Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Idea (Grouping Rule)

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:30:12 PM

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

Source: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad "dial-a-crypt" author:LSJ

"[grouping rule] is designed to maintain the crypt construction side of

deckbuilding. Avoiding the ability to dream up your ideal crypt
and then go find the vampires that have been designed that fit
that ideal. Also known as "dial-a-crypt"."

Problems with current system:
New players have little incentive to buy both old and new vampires.
Many players have voiced their dissatisfaction.

Suggested group rule:
Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be from
any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
group.

For example, a player can construct a crypt from groups 1, 2, and 4.
This is one extra group (above the normal two), so her crypt minimum is
24 cards.

Solution proposed:
Allows players to use any cards together. Penalizes "perfect crypt" by
forcing it to fill more vampire spots than it will presumably gain in
vampires.

I will now respond to this post, to add examples.
-- Brian

More about : idea grouping rule

Anonymous
March 13, 2005 2:06:35 PM

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

"I want superior Dominate and capacity less than 6"
Group 1: just Didi Meyers
Group 2: 6 vampires
Group 3: Banjoko and Catherine DuBois
Group 4: Donatello Giovanni and Black Lotus

No grouping rules: 11 different unique vampires (in a 12-vampire
crypt)
Current rules: 8 possible (group 2+3)
Suggested rules: 10 possible (in a crypt of 24)

In order to populate this crypt with ONLY superior Dominate for <6, a
player would have to use 2 copies of each vampire, and 3 of a couple
others, under the suggested rules.

"I want Ventrue Princes and Justicars"
Group 1: 4 vampires
Group 2: 3 vampires
Group 3: 3 vampires
Group 4: Mustafa, The Heir

No grouping rules: 11 different unique vampires
Current rules: 7 possible (group 1+2)
Suggested rules: 10 possible (in a crypt of 24)

Again, you'd need to use at least doubles of everyone if you really
wanted 10 different Ventrue Princes. Any discrepancies between these
numbers and reality (maybe you'd use Arika in a Ventrue deck) are
reasonably accounted for (Suhailah).

"I want to use just two vampires, one from group 2 and one from group
4, which together are unstoppable! My crypt will only be half one and
half the other!"

OK, but notice that LSJ said the grouping rule was to prevent
dial-a-crypt, not to prevent interesting fatties from being used
together. Besides, if you want a 2-vampire deck, go for it. Those
decks have their own set of problems, far worse than grouping.

I personally don't think this will result in any dial-a-crypt problems,
simply because more slots are created from adding a group than that
group can possibly fill (otherwise, that group has 12 vamps you want
already, and you should just use it by itself.) I personally don't
think ANY combination of two fatties will be any worse for the game
than say Arika and Leandro.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 5:11:11 PM

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

> > Problems with current system:
> > New players have little incentive to buy both old and new vampires.
> > Many players have voiced their dissatisfaction.
>
> New players don't have to buy old and new vampires. The only vampires
that
> have trouble combining, considering the current distribution, are G1
> vampires, which aren't generally available anyway, except in the
anniversary
> tins, which come complete with all the G1s you'd ever want anyway.

First, let me say that many playgroups (mine included) will often start
new players with a free bunch of Jyhad cards, since they were so widely
available for so long. Secondly, I'd say that since 10th comes with
all of the G1 vamps AND is recent, G1 will be purchased by LOTS of new
players unless an older player tells them specifically not to.
Therefore, I would say that new players will continue to use G1 vamps
for some time.

Think about it: Assume you are a new player without many cards, but
you own ALL of group 1. Which group will you play with? And since
it's you, I'd like to add that 10th Anniversary comes with 15 different
Nosferatu in it :) 

I was thinking about this at all because of Vanessa and Andy, who began
playing V:TES only weeks ago, and they have 3 tins of 10th between
them, and shooting for more. They'll probably end up at 6 or 7. I
don't want them to have cards which are thoroughly incompatible with
one another.

> Currently, if you get into the game, you get G2-4, mostly with G3's.
The
> G2's go with the G3's. The G4's go with the G3's. Not seeing a
problem so
> much.

Actually, locally, we don't have any G2's available at all, except
Sabbat War starters. In fact, we have all of those, and nothing from
any of the other G2 sets. We also have Cam, Black Hand, Gehenna, KMW,
and 10th.

Which means we have G3, G3, G3/G4, G4, and G1, respectively. Perhaps
this is just a local phenomenon.

Even so, there will be other groups, in time. And when G5 comes out, I
assume we will still have, say, Black Hand at the store. Which will
not be important to stock at all, since new players won't be able to
use the vampires at all. Not with their other vampires, anyway.

Of course, it would be easiest if there were simply an even/odd
grouping rule, because then you would perpetually limit the number of
vampires available to a given strategy and still let (new) players buy
anything they wanted (without restriction).

Since the odd/even suggestion was made by LSJ himself over a year ago
and still nothing has come of it, I think it's safe to say it's
over--which is sad, since I thought it was great. Anyway, I thought of
this new idea this morning, and I posted it.

