Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

KMW - Groups 2-4

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 7:17:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I was rather disapointed we didnt get a chnage to the group rule to
allow any 2 groups to be used - rather than consecutive groups.

It seems a litte wierd that this didnt happen given the split of
vampires in KMW obviously the ADV version of old vampires get the old
group so are out of phase with the rest of the set - but the new
Abomination clan also has group 2 vampires which seems a little wierd.

Maybe a little begging of LSJ will have him give in and change the
rule for us :) 

Piers

More about : kmw groups

Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:25:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 20 Feb 2005 16:17:23 -0800, MonsterGuy@gmail.com (Piers) wrote:

>I was rather disapointed we didnt get a chnage to the group rule to
>allow any 2 groups to be used - rather than consecutive groups.
>It seems a litte wierd that this didnt happen given the split of
>vampires in KMW obviously the ADV version of old vampires get the old
>group so are out of phase with the rest of the set

Personally, this only bugs me as far as the indie g3-4 pair does not
have a full crypt available yet, even after a new expansion focused
(yet not entirely) on them.

But even this could be nothing more than a small hindrance since there
are some options of vampires to mix with them, Abominations included.


- but the new
>Abomination clan also has group 2 vampires which seems a little wierd.

Don't think so. As Scarce vampires, they're not meant to comprise a
full, or even Storyline-legal, crypt. And having one group 2 means it
is a new addition to old decks. Maybe that would be the decision with
the existing scarce vampires if there were a grouping rule at the time
Bloodlines was released.


>Maybe a little begging of LSJ will have him give in and change the
>rule for us :) 
>Piers

I'm not included in that "us" :)  Not that it should concern you, of
course, just to point out that using "us" is little too inclusive, too
close to "all players" ;) 

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:41:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:8dcf8be2.0502201617.4c14f805@posting.google.com...
>I was rather disapointed we didnt get a chnage to the group rule to
> allow any 2 groups to be used - rather than consecutive groups.
>
> It seems a litte wierd that this didnt happen given the split of
> vampires in KMW obviously the ADV version of old vampires get the old
> group so are out of phase with the rest of the set - but the new
> Abomination clan also has group 2 vampires which seems a little wierd.
>
> Maybe a little begging of LSJ will have him give in and change the
> rule for us :) 
>
only constructed tournements use the grouping rule, IIRC. Limited ones do
not.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:54:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dcf8be2.0502201617.4c14f805@posting.google.com...


>I was rather disapointed we didnt get a chnage to the group rule to
> allow any 2 groups to be used - rather than consecutive groups.
>

Here here.

>
> Maybe a little begging of LSJ will have him give in and change the
> rule for us :) 

If I thought that would work, I'd do it.


--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Samedi Primogen
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.htm...
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:27:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Piers wrote:
> I was rather disapointed we didnt get a chnage to the group rule to
> allow any 2 groups to be used - rather than consecutive groups.
>

I've never been a big fan of these grouping rules, and the new Group 4
vamps are underlining this for me, but allowing "any 2" groups to be
used tends to completely circumvent the point behind the grouping
rules.

I had an idea the other day of an alternate grouping rule that I'd
personally love to play with if I could get anyone to agree to it. And
I'll take this opportunity to post it here. It goes something like
this:

Any crypt must adhere to one of the following three grouping rules.

a) This rule is equivalent to the current grouping rules. Only
vampires from 2 consecutive groups may be used (or all from 1 group,
obviously). Thus, any currently legal crypt would be legal under this
system.

b) No more than 3 vampires in your crypt may have the same capacity
(multiple copies count as separate vampires). For example, the best
you could do for a multi-group weenie deck would be 3 1-caps, 3 2-caps,
3 3-caps, and 3 4-caps. This addresses the concern that an
unrestricted crypt would allow you to use too many similar vampires.

c) At least 90% of your deck must be the same clan. For some people,
this isn't much of a restriction, and having 4 groups to choose from
for some clans would make them much easier to use, but I really don't
think that a mono-clan multi-group deck is any more abusive than a
2-group multi-clan deck could be. You may be finally be able to make a
weenie Settite deck, but mono-Dominate or mono-Presence decks aren't
any more powerful under this rule than under the current system.

