Variant Grouping Rule (Idea)

Each crypt may contain vampires from a maximum of 2 groups. Minimum crypt size is as follows: All 1 group = 12 2 consecutive groups = 13 2 non-consecutive groups = 20 Thoughts?

[ quoted text not captured ] fails the KISS principle. Also, i don't see a problem with the current grouping rule, so i am not really seeing the advantages of alternate rules. What is the problem you are trying to fix with this alternate rule? or is it just an alternate rule just for something a little different? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:25:14 +1100, Salem wrote: >What is the problem you are trying to fix with this alternate rule? Hard to get Beast and Black Annis in the same deck with the current rules....

On Dec 16, 8:25 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What is the problem you are trying to fix with this alternate rule? or > is it just an alternate rule just for something a little different? Find a way out to the design straight-jacket which forces the design team to expand all groups evenly across the board, regardless of artistic merit, thematic justification, or variations in player interest. A straight-jacket that forces the design team to print a dozen new Tremere vampires for Group 6, not because the game needs 12 more Tremere, but simply because the game needs to fill out Group 6 to maintain balance I like odd/even grouping, but that has problems. I doubt this is better. It is just an idea I am throwing out there.

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I was not necessarily trying to solve THAT problem. But if Annis & Beast are best off separated (I have no strong opinions there), perhaps we could restrict the rule to odd/even non- consecutives, and maybe reduce the minimum crypt requirement to 18 (or whatever)

[ quoted text not captured ] My main concern is that it allows certain combinations of vampires that may be too strong. Someone already suggested Beast + Black Annis. Others might be Ian Forestal + Mata Hari (or with even/odd, Vidal Jarbeaux). It also largely negates the rarity of Bloodlines vampires (combine Group 2 Bloodlines with Group 4 Bloodlines). The minimum crypt size can be circumvented fairly easily. - Decks that search your crypt, won't care about the size of the crypt. Samedi use Coroner's Contact so they aren't penalized by a 20 card crypt. (Also makes Turbo Baron Decks much stronger since you can choose whichever grouping with the most superior NEC, say Group 7 or Group 10). Setite decks can go crazy with Mesu Bedshet and Summon the Serpent. Clans with Auspex can just search for the vampires needed with Soul Scan. Or just use lots of weenies and get a crypt engine going with Clotho's Gift or Mozambique Allure. - Alternatively, packing a lot of Tupdogs (for Group 3) or Anarch Converts can largely negate the penalty of large crypts also. To be honest, I like the Grouping rule as it is now. I don't see the need to change it.

On Dec 16, 10:07 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It also largely negates the rarity of Bloodlines vampires > (combine Group 2 Bloodlines with Group 4 Bloodlines). Well, to my mind, 10 vamps in a 20 crypt seems approximately equivalent to 6 vamps in a 12 crypt. But, as I mentioned, an even- odd restriction (with a reduction of the minimum crypt for non- consecutives) is a possibility. > The minimum crypt size can be circumvented fairly easily. Can it? I'm not so sure. I never use a deck of more than 12, and neither does anyone else I know. I imagine there are reasons we all behave this way. > - Decks that search your crypt, won't care about the size of the > crypt. Yes they do. They care, because they search your crypt, instead of doing other things they could be doing. > Samedi use Coroner's Contact so they aren't penalized by a 20 > card crypt. Seems you are forgetting, at the very least, that Coroner's Contact costs one pool per pop, and a Master Phase action that could have been used for other things. Sure, they are better off than a deck that must rely on Recruitment, that hardly shows that the disadvantage of a 20-card minimum crypt is entirely negated. > - Alternatively, packing a lot of Tupdogs (for Group 3) or Anarch > Converts can largely negate the penalty of large crypts also. I think it would be more correct to say that Tupdogs or Anarch Converts negate the penalty of having only 6 bloodlines vamps in a crypt of 12. They don't negate the disadvantage of a 20 card crypt as opposed to a 12 card crypt. Having 10 Anarch Converts in a crypt of 20 is riskier, in terms of a bad draw, than having 6 Anarch Converts in a crypt of 12.

