Odds and Evens grouping idea

In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) options of 1 and 2 2 and 3 3 and 4 Anyone have any thoughts on that change? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? It doesn't do anything to help the Indies, who are the ones most hampered by the grouping rule currently. I can't see the motivation to fiddle with grouping otherwise. __ David Cherryholmes

this does not help the indies! current group 4 indies should be groupless untill the next set is rerleased that would help stefan "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] This seems like a hack/patch that is not necessary. Group 4 Indies and Sabbat vampires won't get a whole lot of help from Group 1 Jyhad vampires. And any other effect won't show its face until Group 5 comes around. I think that if there is a shift in the Grouping Rule, it has to be a lot more severe. Some way to help out the Indies, like Dave says.. I would also be in favor of a rule that says "Bloodlines is a groupless expansion, playable with any group." Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston

Jozxyqk wrote: > I think that if there is a shift in the Grouping Rule, it has to be a lot more > severe. > Some way to help out the Indies, like Dave says.. > I would also be in favor of a rule that says "Bloodlines is a groupless > expansion, playable with any group." Yes, forgot about that part (weird, since we were just talking about it on #vtes), but the loss of Bloodlines to Group 4 also seems worth addressing, which this doesn't. __ David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > It doesn't do anything to help the Indies, who are the ones most > hampered by the grouping rule currently. I can't see the motivation to > fiddle with grouping otherwise. The way I understand things, this change is not needed from the game's perspective. Gameplay will only be slightly affected by this. However, it's a great improvement towards increasing the player base, as it creates more trading opportunities between newbies and old-timers. And it also allows folks with a tighter budget to keep buying cards at their own pace, without risking to be left behind as the group numbers increase. Thus, momentarily cash-strapped customers are less likely to choose to quit the game, as they know that later, shiny cool new vampires will still be compatible with the old ones they already own. Hope I made some sense this time. ;) -- Francois SILLY STRING IS NOT A NASAL SPRAY Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 5F12

"Proc_F" <a9505...@spamunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:40a4d308$0$29350$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > this does not help the indies! > current group 4 indies should be groupless untill the next set is rerleased I honestly think that is silly. No vampire should be groupless. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > That's a good start, but there remains the issue with Bloodlines. How's about limiting construction of decks to two different groups, but take out the adjacent relationship rule. In other words, you can use 1 & 2, 2 & 4, 1 & 3, etc. I know this still has "dial-a-crypt" problems, but not nearly as many as if you can use all groups. Seems like its not too far along for this, and "dial-a-crypt" could be controlled if the rule was implemented as such and planned for in the design of new sets. Looking at Gehenna's vampire list, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Mind you, i've not seen the crypt cards and cannot say this for sure at this point. Just my two cents. THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR OUR OPINIONS! I'm very appreciative of this! Not that I have a playgroup right now, but I do still intend to play this game in the future and will mostly be frequenting tournies...which is what it will effect most anyway since playgroups can ignore the grouping rule now anyway. Jon

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:Xq4pc.91375$Ik.7008353@attbi_s53... > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > >> modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > >> with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > >> odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > >> > >> For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > >> options of > >> 1 and 2 > >> 2 and 3 > >> 3 and 4 > >> > >> Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > > > It doesn't do anything to help the Indies, who are the ones most > > hampered by the grouping rule currently. I can't see the motivation to > > fiddle with grouping otherwise. > > This seems like a hack/patch that is not necessary. > Group 4 Indies and Sabbat vampires won't get a whole lot of help from Group 1 > Jyhad vampires. And any other effect won't show its face until Group 5 comes > around. I agree. Although without seeing the group 4 indies, I generally think that everyone is overreacting to the how the grouping rule affects independents. > I think that if there is a shift in the Grouping Rule, it has to be a lot more > severe. > Some way to help out the Indies, like Dave says.. > I would also be in favor of a rule that says "Bloodlines is a groupless > expansion, playable with any group." Why don't we let Bloodlines be group 2 so that they can print a group 4 bloodlines expansion? [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2gk3avF...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] why till the release of the next set they could be combined with any group stefan

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I think that this change to the grouping rule eliminates the balancing mechanism that it was created for. Once we get to group 5 you will have what 6 different pairs (1-2,1-4,2-3,2-5,3-4,4-5). Once we get to group 6 it gets really ugly (1-2,1-4,1-6,2-3,2-5,3-4,3-6,4-5,5-6). So as a design paradigm the suggested change causes vampires to actually have to get more expensive points-wise, or you have horrific issues of powercreep, simply because it becomes impossible to playtest all the possible permutations. So we wil have to have more vampires like Appolonius or we unbalance the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