Using both fixes together--pick one odd, one even, then purchase extra
groups for +12 crypt size each--would make me (and presumably Josh
Duffin?) happiest, but basically I think something needs to happen now
that beginning players are picking up 10th Anniversary and saying,
"Cool! What boosters would go with these Ventrue guys?"

<sigh>
Dark Sovereigns.

-- Brian
Related resources
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 6:28:18 PM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:

> Problems with current system:
> New players have little incentive to buy both old and new vampires.
> Many players have voiced their dissatisfaction.

New players don't have to buy old and new vampires. The only vampires that
have trouble combining, considering the current distribution, are G1
vampires, which aren't generally available anyway, except in the anniversary
tins, which come complete with all the G1s you'd ever want anyway.

Currently, if you get into the game, you get G2-4, mostly with G3's. The
G2's go with the G3's. The G4's go with the G3's. Not seeing a problem so
much.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 6:29:48 PM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:

> Suggested group rule:
> Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be from
> any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
> increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
> group.

This particular solution doesn't seem like it would do anything at all.
Yeah, youmight be forced to use a 24 card crypt, but then you just take two
identical 12 card crypts and shuffle them together. I realize that there are
somewhat higher chances for "clumping", but I suspect the difference is
pretty minimal.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:55:23 PM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:

> First, let me say that many playgroups (mine included) will often start
> new players with a free bunch of Jyhad cards, since they were so widely
> available for so long. Secondly, I'd say that since 10th comes with
> all of the G1 vamps AND is recent, G1 will be purchased by LOTS of new
> players unless an older player tells them specifically not to.
> Therefore, I would say that new players will continue to use G1 vamps
> for some time.

Sure, on the whole "here, have lots of free Jyhad vampires" angle, which is
a reasonable thing to do, but wouldn't it make more sense, like, to let new
players who have a very limited card pool to play with any vampires they
want till they get more cards rather than invent new rules that affect
everyone and might not actually be a good idea?

And yeah, the 10th set comes with lots of G1 vampires, but I'd maintain that
the 10th set is, like, the last thing a new player should buy (he be much
better off, in like almost every situation, getting 2 starter decks, as the
10th set is of very questionable actual play value), and yeah, it does
require older players to make this known to newer players, but I'd figure
that the situation we are looking at is one where there are new players in a
group of old players (otherwise, the new players could just choose to ignore
the grouping rules on their own).

> Think about it: Assume you are a new player without many cards, but
> you own ALL of group 1. Which group will you play with? And since
> it's you, I'd like to add that 10th Anniversary comes with 15 different
> Nosferatu in it :) 

Sure, again, but if I get both 10th tins, I could easily make all G1 decks
with those vampires. And if I get, like, some SW or FN starters, I have even
more G1/2 options.

> I was thinking about this at all because of Vanessa and Andy, who began
> playing V:TES only weeks ago, and they have 3 tins of 10th between
> them, and shooting for more. They'll probably end up at 6 or 7. I
> don't want them to have cards which are thoroughly incompatible with
> one another.

That is certainly a reasonable want, but one that really could be fixed by
house ruling the group rule out for the new players till they get enough
cards to make the difference. But yeah, I also know that lots of folks don't
like using house rules, even in this sort of situation.

> Actually, locally, we don't have any G2's available at all, except
> Sabbat War starters. In fact, we have all of those, and nothing from
> any of the other G2 sets. We also have Cam, Black Hand, Gehenna, KMW,
> and 10th.
>
> Which means we have G3, G3, G3/G4, G4, and G1, respectively. Perhaps
> this is just a local phenomenon.

Yeah, that is kind of weird. But still, lots of G1 vampires means G1 decks.
Heck, many of us lived like that for years :-)


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:37:32 PM

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

> Sure, on the whole "here, have lots of free Jyhad vampires" angle,
which is
> a reasonable thing to do, but wouldn't it make more sense, like, to
let new
> players who have a very limited card pool to play with any vampires
they
> want till they get more cards

I have at least 8 decks right now which were built only for that
purpose. One of them even happens to be "The Nosferatu Hate You"!
However, I don't really want to loan the same player a deck every time,
or worse, loan 3 or 4 decks to various players in various states of
new-ness. Still, this happens about one night every two months.

What we do now: Loan them a deck once or twice, and then (assuming
they like the game) they actually buy cards. Then, based on what they
have, they ask what cards other players have which would help them, and
we make sure they get enough good stuff to build a deck.

If they actually want to trade, then better to get KMW, Black Hand, or
10th Anniversary. If they don't want to trade, then they can buy
whatever. (And before anyone asks, yes, some players have so few wants
or so much money, they just really don't have to trade.)

Vanessa in particular wanted to play group 1 Malks, and...well, you buy
the tins, you not only get all group 1 Malks, but you easily get enough
stuff to trade for anything (Pranks, Giant's Blood) which you couldn't
get in commons already.

> rather than invent new rules that affect
> everyone and might not actually be a good idea?

I posted to find out whether it's a good idea. The notion of "There
are X vamps to choose from, pick any 12" being looked at from the
"increase 12" side instead of the "limit X" side, seems like at least a
new idea.