Granted, I'd still rather have no grouping rule at all and actually get
to mix all these great new vampires with all the great old ones. But I
think that the above would grant some variety while still addressing
the concerns that made the grouping rules "necessary" in the first
place. Not that they're going to change the rules based on my say-so,
but, hey, I seem to remember a certain "someone" (*wink*, *nudge*)
suggesting that Pulled Fangs should be errata'd to do non-agg damage...
so anything's possible, right?
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:06:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Yeah, what Salem said. A deck that followed any of the 3 grouping
rules would be legal. You wouldn't have to follow all 3, or pick one
that everyone has to follow.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:38:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Chris Berger" <arkayn@ugcs.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht
news:1109046462.430598.231080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> b) No more than 3 vampires in your crypt may have the same capacity
> (multiple copies count as separate vampires). For example, the best
> you could do for a multi-group weenie deck would be 3 1-caps, 3 2-caps,
> 3 3-caps, and 3 4-caps. This addresses the concern that an
> unrestricted crypt would allow you to use too many similar vampires.

this screws with big caps decks too. And mono vamp decks. both don't need
to be screwed....
>
> c) At least 90% of your deck must be the same clan. For some people,
> this isn't much of a restriction, and having 4 groups to choose from
> for some clans would make them much easier to use, but I really don't
> think that a mono-clan multi-group deck is any more abusive than a
> 2-group multi-clan deck could be. You may be finally be able to make a
> weenie Settite deck, but mono-Dominate or mono-Presence decks aren't
> any more powerful under this rule than under the current system.
>
Recalled to the Founder in every deck!!! Screw this. Why would I want to
limit myself to 1 clan?
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:14:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Chris Berger wrote:

> I've never been a big fan of these grouping rules, and the new Group 4
> vamps are underlining this for me, but allowing "any 2" groups to be
> used tends to completely circumvent the point behind the grouping
> rules.

Well, not really. The preumed point of the grouping rule is so that there is
a finite number of vampires available for any particular crypt but the game
can continue to produce vampires infinitely.

Currently, there is reasonable balance of vampires, numerically, by clan, by
group. Looking at the Camarilla clans (the most fleshed out), there is
something like:

~15 G1
~8 G2
~15 G3
~4 G4

When all the Camarilla get up to ~8 G4, they can then move on and make about
15 new G5.

Any given Sabbat clan has:
~15 G2
~8 G3
~4 G4

They have room for up to ~15 G4, so there is a lot of room to grow there.

You could, theoretically, allow people to build a crypt out of an odd group
and an even group, so you could have G1+G2; G1+G4; G2+G5, or whatever. That
wouldn't make any difference, in terms of total numbers allowed. I'm not
saying this is necessary, but it is a possibility if folks were so inclined.

Personally, I think the G4 vampires are just fine, and I like that I have to
make design decisions based on that--after the KMW pre-release, I
immediately figured out how to switch an all fortitude deck I have from G1/2
to G3/4, just so I could get Lorrie in there.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:08:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Chris Berger wrote:
> I've never been a big fan of these grouping rules, and the new
> Group 4 vamps are underlining this for me,

Specifics?

I'm just curious. I mean, like, you want to be able to use Black Annis
and Beast together, or is it that the G4 vampires combine better with
the G1 vampires than G2 do, or...


Xian
curse this google beta news post thing...can't I have my whole screen
back?
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 6:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Does no one think that as more and more Groups get added, even beginning
with G5, that the grouping rule is going to get unweildy. Theres going to be
just too many groups. And its going to come down to a lack of options. Not
sure what can be done about that really, if WW want to continue with the
grouping rule as is.

