sites were created to add variety to deck building strategies. There is nothing wrong with creating a deck that allows your opponent little or no chance to do much. If you can build such a deck that works, then bravo! That is a sign of good deck building if your decks can shut down your opponents.
Kirk
-
I very much hate site decks. And I wish people would stop being lame and defend against my rescue attempts like a man. :P
You are entitled to your own opinion. However, sites were created to add variety to deck building strategies. There is nothing wrong with creating a deck that allows your opponent little or no chance to do much. If you can build such a deck that works, then bravo! That is a sign of good deck building if your decks can shut down your opponents.
Kirk
Gracias.
-
at the expense of giving your opponent a horrible time? Like I said, if you take out sites and put in that many defensive cards, it will work at least as good. I have played games many times where my opponent says, "darn, here's the lost soul, I kind of just relly on sites...". And I either can't win a lost soul or get a free one, depending on if I get my site access enough. It just makes for a lame game.
-
Like I said, if you take out sites and put in that many defensive cards, it will work at least as good.
You can't make such a claim. Maybe in your experience this is the case, but I highly doubt you have played enough games using site lock to compare the two. I, for one, find site lockout games to be envigorating, since I know I have to play my cards extra well or I'll lose.
Kirk
-
Like I said, if you take out sites and put in that many defensive cards, it will work at least as good.
You can't make such a claim. Maybe in your experience this is the case, but I highly doubt you have played enough games using site lock to compare the two. I, for one, find site lockout games to be envigorating, since I know I have to play my cards extra well or I'll lose.
Kirk
I've played redemption for five years, and yes, I have tried site lockout many times. And I found that using a single-color solid defense is the best way to win a rescue attempt. I won regionals with a solid gray defense, and during regionals I played someone for fun, and won with solid crimson and black, no sites, and he was the one to win the tournie. I'm just saying that sites in my opinion make the game less exciting. Yes like you there are some who like playing against and using sites, but there are people who like speed decks as well, yet the majority of players hates speed decks in multi, and created a group to stop that one kind of deck. Everyone I know hates sites. And I have played for 9 years, like I said and rarely find someone after a game against a site deck go, "wow, that was so much fun! I drew dragon raid my first draw and he couldn't even defend!" The best games are the ones that involve evil against good, not heroes sitting in their territories unable to attack. I'm just saying that I think it is pretty lame.
-
Yes like you there are some who like playing against and using sites,
"Playing against"? Whats that supposed to mean?
-
Everyone I know hates sites.
You know me, do you not?
I love sites. :P
I've played redemption for five years,
And I have played for 9 years
Was that fish you caught 10 feet as well? or mabye 12.
And I found that using a single-color solid defense is the best way to win a rescue attempt.
Win or block?
If you meant block..... then I agree. A single color solid defense (WITH sites) Is the best way to block a rescue attempt.
like I said and rarely find someone after a game against a site deck go, "wow, that was so much fun! I drew dragon raid my first draw and he couldn't even defend!"
Uhm... thats if they use a bad site lock. ;)
You've seen what my site locks can do. I dont ENTIRELY rely on my sites, as I have 25-30 defense cards not including sites. Also, in some situations, I can decimate all of your heros twice, possibly more if I get some recurring going.
-
I've played redemption for five years...
...And I have played for 9 years,...
-blink- ummmm.....
-
sorry, I misstyped, I have played for nine years.
-
To win. Sure you can make decks based around silly or odd things just for fun, but when you go to tourneys(espescially the upcoming nats) you want to be using a deck that will do more than just make it hard for your opponent. You want to use a deck that will win games.
O_o You do? I bring fun decks to nationals...Am I doing something wrong? I've told every person I have ever taught to play for fun and not to exclusivly win because that makes them get upset at losing more. That being said I've never told anyone to go easy on someone so they can be "happy". If your deck can compete with mine, awesome I love games like that. If not well then sorry.
at the expense of giving your opponent a horrible time? Like I said, if you take out sites and put in that many defensive cards, it will work at least as good. I have played games many times where my opponent says, "darn, here's the lost soul, I kind of just relly on sites...". And I either can't win a lost soul or get a free one, depending on if I get my site access enough. It just makes for a lame game.
I've had games where its been a fair game ruined by a less than desireable opp more than site locks. I have never seen ANY site deck go "here is a free ls" Unless aocp or something else hurt their havage of ecs. Maybe I just play the wrong site lock players.
I've played redemption for five years, and yes, I have tried site lockout many times. And I found that using a single-color solid defense is the best way to win a rescue attempt.
Ecs win lost souls without conversion? YOU MUST TEACH ME THIS SECRET!