"Affect everyone" is intentional. Many old players don't like the
restrictions of the grouping rule, and this offers both protection from
dial-a-crypt and the freedom to mix any vampires you want in any
combination.

> I'd figure
> that the situation we are looking at is one where there are new
players in a
> group of old players (otherwise, the new players could just choose to
ignore
> the grouping rules on their own).

We could say "don't buy 10th". But what if someone wants the tin?
What if Group 1 vampires appeal to him/her? I think all of our V:TES
players, new and old, each have at least 1 tin.

> Sure, again, but if I get both 10th tins, I could easily make all G1
decks
> with those vampires. And if I get, like, some SW or FN starters, I
have even
> more G1/2 options.

But if you buy any "current set" booster, ever, you get vampires which
require you to either buy into another group, or use by themselves.
After all, they wouldn't be compatible with your existing vamps.

Also recall the last G2 set was released in...what, 2001? Many game
stores won't stock expansions from 2001 when there's 6 different sets
since. Or, at least, won't stock them without prompting. And I'm
hesitant to prompt them: I don't think our small player base would
support 9 or 10 sets of cards, i.e. 20+ boxes. Discordia Games would
feel "stuck" on the merchandise and not order any more.

> That is certainly a reasonable want, but one that really could be
fixed by
> house ruling the group rule out for the new players till they get
enough
> cards to make the difference. But yeah, I also know that lots of
folks don't
> like using house rules, even in this sort of situation.

Yuck. Exactly when should I say, "OK, now really your deck's illegal,
please stop using it"? I'd rather stick with trading them. This whole
thing would be improved, of course, if G2 and G4 are somewhat
compatible.

And new players are, of course, only one reason to support mixing of
all groups together. Theme players will be happy to see Ryder and
Ferox together, or Jack Dawson in the "Boot" Hill Gang. I personally
just dislike not being able to use all my cards in any combination
which would be non-broken.

Which most vampires are.
-- Brian
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:01:03 AM

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

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> firstconformist@aol.com wrote:
>>Suggested group rule:
>>Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be from
>>any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
>>increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
>>group.
>
> This particular solution doesn't seem like it would do anything at all.
> Yeah, youmight be forced to use a 24 card crypt, but then you just take two
> identical 12 card crypts and shuffle them together. I realize that there are

That's a three-group crypt. If you find your perfect crypt among four
groups, you'd need a 36-card crypt.

> somewhat higher chances for "clumping", but I suspect the difference is
> pretty minimal.

I would imagine the difference to be distinctly more than minimal,
but of course, that depends on your notion of minimal.

For a "normal" 12-distinct-vampires crypt, you get clumped never,
but with 2 copies of each of those 12, you clump 1-in-4
times ("clumped" meaning drawing a duplicate vampire in your
opening 4).

Another example, the "please let me have this vampire" crypt of 4
copies of the key vampire in 12 nets a less than 1-in-7 miss rate
(missing that key vampire in your opening 4).
8 in 24 nets a greater than 1-in-6 miss rate.
And you get clumped on four of those in your uncontrolled region
three times as often (.21% vs .65%). Clumping on just two or three
would, I believe have an even higher multiplier, but I'm not keen
on typing up that formulation.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:01:04 AM

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

LSJ wrote:

> That's a three-group crypt. If you find your perfect crypt among four
> groups, you'd need a 36-card crypt.

Sure. But I'm still not seeing how it is that significant of a disadvantage,
overall. I mean, like, if you are used to playing crypts that have no
vampire duplication at all, and suddenly you have 2 of everyone, that might
seem disadvantageous, but in my experience, crypts with no vampire
duplication tend to be the exception, rather than the rule.

> I would imagine the difference to be distinctly more than minimal,
> but of course, that depends on your notion of minimal.
>
> For a "normal" 12-distinct-vampires crypt, you get clumped never,
> but with 2 copies of each of those 12, you clump 1-in-4
> times ("clumped" meaning drawing a duplicate vampire in your
> opening 4).

Yeah, that is where the difference is--if you would be playing 12 indivdual
vampires, you never get duplicates. If you are playing 12 pairs of vampires,
you get duplicates. But again, I'm viewing this from the perspective of
almost always playing duplicates, which is my experience, and pretty much
the experience of my whole group--for instance, I have, currently, like, 24
built decks floating around. I think 2 of them don't have any duplicate
vampires in them. So the difference between, like, 12 individual vampires
and 12 pairs of vampires is probably a lot bigger than the difference
between, say, 6 pairs of vampires vs (2)6 pairs of vampires.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:01:04 AM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:

> Suggested group rule:
> Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be
from
> any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
> increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
> group.
>
> For example, a player can construct a crypt from groups 1, 2, and 4.
> This is one extra group (above the normal two), so her crypt minimum
is
> 24 cards.


An interesting proposal. There are problems with it however. There are
several techniques that could easily circumvent the intended drawback
(of having a larger crypt minimum):



- Setite decks wouldn't care because they can use Summon the Serpent.
By utilizing this card they can easily ensure that they draw just the
right vampires (say Seren and Neferu to go with Samat and Kemintiri)

- Scarce clans can easily resort to Stranger Among Us and Samedi use
Coroner's Contact. In fact, this type of rule would be wonderful for
Turbo-Baron decks since it means more unique vampires with NEC to
choose from.