On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 10:07 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > It also largely negates the rarity of Bloodlines vampires > > (combine Group 2 Bloodlines with Group 4 Bloodlines). > > Well, to my mind, 10 vamps in a 20 crypt seems approximately > equivalent to 6 vamps in a 12 crypt. But, as I mentioned, an even- > odd restriction (with a reduction of the minimum crypt for non- > consecutives) is a possibility. > > > The minimum crypt size can be circumvented fairly easily. > > Can it? I'm not so sure. I never use a deck of more than 12, and > neither does anyone else I know. I imagine there are reasons we all > behave this way. > Because for a majority of decks, they are easily balanced with 12 cards. It is only the insane Tupdog monstrosities, Weenie For/Pot/Aus/ Dom decks and a few other say Malgorzata decks that thrive on churning their own Crypt. Those with other than 12 vamps do so specifically because the vamps are cheap and disposable.

On Dec 17, 2:56 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 8:25 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > What is the problem you are trying to fix with this alternate rule? or > > is it just an alternate rule just for something a little different? > > Find a way out to the design straight-jacket which forces the design > team to expand all groups evenly across the board, regardless of > artistic merit, thematic justification, or variations in player > interest. > > A straight-jacket that forces the design team to print a dozen new > Tremere vampires for Group 6, not because the game needs 12 more > Tremere, but simply because the game needs to fill out Group 6 to > maintain balance > IMO, this assertion is wrong. Designers are pleased to create new vampires. We players like new vampires that offers new possibilities. Do you suggest that we should have a different grouping rule and no new vampires because Tremere don't need any more vampires? I really don't see the problem with the current grouping rules. You can't mix the two vampires you'd like to mix or have a crypt of 3-4 cap vampires with ANI? It's done on purpose.

John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 16, 8:25�pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> What is the problem you are trying to fix with this alternate rule? or >> is it just an alternate rule just for something a little different? > >Find a way out to the design straight-jacket which forces the design >team to expand all groups evenly across the board, regardless of >artistic merit, thematic justification, or variations in player >interest. Why do you believe the design team wants a way out of that? At a very simple level, V:TES exists to make money for White Wolf. The existing grouping rules make it harder for oldbies to dial a crypt, thus making the game more accessible to newbies = potentially more sales. Oldbies are also given gentle encouragement to buy new cards, if they find a vampire or two they want to build a deck around - though they can easily stick with their old crypts. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Vincent wrote: > IMO, this assertion is wrong. Designers are pleased to create new > vampires. I did not say otherwise. > Do you suggest that we should have a different grouping rule and no > new vampires because Tremere don't need any more vampires? I never said so. Merely that if we do get more Tremere, it should not be solely to fill a design quota. And if the Tremere are twice as popular as the Ananansi, it should be possible to have twice as many Tremere groups as Ananansi Groups.

James Coupe wrote: > Why do you believe the design team wants a way out of that? I have no opinion as to what they "want". But there may be a need to expand in the direction of player demand, and not in the direction that the strait-jacket dictates. Example: Player demand has ensured that new bloodlines groups have been appearing at greater frequency than other groups. If this trend continues, the next bloodlines group (group 8) will be unplayable with most existing non-bloodlines vampires, because Group 7 will not be complete yet. More flexibility in combining groups might make this less of a problem They might want the freedom to reprint old vamps and sell them to new players. They might want the freedom to finally expand the imbued, even if the last expansion was 4 groups ago, and the Camarilla is currently on Group 8. > At a very simple level, V:TES exists to make money for White Wolf. V:TES exists because players like to play it.