I've played redemption for five years,
And I have played for 9 years,
Well I've know people who have played for four and still don't know much about the game so.... Years played doesn't matter much. Neither does numbers magicaly increasing.
like I said and rarely find someone after a game against a site deck go, "wow, that was so much fun! I drew dragon raid my first draw and he couldn't even defend!"
As said, You play some ODD site decks. You sure they aren't defenseless with sites thrown in?
My two cents.
Honestly Pennies need to replaced with like high explosives so people will listen more.
I am all for playing for fun. I love sites, site lock decks, and the uses of sites most people don't use. E.g. Tossing a hand d/c ls into your deck so when you are facing a non-site lock deck DR can have a use. Sites with special abiltiies (Hormah, That red philistine site who's name is escaping me, Nero's relm, lepper colony, etc.) really add spice to the game. Yes Foof finnaly gave site lock (previously a horrible stratagy) some teeth to show. I think everyone will adjust to site lock being a legit way to win in time. As for Sin in the camp decks...You think site locks are bad...play against one of those.
-
what is a sin in the camp deck?
-
O_o You do? I bring fun decks to nationals...Am I doing something wrong? I've told every person I have ever taught to play for fun and not to exclusivly win because that makes them get upset at losing more. That being said I've never told anyone to go easy on someone so they can be "happy". If your deck can compete with mine, awesome I love games like that. If not well then sorry.
Exaclty. So building site decks just to win is pretty lame if you ask me. If you can do fun and original decks with it, then that's cool. But just using the same old sites with brown is lame and unoriginal.
I've had games where its been a fair game ruined by a less than desireable opp more than site locks. I have never seen ANY site deck go "here is a free ls" Unless aocp or something else hurt their havage of ecs. Maybe I just play the wrong site lock players.
When I played your heroless deck, I won every rescue attempt I had access with. So have you not played in one of your games?
Ecs win lost souls without conversion? YOU MUST TEACH ME THIS SECRET!
haha, you know what I mean. Blocking a rescue attempt.
Well I've know people who have played for four and still don't know much about the game so.... Years played doesn't matter much. Neither does numbers magicaly increasing.
Okay, will someone just cut me some slack. I meant nine years. And I wasn't doing this to brag, but someone brought up that they highly doubt I have played enough games to know, so I was simply responding. I believe it was Kirk...
As said, You play some ODD site decks. You sure they aren't defenseless with sites thrown in?
Once again, I am talking about when I played against you. You know that site decks do not have at least as much defense as a deck relying on a brigade defense, because they realy on SITES.
-
Once again, I am talking about when I played against you. You know that site decks do not have at least as much defense as a deck relying on a brigade defense, because they realy on SITES.
Please respond to this then. :-p
You've seen what my site locks can do. I dont ENTIRELY rely on my sites, as I have 25-30 defense cards not including sites. Also, in some situations, I can decimate all of your heros twice, possibly more if I get some recurring going.
None of my site locks rely ENTIRELY on sites. Yes its a major part of my defense, but I can hold you off without them.
But just using the same old sites with brown is lame and unoriginal.
Ok then, this sounds like a challenge for me to make a different brigade site lock.
-
I actualy had a dual color defense, Blocked you, did lose the r.a. yes but I did block you it wasn't "O here is a ls for free." cept when I had no ecs.
-
I actualy had a dual color defense, Blocked you, did lose the r.a. yes but I did block you it wasn't "O here is a ls for free." cept when I had no ecs.
And if you would have had a stronger non site defense, you probably could have held me off, considering I had a 14 card offense in that deck. It was very defensive.
-
Probably so. Fbtn does do a nasty bit on site lock but that is no reason to condem all site lock due to you playing the main deck that can bi-pass site lock due to its plethora of colors/no s.a. for the lock to kill your site.
-
Probably so. Fbtn does do a nasty bit on site lock but that is no reason to condem all site lock due to you playing the main deck that can bi-pass site lock due to its plethora of colors/no s.a. for the lock to kill your site.
I wasn't using fbtn.... OH, you're thinking about the first time I played you. But I'm talking about when I played you very recently. I had a 14 card offense and you were using a heroless with a huge site lock defense, and it still didn't do much, because simply, I had access.
-
I don't think I played you with that deck again, I may be wrong but I am just not remembering it.
-
I don't think I played you with that deck again, I may be wrong but I am just not remembering it.
you had evil gold and heroless with sites. It wasn't long ago.
-
Yeah my site lock is gold/brown. My gold has egypt/pharos prison (or used to) sites in it for s.a.