- Also, I'm not sure it's exactly an issue with the current Group
spreads, but this rule could be problematic for Crypt Machine type
decks. Since they don't really care what vampires they really are,
(just a 4-cap with inferior Dominate or Presence), allowing this rule
would allow these decks to have even more minions. In addition, it
would shoehorn design considerations (sorry the Toreador get screwed
because we can't have another 4-cap with Presence..., etc.).

- Recruitment and Gift of Experience also help circumvent the issue of
large crypts. And while it may be amusing if those cards see more play,
I don't see how it helps the play environment. Weenie obfuscate decks
might also have a field day with this, relying on outferior Clotho's
Gift to whittle down your crypt.



At the "pre-release" event at the Boston qualifier, it was interesting
to note that among the Top 5 decks, 4 of them were Independents (using
FN starters). One of the theories that was proposed which might account
for this is the strength of combining Group 2 and Group 4 vampires.
(During the final, Ankh-sen-Sutekh complemented Hesha very nicely).
Although this observation wasn't exactly scientific, I do feel that it
bears some merit. Now the crypt minimum may serve as a deterrent for
some clans, I think it would be especially problematic for Obfuscate
clans (Clotho's Gift) and Setites (Summon the Serpent). For the Setites
in particular, combining Group 2, 3, and 4 gives them an extremely
strong choice in terms of mid-caps.




- Eric Chiang

On the bright side, it means that Betrayer decks would be viable
again...
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:43:26 AM

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

there are 20 1-cap vampires in groups 1,2,3

seems to me quite a "perfect" crypt for a weenie computer hacking decks.
That is what grouping rule is supposed to avoid.

and you could do the same with weenie pre, weenie pot etc etc

your rule just powers up weenie crypts

Mochuda
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 3:32:23 AM

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

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>For a "normal" 12-distinct-vampires crypt, you get clumped never,
>>but with 2 copies of each of those 12, you clump 1-in-4
>>times ("clumped" meaning drawing a duplicate vampire in your
>>opening 4).
>
> Yeah, that is where the difference is--if you would be playing 12 indivdual
> vampires, you never get duplicates. If you are playing 12 pairs of vampires,
> you get duplicates. But again, I'm viewing this from the perspective of
> almost always playing duplicates, which is my experience, and pretty much
> the experience of my whole group--for instance, I have, currently, like, 24
> built decks floating around. I think 2 of them don't have any duplicate
> vampires in them. So the difference between, like, 12 individual vampires
> and 12 pairs of vampires is probably a lot bigger than the difference
> between, say, 6 pairs of vampires vs (2)6 pairs of vampires.

It is merely the easiest to illustrate, it is not the single example
(not "where the (sole) difference is", that is).

Indeed, there was another example in the message to which you've just
replied.

Clumping and voiding, in the case of critical vampire needs, are both
increased by non-trivial amounts when moving from a 12-card crypt to a
24-card crypt consisting of those twelve cards twice (for the wide
majority of "operational" decks, I'd guess).

Pick one of your 24 (hopefully the "most representative" member of
that 24) and run the numbers on it and see.

e.g. Six pairs clumps 51.5% of the time. Twice six pairs (i.e.,
six quads) clumps 63.9% of the time (and that doesn't even get
into the perils of "clumping" in triples or the increased
odds of double clumping). I wouldn't consider a 20% increase
in odds of clumping to be inconsequential.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 3:41:07 AM

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

On 13 Mar 2005 14:11:11 -0800, firstconformist@aol.com wrote:

>First, let me say that many playgroups (mine included) will often start
>new players with a free bunch of Jyhad cards, since they were so widely
>available for so long. Secondly, I'd say that since 10th comes with
>all of the G1 vamps AND is recent, G1 will be purchased by LOTS of new
>players unless an older player tells them specifically not to.
>Therefore, I would say that new players will continue to use G1 vamps
>for some time.

Hm, I have problems when assuming things for the entire base of
players worldwide based on local examples. Initiating new players with
Jyhad cards may not be an universal practice. Recently I've built
decks to hand to new players based on groups 1 and 2, but that's
because I've bought anniversary tins to have them with the new layout
and the old ones ended up in my trade list, so they became the most
available crypt to build decks upon. Most "elders" know this and do
the best to cope with the fact, and some are now building decks based
on group pairs 2-3 and even 3-4 (when available).

Other than that, most new players are beginning with group 3 in here.
The reasons were already pointed out. If a new player goes out to buy
cards, almost all boosters and decks available provide group 3 or 4
vampires. I strongly advise most of them to check on that before
getting any vampires from group 1 in trades and such.

To add up, I think your solution adds a little more complexity than
needed.