On Dec 17, 1:28 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Vincent wrote: > > IMO, this assertion is wrong. Designers are pleased to create new > > vampires. > > I did not say otherwise. > > > Do you suggest that we should have a different grouping rule and no > > new vampires because Tremere don't need any more vampires? > > I never said so. Merely that if we do get more Tremere, it should not > be solely to fill a design quota. Don't worry then, it's not the *only* reason they print new Tremere. They do it also because their "please to create new vampires" (since you seem to agree with me). And for other reasons surely. Besides, adding constraints may be a way to produce something more interesting (and anyway, there will always be constraints)

On Dec 17, 7:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > If this trend continues, the next bloodlines group > (group 8) will be unplayable with most existing non-bloodlines > vampires, because Group 7 will not be complete yet. Or, conversely, it gives the designers incentive to get G7 vampires out before G8 Bloodlines vamps. I'm all for more vampires! Yaa! -Peter

I think this is an idea definitely worth a second look at. Enabling players to mix and match groupings would multiply the amount of playable decks, which would be good for the game. However, there could be certain combinations that are imbalanced. Also, we might find that certain vampires appear in every deck, and some will never be seen (as some vampires are dominated by similar vampires from other groups).

[ quoted text not captured ] There are already *tons* of playable decks. It may create some new playable decks, but would surely reinforce some already crushing archetypes (say weenie dom, malkav b&s etc.). Groups starting with 3 were designed so they only care about the previous group to avoid imbalance. Changing the rule now will introduce a "great disturbance in the Force" (at a smaller scale, that's also why gr2 midcap Baali are better than gr4. Infernal penalty was worse at that time, and changing the rule introduced a small imbalance.) Geez, I still don't understand why you care so much about changing the grouping rule.

On Dec 17, 6:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Why do you believe the design team wants a way out of that? > > I have no opinion as to what they "want". But there may be a need to > expand in the direction of player demand, and not in the direction > that the strait-jacket dictates. This is just CRAZY TALK. Have you tried to playtest cards with open grouping? It's hard enough with grouping. Trying to find every broken combonation without wholesale watering-down of any powerful cards is a difficult enough line to walk. > Example: Player demand has ensured > that new bloodlines groups have been appearing at greater frequency > than other groups. This is a falsely attributed assumption. Player demand has ensured that the game has continued to be printed. Bloodlines is merely a part of the game. > If this trend continues, the next bloodlines group > (group 8) will be unplayable with most existing non-bloodlines > vampires, because Group 7 will not be complete yet. More flexibility > in combining groups might make this less of a problem I know I am showing my age, but we had this discussion when Group 3 was introduced. The world hasn't ended yet. > They might want the freedom to reprint old vamps and sell them to new > players. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. Why do you think otherwise?

Vincent wrote: > Don't worry then, it's not the *only* reason they print new Tremere. I did not claim otherwise. I argued, rather, that the game might benefit from the design freedom to multiply groups unevenly across the clans, rather than evenly, depending on player interest in those clans, and other thematic and artistic considerations. > Besides, adding constraints may be a way to produce something more > interesting (and anyway, there will always be constraints) I did not argue for "no constraints".

Vincent wrote: > A It may create some new > playable decks, but would surely reinforce some already crushing > archetypes (say weenie dom, malkav b&s etc.). How would the proposed rule enhance weenie dom or Malk S&B?

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Because for a majority of decks, they are easily balanced with 12 > cards. I would say that the main reason is that the smaller your crypt, the greater the chance of getting your ideal opening draw -- or something close to it.

Wouldn't an easier alternative grouping rule be to allow vampires from any two groups as long as one is odd and one is even? So: 1 and 4 = OK 2 and 4 = Not OK Maybe I'm wrong, but I seems like the odd and even numbered groupings follow certain patterns, like all Bloodline clans and Inner Circle members being in even groups. As long as the groups present in the crypt are from any one odd and any one even group, then there would probably already be some balance.

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, so how many permutations is that with 6 groups? Under the current rules there are 5 pairings (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6) untder your proposed rule there are 9 pairings (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 1-4, 2-5, 3-6, and 1-6). The difference is N-1 versus roughly 1.5N, where N is the number of groups in existance (group 7 would have 6 versus 12 pairs so it is not straight-line but a geometric progression) . So you have 50% more work to do to playtest a new expansion of vampires. You are making it too difficult to playtest.