-
I use brown because it works with sites. It has ways to get rid of your opponent's lifeline, their dragon raid.
-
Ugh.... another lockout. Just take out the sites for 7 more brown defense and it will work just as well. It will make the game more fun with more clash and it will be more enjoyable for everyone.
Or you could just put more site access cards into your deck like the rest of us... ::)
-
Ugh.... another lockout. Just take out the sites for 7 more brown defense and it will work just as well. It will make the game more fun with more clash and it will be more enjoyable for everyone.
Or you could just put more site access cards into your deck like the rest of us... ::)
I have plenty of site acccess, no trouble there. I am complaining because it is too easy to win a lost soul, absolutely no resestance once I get me access cards.
-
Thats a defense that relys on sites.
Thats not a TRUE site lockout. ;)
-
Thats a defense that relys on sites.
Thats not a TRUE site lockout. ;)
Well then his deck, who made this thread and who this thread is about, does not have a true site lockout, and then by your definition pretty much nobody does. He has dungeon, and korah's rebellion, one of which can be interrupted or negated easily by any well made offense. And then treaty, which just stalls. Once again, it's just a stall deck, and if I were to pull dragon raid and he didn't get pergamum, I would win more oft then not, and that's the truth. :)
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, dude. I played site lockout deck in a tournament, and I lost one game due to him drawing Dragon Raid on the first turn. It ended 5-4 though, and it was still a nail-biter. A strong offense coupled with a site-lock can be the wyn. Your acting like offenses don't exist in site-locks? :scratch:
Btw, this was my THIRD deck ever. If I built one now, it would be very much so better.
-
oh, they exist, but they aren't as big as a non site deck, unless you just make your deck have tons of cards period. And once again, even if it wins, I think it is a lame way to win. What do you find more exiting? Playing head of gold and capturing all their heroes, or having them pass and do nothing because they don't have access?
-
or having them pass and do nothing because they don't have access?
Um, that rarely happens...usually they still attack, so you can useyour anti-sites on them. Some really awesome negate wars came up that tournament. Matter of fact...I just might remake that deck...hmm...
-
or having them pass and do nothing because they don't have access?
That one is easier.(assuming that you have sites and they don't have access)
-
I think it is a lame way to win.
???
If sites were that big a problem then they could just stop boosting it and boost anti-site cards. Remember how they killed speed?
-
Looking through my collection (which has to be about the worst collection, due to me not having money to buy more cards), I saw that PURPLE, BLUE, GREEN, GOLD, RED, and WHITE(I think), plus anymore I am forgetting, have at least one card that says "discard a single color lost soul site"; also, BLUE has a card that allows you to TAKE a site from an opponent, as does at least one other brigade. Finally, you have all sorts of site access cards. So, there are plenty of ways to knock out an opponent's sites so that they game is "fun".
If the Site-Lockout decks you have faced either give you a lost soul or don't let you make ANY rescue attempt, then they obviously need assistance in building better decks. Maybe you could actually talk to them about it/help them with it (by sitting down with them, looking at all the possible cards, and picking out the best), and then make it more fun. In your defense, you continually blame the IDEA for not being fun, yet it is the APPLICATION/EXECUTION of the idea that is making it unpleasurable.
I use a Site-Lockout deck myself, and find that there is decent balance between my opponent having access/not having access, and there are some very interesting battles. Site-Lockout, in my opinion, is a great idea.
That being said, in the most recent posts, the things being said are 'I think'/'I believe' (or something of that matter), and therefore more arguing about this topic will not really accomplish much, except continually restating that which has already been said. Both sides have good points, but now we are just beating a dead horse. Thanks, and have a nice day.
-
....Anyway. Does anybody else have something to say about the deck?
-
I do. Don't do it! ;)
-
I do. Don't do it! ;)
....Anyway. Does anybody else have something to say about the deck?
The deck looks good. I would personally take out zebulon, idk how useful he will actually be, given how many non-genesis heros you have in there. I also noticed an excessive lack of complainers. Complainers negates access abilities on their heros and can choose the rescuer, which is great in a site lock.
-
Good thoughts. As far as complainers.. I dont have one. Who should I put in for zebulun?
-
Foul Spirit essensially does the same thing as Complainers in terms of Access abilities.
-
Is he that important?
-
Well as it stands, someone like Nahum or Kings Daughter could just walk right in.
-
Is he that important?
Yeah, he really is. If I were you, I would use both Foul Spirit and KoT... most decks have site access characters. Like Lambo said, right now you basically don't have any way to stop them.
-
OK then. Took out idolaters and added in foul spirit. Thank you.