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
March 14, 2005 3:48:54 AM

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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:55:23 -0500, Peter D Bakija
<pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

>> I was thinking about this at all because of Vanessa and Andy, who began
>> playing V:TES only weeks ago, and they have 3 tins of 10th between
>> them, and shooting for more. They'll probably end up at 6 or 7. I
>> don't want them to have cards which are thoroughly incompatible with
>> one another.
>
>That is certainly a reasonable want, but one that really could be fixed by
>house ruling the group rule out for the new players till they get enough
>cards to make the difference. But yeah, I also know that lots of folks don't
>like using house rules, even in this sort of situation.

I think the housing rule to be a good solution, but I also wonder why
these new players started buying anniversary tins. Sure, you get an
easy full crypt out of this, but the job of the elder players in the
playgroup is to keep them informed about the grouping issues and
availability, not just trying to use it as a way to reshape things. No
offense meant.

Of course, one can't check on what every new player is getting, just
thought it should be noted. Any new player that approaches me about a
given set or expansion is informed about these issues. Like "you won't
get cards for the basic disciplines if you want to play independents
and buy some Final Nights boosters, you need to get them from other
source like the Camarilla set" and things like that. This is not a
reason to change the grouping rule, it is just a chance to exercise
proper counseling ;-)

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
March 14, 2005 2:01:30 PM

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

> See this thread:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-c...
>
> (And search "odd even group" on google for even more)

Yes. I like this idea a lot, and I'm not sure why discussion of it
ended.

In fact, I support any alternative to the grouping rule which prevents
the dial-a-crypt problem and allows for more combinations of vampires
than are currently allowed for.

Adding another group for 12 crypt size fits this description.
Odd + Even grouping fits this description.

There were a lot of voices opposed to the grouping rule in the first
place. Where are you now? Speak up! This could be your chance to
change things for the better!

-- Brian
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:35:02 PM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:
>
> There were a lot of voices opposed to the grouping rule in the first
> place. Where are you now? Speak up! This could be your chance to
> change things for the better!
>
I was very much against the grouping rule, and I still wish that I
could make odd-ball decks without having to worry about groupings.
Although now that WW has gone ahead and made a lot of duplicate or
near-duplicate vamps in groups 3 and 4, it's obvious that free-for-all
crypting would lead to a lot of broken decks in addition to the
odd-ball decks.

I would welcome any reasonable alternative to the grouping rule, and
posted my own alternative a month or so ago, here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-c...
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:45:41 PM

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

<firstconformist@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110826890.586889.20090@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> There were a lot of voices opposed to the grouping rule in the first
> place. Where are you now? Speak up! This could be your chance to
> change things for the better!

Well, it's one thing to say, "I don't agree that the grouping
rule was necessary. I think it would have been better not to have
it."

It's a completely different animal to suggest, "Now that we have
the grouping rule, we should get rid of it." Or even, "We should
moderate it or change it in some way."

Many existing cards have designed in a way that assumes the
existing rule exists. I don't think that necessarily means it
can't ever be tinkered with. But just - let's not pretend it's
the same thing to get rid of it now as never having had it in
the first place.

Fred
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 8:33:51 PM

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

I'm not a big fan of the grouping rule, but I can see why it is in
existence.

Now I had suggested that it might work better if a Methuselah could pick any
two groups and thats what he plays, but some of the people I have mentioned
this to think that it would be almost as bad as the dial-a-crypt.

Now, Andy Brown (our Prince here in Cambridge) has suggested to me that a
better idea would be one odd and one even group, which might be a better
alternative to the current system.

--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Samedi Primogen
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.htm...
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 8:33:52 PM

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

"Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:3WjZd.164$6P4.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Now, Andy Brown (our Prince here in Cambridge) has suggested to me that a
> better idea would be one odd and one even group, which might be a better
> alternative to the current system.

See this thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-c...

(And search "odd even group" on google for even more)

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:40:46 PM

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:32:23 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

> It is merely the easiest to illustrate, it is not the single example
> (not "where the (sole) difference is", that is).
>
> Indeed, there was another example in the message to which you've just
> replied.
>
> Clumping and voiding, in the case of critical vampire needs, are both
> increased by non-trivial amounts when moving from a 12-card crypt to a
> 24-card crypt consisting of those twelve cards twice (for the wide
> majority of "operational" decks, I'd guess).

Yeah, LSJ is quite right. Look, here's a non-scientific example as food
for thought: 4 out of 12 is like 8 out of 24. 4 out of 24 is like 2 out
of 12. Doing the math you'll quite see that doubling up a crypt of 12,
even if it wasn't already doubled up, means it will come up in a that
much more erratic way.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:13:46 PM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:
> Yes. I like this idea a lot, and I'm not sure why discussion of it
> ended.

Because all important had been said.

> In fact, I support any alternative to the grouping rule which prevents
> the dial-a-crypt problem and allows for more combinations of vampires
> than are currently allowed for.
>
> Adding another group for 12 crypt size fits this description.
> Odd + Even grouping fits this description.

Please direct your inquiries to vtesrep at white-wolf.com, because that
is really the only person who can do anything about it. We have read it
all over so many times.

> There were a lot of voices opposed to the grouping rule in the first
> place. Where are you now? Speak up! This could be your chance to
> change things for the better!

The aspiration dies last.