[ quoted text not captured ] How convenient that there are 23 vampires with dominate under capacity 4. This rule is dumb. How does increasing the minumum crypt size solve the problem that Grouping is trying to solve?

On 12/17/09 2:25 , Jozxyqk wrote: > John Whelan<jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Each crypt may contain vampires from a maximum of 2 groups. Minimum >> crypt size is as follows: >> All 1 group = 12 >> 2 consecutive groups = 13 >> 2 non-consecutive groups = 20 > > How convenient that there are 23 vampires with dominate under capacity 4. ... in just two groups? > This rule is dumb. > How does increasing the minumum crypt size solve the problem that Grouping > is trying to solve? By allowing a trade-off between dial-a-crypt and crypt-draw-expectation (so that dial-an-uncontrolled-region is not much affected).

Aaron Clark wrote: > Wouldn't an easier alternative grouping rule be to allow vampires from > any two groups as long as one is odd and one is even? > > So: > 1 and 4 = OK > 2 and 4 = Not OK Right. The odd/even grouping rule has been discussed before, and I have been a proponent of it. I know the design team seriously considered it. The main problem seems to be that the design team rejected that option, and since that point has been making design choices that do not preserve prior odd-even patterns. There has been, for instance, a trend towards evening out certain odd- even pairings. For example, the imbalance between Group 2 Independents and Group 3 independents has become less with Groups 4 and 5, so that combining groups 2 and 5 would result in an very large quantity of independents per clan. Here's another illustration of the pattern, not yet confirmed, that may be confirmed with the coming set: Kiasyd: Group-2: 5 vampires Group-3: 1 vampire Group-4: 4 vampires Group-5: 2 vampires (projected) Group-6: 3 vampires (projected) Group-7: 3 vampires (projected) Group-8: 3 vampires (projected) If this is done, then by combining 5 and 7, one could get more Kiasyd in any 1 crypt than with any other combination (8 instead of 6). On the other hand, perhaps they intend to maintain a certain level of odd/even imbalance indefinitely: Kiasyd: Group-2: 5 vampires Group-3: 1 vampire Group-4: 4 vampires Group-5: 2 vampires (projected) Group-6: 4 vampires (projected) Group-7: 2 vampires (projected) Group-8: 4 vampires (projected) In this case, the benefit of combining Groups 2 and 5 only results in 1 extra vampire, which is probably not enough of an objection to form a meaningful objection to the rule. Here's the Assamite pattern: Group-2: 24 vampires (+2 Advanced copies = 26) Group-3: 2 vampires Group-4: 16 vampires Group-5 11 vampires Group-6: 16 vampires (projected) Group-7: 11 vampires (projected) So by combining 2 and 5, you get 35 Assamite, more than any other possibility. If they end by evening out the groups with ~13 each, we may be able to get 37 Assamites by combining 2 and 7. I'm not sure this objection carries enormous weight. After all, nobody is going to make a crypt with 35 Assamites in it. And you can already get well over 40 Nossies by combining them with their antitribu, and having access to clan resources of each is not necessarily a disadvantage. But such objections have been raised. So part of the idea of the current proposal was to address such objections by an increase of minimum crypt size. Of course, maybe the good news is that, once the patterns become more- or-less evened out, one could have a Grouping rule as follows:

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks. Yes, that was my basic idea, though I am sure I have poorly thought out the details. Another thought I had was that if a single group had a 12 crypt minimum, and if 2 groups required a larger crypt, this might create some leeway to increase the size of existing groups, and to some extent even out existing imbalances.

XZealot wrote: > Okay, so how many permutations is that with 6 groups? .... > You are making it too difficult to playtest. While I agree that balance is important, I just do not agree that it is the job of the design team, or its playtesters, to anticipate, in every detail, every deck design a player could possibly come up with. Nor do I agree that such is necessary to achieve some reasonable degree of balance.