Also, one thing I don't fully understand. When LSJ says that a given group
is full does that mean:

1. Each group has X spaces for vampires.
or
2. Each clan in that group has X spaces.
or
3. Something else all together.

--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Samedi Primogen
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.htm...
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 6:13:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Colin Goodman wrote:

> Does no one think that as more and more Groups get added, even beginning
> with G5, that the grouping rule is going to get unweildy. Theres going to be
> just too many groups. And its going to come down to a lack of options. Not
> sure what can be done about that really, if WW want to continue with the
> grouping rule as is.

What do you mean? I suspect that the intention is that each clan has about
23 vampires available for a given crypt. G1/2 Camarilla is in that state.
G2/3 Camarilla is in that state. G2/3 Sabbat is in that state. My suspicion
is that where all the clans will end up eventually. So when they introduce
G5, it'll be to being all the clans up to that level in the 4/5 zone.

>
> Also, one thing I don't fully understand. When LSJ says that a given group
> is full does that mean:

It has hit maximum capacity. I'm guessing it is, for, say, Camarilla
vampires, ~15/~8 with alternating groups (look at camarilla G1/G2/G3/G4--G4
is currently low, but when it hits about 8 per clan, it'll be full.)


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:38:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:38:30 GMT, "Jeroen Rombouts"
<jeroen.rombouts@NOSPAMpandora.be> scrawled:

>
>"Chris Berger" <arkayn@ugcs.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht
>news:1109046462.430598.231080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> b) No more than 3 vampires in your crypt may have the same capacity
>> (multiple copies count as separate vampires). For example, the best
>> you could do for a multi-group weenie deck would be 3 1-caps, 3 2-caps,
>> 3 3-caps, and 3 4-caps. This addresses the concern that an
>> unrestricted crypt would allow you to use too many similar vampires.
>
>this screws with big caps decks too. And mono vamp decks. both don't need
>to be screwed....
>>
>> c) At least 90% of your deck must be the same clan. For some people,
>> this isn't much of a restriction, and having 4 groups to choose from
>> for some clans would make them much easier to use, but I really don't
>> think that a mono-clan multi-group deck is any more abusive than a
>> 2-group multi-clan deck could be. You may be finally be able to make a
>> weenie Settite deck, but mono-Dominate or mono-Presence decks aren't
>> any more powerful under this rule than under the current system.
>>
>Recalled to the Founder in every deck!!! Screw this. Why would I want to
>limit myself to 1 clan?

i think his 'new grouping rule' gave a methuselah building his crypt
the option to conform to whichever of the three options suited them
best, rather than him presenting 3 different grouping rule alternates.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:38:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"salem" <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:hr2m11hg3h1lc7aeg4lf3jb3cmi85nifdq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:38:30 GMT, "Jeroen Rombouts"
> <jeroen.rombouts@NOSPAMpandora.be> scrawled:

>
> i think his 'new grouping rule' gave a methuselah building his crypt
> the option to conform to whichever of the three options suited them
> best, rather than him presenting 3 different grouping rule alternates.
>
if so, oops, my bad :) 
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:15:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Specifically, Xian? Settites with Auspex. That's specifically what's
pissing me off, if you must know. 8)

Incidentally, the fiance and I never made that trip up to Minneapolis,
and if you made that trip down to Chicago, we missed you, so really,
we're going to have to set something up sometime.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:06:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Chris Berger wrote:
> Specifically, Xian? Settites with Auspex. That's specifically
> what's pissing me off, if you must know. 8)

Interesting...

You know, there are these things called Master: Discipline cards. ;) 

Admittedly, it would be neat if we could combine some of the newer
Tremere with Cardano... :) 

> Incidentally, the fiance and I never made that trip up
> to Minneapolis,

I noticed!

> and if you made that trip down to Chicago, we missed you,

Nah, I am a slacker.

> so really, we're going to have to set something
> up sometime.

One of these days! :) 


Xian
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Xian" <xian@visi.com> wrote in news:1109174764.009985.22870
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Chris Berger wrote:

>> so really, we're going to have to set something
>> up sometime.

> One of these days! :) 

Just posting to verify that Xian is excellent company, and so is his
fantabulous grilfiend. His job should send him out West more often.

pe
!