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:51:50 PM

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

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:39m0vjF5nltiuU1@individual.net...
> "Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3WjZd.164$6P4.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> Now, Andy Brown (our Prince here in Cambridge) has suggested to me that a
>> better idea would be one odd and one even group, which might be a better
>> alternative to the current system.
>
> See this thread:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-c...
>
> (And search "odd even group" on google for even more)
>
> --
> LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to
> reply).

Count me in for that option. Has there been any further thought on that from
the VTES design team?

--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Samedi Primogen
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.htm...
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:32:11 AM

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

Daneel wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:41 -0700, Frederick Scott
> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> That said, here's a suggestion for the grouping rule:
>
> "Crypt cards with the lowest available group number (currently 1) can
> be used in conjunction with crypt cards of the highest group whose
> parity is different from the parity of the lowest group (currently
> Group 4, being even versus group 1 being odd) instead of the normal
> consecutive choice available."
>
> So if group 5 comes out, it's still 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 AND 1-4. If
> group 6 comes out, it's 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 AND 1-6. Just to
> give new options to group 1 vampires, who seem to be a bit "left
> behind".
>

the main problem with this approach is the fact that with every new
group a whole turnament legal decks will become useless.

All the 1-4 decks will become illegal when group 5 will arrive. And all
1-5 decks will become illegal with group 6 coming and so on.

This is why "first-last" proposal was not accepted some times ago.

ciao
Stefano, prince of Pordenone, Italy
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:23:01 AM

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:41 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>
> <firstconformist@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1110826890.586889.20090@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> There were a lot of voices opposed to the grouping rule in the first
>> place. Where are you now? Speak up! This could be your chance to
>> change things for the better!
>
> Well, it's one thing to say, "I don't agree that the grouping
> rule was necessary. I think it would have been better not to have
> it."
>
> It's a completely different animal to suggest, "Now that we have
> the grouping rule, we should get rid of it." Or even, "We should
> moderate it or change it in some way."
>
> Many existing cards have designed in a way that assumes the
> existing rule exists. I don't think that necessarily means it
> can't ever be tinkered with. But just - let's not pretend it's
> the same thing to get rid of it now as never having had it in
> the first place.

I agree with you. However, most players had no say in the original
introduction of the Grouping rule. For them the options to express
their views in a constructive way are quite limited. I mean, what
good is saying that this-or-that should not have happened, when it
obviously and irrevocably has happened. A CCG/TCG isn't like an
RPG where you can publish a new base set with changed rules
without hurting those who already have their product.

So even if I have an opinion about stuff WW did to VTES, the
question is not whether they should have done what they did, but
rather how to get the most (or lose the least) out of the situation.

That said, here's a suggestion for the grouping rule:

"Crypt cards with the lowest available group number (currently 1) can
be used in conjunction with crypt cards of the highest group whose
parity is different from the parity of the lowest group (currently
Group 4, being even versus group 1 being odd) instead of the normal
consecutive choice available."

So if group 5 comes out, it's still 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 AND 1-4. If
group 6 comes out, it's 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 AND 1-6. Just to
give new options to group 1 vampires, who seem to be a bit "left
behind".

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:02:29 PM

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

On 15 Mar 2005 03:32:11 -0800, Walt <scalzigh@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:41 -0700, Frederick Scott
>> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> That said, here's a suggestion for the grouping rule:
>>
>> "Crypt cards with the lowest available group number (currently 1) can
>> be used in conjunction with crypt cards of the highest group whose
>> parity is different from the parity of the lowest group (currently
>> Group 4, being even versus group 1 being odd) instead of the normal
>> consecutive choice available."
>>
>> So if group 5 comes out, it's still 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 AND 1-4. If
>> group 6 comes out, it's 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 AND 1-6. Just to
>> give new options to group 1 vampires, who seem to be a bit "left
>> behind".
>
> the main problem with this approach is the fact that with every new
> group a whole turnament legal decks will become useless.

Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
numbered group.

> All the 1-4 decks will become illegal when group 5 will arrive. And all
> 1-5 decks will become illegal with group 6 coming and so on.

No. Check the example you quoted.

> This is why "first-last" proposal was not accepted some times ago.

Well, I see Group 1 as being underused. Not only is Group 3 generally
more powerful due to the new costing policy, it can also be used with
two filler groups instead of just one.

As for tournament decks becoming "useless", I don't see that as a problem
at all (check the number of vote decks that are still legal after seat
switching has been banned; that change made a whole lot of decks
illegal). Non-tournament decks becoming illegal would, though, be a
problem. Still, Group 1 is like a foster child now that the l33t k3wl
Group 3 and Group 4 are out. Advancement may be an option, but I have
certain doubts concerning that.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:52:06 PM

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

> Suggested group rule:
> Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be
from
> any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
> increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
> group.

The probability of drawing a given vampire at a given time (other than
the first drawn vampire) is a dependent event.

As a 12-card crypt with no duplicates is increased to become a 24-card
crypt, composed of exactly 2 copies of each vampire, and on to a
32-card crypt composed of 3 copies of each, etc., the probability of
drawing a given vampire approaches an independent event.