On Dec 16, 5:05 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Each crypt may contain vampires from a maximum of 2 groups. Minimum > crypt size is as follows: > All 1 group = 12 > 2 consecutive groups = 13 > 2 non-consecutive groups = 20 > > Thoughts? Hey, I'd kinda be in favor of a: Minimum crypt size: ALL groupings = 10 * X, where X is the number of Groups So you could use Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all together with a minimum crypt size of 50 (heck, I'd be okay with a min crypt size of 100 or 200) All hail the return of the Betrayer deck 2.0, with an even bigger crypt than ever before!

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > How does increasing the minumum crypt size solve the problem that Grouping > > is trying to solve? > By allowing a trade-off between dial-a-crypt and crypt-draw-expectation (so that > dial-an-uncontrolled-region is not much affected). Just making Tupdogs and Anarch Converts more expensive on ebay, I suppose. Heh.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > All hail the return of the Betrayer deck 2.0, with an even bigger > crypt than ever before! How long does it take to shuffle 1308 crypt cards?

John Whelan wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > >> At a very simple level, V:TES exists to make money for White Wolf. > > V:TES exists because players like to play it. Chicken, meet egg. best - chris

XZealot wrote: > On Dec 17, 6:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> Why do you believe the design team wants a way out of that? >> I have no opinion as to what they "want". But there may be a need to >> expand in the direction of player demand, and not in the direction >> that the strait-jacket dictates. > > This is just CRAZY TALK. Have you tried to playtest cards with open > grouping? Have you? I never have - it's probably crazy. Maybe we should set up some games on JOL to do that... best - chris

On Dec 17, 11:03 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Dec 17, 12:50 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You are making it too difficult to playtest. Well, no, I personally am not making anything too difficult. I am trying to add to this discussion about a hypothetical variant rule. I'm not sure that WW makes game design decisions based on the time needed to play test a new game feature. This discussion is about a proposed variant rule for play, which I presume would only be used in casual play. If it is only for casual play, than playtesting is not an issue. Your criticism covers any proposed liberalization of the grouping rule, including the OP's, whose idea would generate even more grouping permutations than mine. However, I would be more interested in hearing how you think the proposed variant/s would make casual play better or worse, rather than what you think the obstacles for WW adopting such a variant would be.

> However, I would be more interested in > hearing how you think the proposed variant/s would make casual play > better or worse, rather than what you think the obstacles for WW > adopting such a variant would be. I think it would be fun, but you do realize that you are asking for extremely powerful decks to be built. For example Kestrelle Hayes (g5) + Muaziz (g2) Both have +1 stealth permanent (although Kestrelle's can be negated) Both have fortitude Both have Dominate Both have auspex Both would be extremely powerful in the same crypt.

[ quoted text not captured ] I will be playing my Kestrelle Hayes/Muaziz deck or my Beast/Lorrie Dunsirn deck or my Rake/Calebros/Fabrizia/Shawnda deck. Who wants to play? Any new players care to take on my deck?

[ quoted text not captured ] No one will ever playtest on JOL, since you cannot create private games, and I don't know any playtesters that are willing to go through the HOURS of work it would take to obfuscate a JOL game in the manner which would be necessary to playtest. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm

On Dec 17, 11:09 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No time. You don't shuffle it, rather pull randomly cards from it.

On Dec 17, 7:08 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 11:03 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 12:50 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You are making it too difficult to playtest. > > Well, no, I personally am not making anything too difficult. I am > trying to add to this discussion about a hypothetical variant > rule. > > I'm not sure that WW makes game design decisions based on the time > needed to play test a new game feature. This discussion is about a > proposed variant rule for play, which I presume would only be used in > casual play. If it is only for casual play, than playtesting is not > an issue. +1, the job of the design teams is not to have an easy job... Although I think we are discussing the remote possibility of this variant being for more than casual play (?) " Jozxyqk Says: > > How does increasing the minumum crypt size solve the problem that Grouping > > is trying to solve? > By allowing a trade-off between dial-a-crypt and crypt-draw-expectation (so that > dial-an-uncontrolled-region is not much affected). Just making Tupdogs and Anarch Converts more expensive on ebay, I suppose. " That is a false assessment. A deck that needs to pay 1 pool and wait for the end of the influence phase to hope to see the needed vamp (but also likely to have to repeat this next turn) will be much less effective. " XZealot Says: > However, I would be more interested in > hearing how you think the proposed variant/s would make casual play > better or worse, rather than what you think the obstacles for WW > adopting such a variant would be. I think it would be fun, but you do realize that you are asking for extremely powerful decks to be built. " Obviously giving more options will result in some more powerful decks, but also more possible decks, which could be a positive. "Kestrelle Hayes (g5) + Muaziz (g2) Both have +1 stealth permanent (although Kestrelle's can be negated) Both have fortitude Both have Dominate Both have auspex Both would be extremely powerful in the same crypt. " What about Mistress Fanchon + Rafael de Corzaon? Both have +2 bleed Both have OBF, DOM, AUS, CEL Both have 4 votes It's by no means unbalanced, especially if they are in a large crypt as some of the suggestions detail.