Visually,
17 000 copies Mustafa Rahman
17 000 copies Jing Wei
17 000 copies Sarah Cobbler
etc., your chances of drawing Sarah Cobbler will approach .08333, or
8.333%, as these numbers increase. This means that the benefit of
adding more choices continues to increase, as the drawback of
increasing crypt size ceases to add any practical penalty.

So you used, say, 12 groups, this is still virtually dial-a-crypt, only
you have to buy a LOT of cards.

The solution above should be amended to "One additional group may be
used...". Or perhaps two, but I haven't done the math.

Statisticians? Anyone?

-- Brian
Actually in favor of even-and-odd
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:12:09 PM

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

Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
or chnaged to any 2 groups.

Piers
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:45:04 PM

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

LSJ wrote:
> "Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3WjZd.164$6P4.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > Now, Andy Brown (our Prince here in Cambridge) has suggested to me
that a
> > better idea would be one odd and one even group, which might be a
better
> > alternative to the current system.
>
> See this thread:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-c...
>
> (And search "odd even group" on google for even more)
>
It seems like the primary objection to the rule change was that it
didn't go far enough, not that people wouldn't like the small amount of
added flexibility. I'm curious if the idea of fiddling with the
grouping rule has been completely abandoned, or just put aside to see
if there's a better option.

If no better option can be agreed upon, then maybe the even-odd rule is
better than the current consecutive groups rule?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:19:19 AM

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

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:
> The probability of drawing a given vampire at a given time (other than
> the first drawn vampire) is a dependent event.

Yes.

> As a 12-card crypt with no duplicates is increased to become a 24-card
> crypt, composed of exactly 2 copies of each vampire, and on to a
> 32-card crypt composed of 3 copies of each, etc., the probability of
> drawing a given vampire approaches an independent event.

Yes

> Visually,
> 17 000 copies Mustafa Rahman
> 17 000 copies Jing Wei
> 17 000 copies Sarah Cobbler
> etc., your chances of drawing Sarah Cobbler will approach .08333, or
> 8.333%, as these numbers increase. This means that the benefit of
> adding more choices continues to increase, as the drawback of
> increasing crypt size ceases to add any practical penalty.

No.

> So you used, say, 12 groups, this is still virtually dial-a-crypt, only
> you have to buy a LOT of cards.

No.

> The solution above should be amended to "One additional group may be
> used...". Or perhaps two, but I haven't done the math.
>
> Statisticians? Anyone?

Just a computer nerd.

The chance of drawing excactly one copy of a given vampire for the
current uncontrolled "slot" will approach the 8.333% thing, correct, BUT
the chance of "clumping" e.g having 4 times the same vampire increases.
I consider that to be a disadvantage. In the original 12 vamps crypt
there are no duplicates possible, in the 12x 17000 vamp crypt they
become more likely.

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:25:13 AM

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

Piers wrote:
> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
> or chnaged to any 2 groups.
>
> Piers

A heart refreshing approach, really.

The toreador would have a ridiculous number of reasonbly "prized"
princes. Not sure if that can be considered "broken".

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:16:25 AM

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

In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
> numbered group.

Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
[1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.

Aside from card bans (which are made for specific play-balance reasons),
the current rules have very clearly been made in order to avoid
invalidating any existing decks.

Specifically, when grouping came in, by keeping all previous cards in
the first two groups all previous decks were still legal. Proposed
changes such as "any odd, any even" also avoid invalidating decks in the
future, which "wrap around" doesn't. Except for bans (which are hard,
but somewhat inevitable), the clear precedent is that decks don't become
illegal.


However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:18:23 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:16:25 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

> In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
>> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
>> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
>> numbered group.
>
> Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
> [1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.

Yeah, I know, I just pointed out the misunderstanding. The point was
there, no doubt about that.

> However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
> fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.

Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
little need for the basic version?

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:23:50 PM

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

"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dcf8be2.0503151512.38c462bf@posting.google.com...
> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
> or chnaged to any 2 groups.

Weenie Ventrue becomes pretty horrific if you can use groups 1 and 3
together.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:12:13 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:18:23 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:16:25 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>> writes:
>>> Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
>>> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
>>> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
>>> numbered group.
>>
>> Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
>> [1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.
>
>Yeah, I know, I just pointed out the misunderstanding. The point was
> there, no doubt about that.
>
>> However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
>> fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
> little need for the basic version?

By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,

Appolonius
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.
[MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.

It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
putting in a basic is worthwhile.

Morgan Vening
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:12:14 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:12:13 +1100, Morgan Vening <morgan@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
>> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
>> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
>> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
>> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
>> little need for the basic version?
>
> By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,

Cool Idea.

> Appolonius
> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
> bleed.

Yeah, he's the one I'm most concerned about. 9 DP's worth of abilities
on a 10-cap.

> Appolonius (ADV)
> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
> each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.

Okay, this is roughly like the basic version in power. No big difference,
but the +1 bleed already shows some synergy with the stealth on bleeds.

> [MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.

Now, this gives him 4 points of abilities. Merge, the way I see it, mostly
gives either no special text (when the two versions have a synergy in
abilities), or about 1 DP's worth of abilities (as merging still costs a
pool and 4 transfers, you might as well get your worth for that pool).