[ quoted text not captured ] I was thinking Lise + Badger pot/pro multirush fun!

On Dec 17, 10:55 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > >> On Dec 17, 6:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> James Coupe wrote: > >>>> Why do you believe the design team wants a way out of that? > >>> I have no opinion as to what they "want". But there may be a need > >>> to expand in the direction of player demand, and not in the > >>> direction that the strait-jacket dictates. > > >> This is just CRAZY TALK. Have you tried to playtest cards with open > >> grouping? > > > Have you? I never have - it's probably crazy. Maybe we > > should set up some games on JOL to do that... > > No one will ever playtest on JOL, since you cannot create private > games, and I don't know any playtesters that are willing to go > through the HOURS of work it would take to obfuscate a JOL game > in the manner which would be necessary to playtest. > I think Chris is talking about playtesting this idea on JOL, rather than playtesting the next set. For the first NAC in Atlanta there was going to be a no grouping fun tournament, but it was cancelled because the organizer was unable to attend or something. This was also the tournament where you were supposed to bring some local beers to share. I made a weenie Giovanni dom pot deck and brought a case of Milwaukee's Best. The deck wasn't the most abusive crypt for the format, but I was able to create an extremely weenified crypt that was all Giovanni with pot and dom and that was before the G5 Gios. Also, Milwaukee's Best is probably one of Milwaukee's worst beers and also known as the Beast. Even without the tournament happening I still brought the case of beer to the conference room where all the Vtes tournaments were and some of it was still left at the end of the Week of Nightmares. :) Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] I just want to stick up for the Beast. After extensive testing, we found it tastes better out of metal (can, keg), than glass. I credit the Beast for helping me miss at least 15% of my college classes. All hail! best - chris And you are right, I just meant testing the idea on JOL, not actually playtesting real/possible cards. best - chris

On Dec 18, 3:41 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I just want to stick up for the Beast. After extensive > testing, we found it tastes better out of metal (can, keg), > than glass. > > I credit the Beast for helping me miss at least 15% of my > college classes. What happens when you mix it with black anise?

[ quoted text not captured ] Like Absinth, or her weaker cousin, Pernod? Well, I can't really remember... best - chris

XZealot wrote: > For example > > Kestrelle Hayes (g5) + Muaziz (g2) > > Both have +1 stealth permanent (although Kestrelle's can be negated) > Both have fortitude > Both have Dominate > Both have auspex > > Both would be extremely powerful in the same crypt. Kestrell lacks Thaumaturgy, which is the only discipline Muaziz has at superior, and her stealth only works on (D) actions. I would think that Gerald Windham (g5, Cap-9, AUS FOR THAU DOM, +1 Stealth) would be a better example for your purposes. But the problem I have with examples like this is that they only show that a particular grouping pair can do some things better than another grouping pair. But this is already true of existing grouping pairs. It does not show that such advantageous pairings are game breakers, or are worse than the sort of combos that existing grouping pairs allow. But my idea was that, even if it is a problem, it might be one that a higher minimum crypt size would adequately compensate for. If my deck revolves around Gerald Windham, I might prefer a 12-card crypt with 3 copies of Gerald than a 20 card crypt with 3 of Gerald and 2 of Muaziz.