I'm not saying it shouldn't or couldn't, it just doesn't usually.

> It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
> either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
> is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
> putting in a basic is worthwhile.

Okay, I don't think Kemintiri [merged] is über. She's a 10-cap with about
an 11-cap's abilities, but given how she is merged, it is kind of right.
Her power seems high because of tricks like Fall of the Camarilla +
Wormwood + PTO, which are brutal but border on being unplayable.

As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):

Appolonius
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
[MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
after the first round of combat.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:54:53 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:05:38 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>> Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
>>> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
>>> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
>>> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
>>> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
>>> little need for the basic version?
>>
>> By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,
>
>Cool Idea.
>
>> Appolonius
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>> bleed.
>
>Yeah, he's the one I'm most concerned about. 9 DP's worth of abilities
> on a 10-cap.

I figured. he's the one who comes up most often when the "formula" is
brought up.

>> Appolonius (ADV)
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
>> each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.
>
>Okay, this is roughly like the basic version in power. No big difference,
> but the +1 bleed already shows some synergy with the stealth on bleeds.
>
>> [MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.
>
>Now, this gives him 4 points of abilities. Merge, the way I see it, mostly
> gives either no special text (when the two versions have a synergy in
> abilities), or about 1 DP's worth of abilities (as merging still costs a
> pool and 4 transfers, you might as well get your worth for that pool).
>
>I'm not saying it shouldn't or couldn't, it just doesn't usually.

But that's because most 'advanced' vampires have been those that have
been fairly usable from the start. Like Tariq. Count Germaine. Theo
Bell. To make a vampire that is typically considered VERY weak in the
modern format, usable, the payoff of the total needs to be
significantly greater than either component.

>> It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
>> either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
>> is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
>> putting in a basic is worthwhile.
>
>Okay, I don't think Kemintiri [merged] is über. She's a 10-cap with about
> an 11-cap's abilities, but given how she is merged, it is kind of right.
> Her power seems high because of tricks like Fall of the Camarilla +
> Wormwood + PTO, which are brutal but border on being unplayable.

I meant in comparison to her 'parts'. Nefertiti is a better 10cap Set
vamp for 'regular' Set deck (Obf/Pre/Ser). Neferu is arguably a better
vamp for THA Set, or Vote Set. The Merged ability is likely what will
make Kemintiri usable, trick deck or not (3 votes +
Cam/Justicar/Ventrue Access is good without the gimmick).

>As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
> lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):
>
>Appolonius
>Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>Capacity: 10
>Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>bleed.
>
>Appolonius (ADV)
>Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>Capacity: 10
>Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
>Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
> [MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
> after the first round of combat.

Problem here is, you'd be a fool to take the first one unless you
planned to merge. See the first paragraph (yours) of this post.

But the concept is sound, given that the Merge ability makes him
exponentially more useful.

Morgan Vening
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:54:54 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:54:53 +1100, Morgan Vening <morgan@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
>> lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):
>>
>> Appolonius
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>> bleed.
>>
>> Appolonius (ADV)
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
>> Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
>> [MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
>> after the first round of combat.
>
> Problem here is, you'd be a fool to take the first one unless you
> planned to merge. See the first paragraph (yours) of this post.

I tried to make the advanced version be at par with the basic. I
also tried to give him everything disciplines-wise, because even
though I see the merit and originality of your proposal to give
merged vampires extra disciplines, the point of the status bar and
all is to provide a convenient comparison at a glance. Meaning, if
possible, the Advancement card should have the goodies when it
comes to disciplines.

Common:
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE
Camarilla: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. (works both
times if merged)

Appolonius:
Disciplines: for pot
Primogen: +1 bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Disciplines: FOR POT
[...]

Of course, I used the DP worth as the basis. In actual use, having
FOR POT may indeed be better than having a vote and +1 bleed.

> But the concept is sound, given that the Merge ability makes him
> exponentially more useful.

Yeah, that was the idea. ;) 

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:33:44 PM

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

In message <d19te1$hgc$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, XZealot
<x_zealot@brucefoodsla.com> writes:
>"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8dcf8be2.0503151512.38c462bf@posting.google.com...
>> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
>> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
>> or chnaged to any 2 groups.
>
>Weenie Ventrue becomes pretty horrific if you can use groups 1 and 3
>together.

Additionally to specific "horror" decks, it's not just about spectacular
broken-ness but about power-creep.

Imagine a finely honed deck across all four groups from an oldbie player
who has access to many copies of lots of vampires. This is going to
allow him to make a much more finely tuned deck than the newbie who just
picked up a few Camarilla Edition starters and a clutch of boosters from
some set.

Now, maybe that's not a big issue right now. (Maybe - your opinion may
vary.) But if the game continues, imagine that across five sets. Six
sets. How many sets does it need before the barrier for newbies wanting
to enter the game becomes too high?

Grouping provides a significant "levelling" mechanism, which counters
that a lot. Perfectly? No, but then very little would be other than
giving everyone completely free access to any cards they want.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
!