To be honest, I think the best change is "no change". Leave the grouping rule as-is. If there are Group 4 Independent vampires, well sure you won't be able to make a "clan based" deck around them but.. hey, there are only supposed to be a small handful of Ravnos wandering the earth anyway now, so why should there be a lot of them in group 4? And besides,.. there *are* group 3 vampires currently printed with qui, chi, ser, nec .. and cel/obf, ani/for, pre/obf, and dom/pot, are not exactly impossible discipline combinations to come by... So the vampires are not dead weight, even if you just consider their clan disciplines and not special abilities or possible off-clan synergy. If I could choose to make any changes to the Grouping Rule, I would personally be happy with "Bloodlines are groupless", but that's not even necessary. But all in all, it's too early to have such an explosive reaction or propose a radical change to the way things work, in my opinion, before we've even seen most of the cards or how they interact with current play environments. [ quoted text not captured ]

Most of the complaints were about independants clans which were weakened compared to others. Indies lovers were more complaining on the fact that it was impossible to build storyline deck with G4 indies. Another thing : for me, group 3 are the "absolutely canon characters" of the storyline, as is group 4. Group 2 is a mix of what was developped by Wizard of the coast (ie : almost no canon character) and what followed developped by White-wolf. The current system allows players to play with group 1-2 if they want to play Anson for example. Decks using groups 2-3 are far more canon and thus, stuck on the storyline. The same for group 3-4. To allow players to build decks with group 1-5 would introduce a "non-canon aspect" to the game, aspect you (developpers) had avoided with the grouping issue. It would be a regression. And it wouldn't solve the problem of the indies who want to build a storyline crypt and can't for the moment 'cause there are only 4 vamps group 3-4. Nagaraja [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:H%4pc.10114$6f5.827467@attbi_s54... > To be honest, I think the best change is "no change". > Leave the grouping rule as-is. > If there are Group 4 Independent vampires, well sure you won't be > able to make a "clan based" deck around them but.. hey, there are only > supposed to be a small handful of Ravnos wandering the earth anyway now, > so why should there be a lot of them in group 4? > because its a tcg not a rpg stefan

"Proc_F" <a9505...@spamunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:40a4d308$0$29350$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > this does not help the indies! > current group 4 indies should be groupless untill the next set is rerleased > Please don't top post. While I don't like this exact fix (who's to know that the 'next set' will solve availability problems for each clan?), it does suggest a different angle. What if Grouping was enforced only when a particular number of vampires was reached within the group? The grouping is designed to limit dial-a-crypt, right? Dial-a-crypt is by definition never a problem when the number of vampires within the grouping is low, so it would seem that you could establish some minimum number of vampires per group, per clan (5? 8? 10?) needed before the grouping rule went into effect. This might encourage purchase and play of new sets, as you would have an interesting 'honeymoon' period in which the grouping rule was set aside, and the new vamps were allowed to co-mingle with all sets. Later, when there was enough of them, they could settle into the steady home life of their Group. The only transient problem I see; a discipline-specific group might unbalance an earlier grouping, even in small numbers. The solution would be to avoid significant numbers of power-disicpline (dominate) rich vamps when introducing a new grouping... Is that a concept killer? I don't think so, but I'm just throwing this out there. Its really not something I've thought on long. Other problems? DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Proc_F" <a9505...@spamunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:40a4d9aa$0$18044$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] There is no point to having grouping if you are going to totally ignore it. If you want to play that for a house rule, then I am okay with that. To do it for tournament play is just wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jon Stahler wrote: > THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR OUR OPINIONS! Seconded on this as well. __ David Cherryholmes

XZealot wrote: > I think that this change to the grouping rule eliminates the balancing > mechanism that it was created for. Once we get to group 5 you will have > what 6 different pairs (1-2,1-4,2-3,2-5,3-4,4-5). Once we get to group 6 it > gets really ugly (1-2,1-4,1-6,2-3,2-5,3-4,3-6,4-5,5-6). If the grouping rule was introduced to prevent 'dial-a-crypt', then this suggested change still works ok in that respect. Having more pairs of well-desinged sets to choose from only means more variety, and doesn't imply that perfect crypts are easier to cast. > powercreep, simply because it becomes impossible to playtest all the > possible permutations. I reckon that the playtesters are doing a great job. But I don't personnaly believe in the fact that the current playtesting process examines all the possible permutations. I believe game balance is achieved thanks to experience, knowledge, and attempts to break the new cards. Not through exhaustive examination of all the combos. -- Francois COFFEE IS NOT FOR KIDS Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 9F09

"Jon Stahler" <sta...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:c82l4b$mul$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > That's a good start, but there remains the issue with Bloodlines. How's > about limiting construction of decks to two different groups, but take out > the adjacent relationship rule. In other words, you can use 1 & 2, 2 & 4, 1 > & 3, etc. I know this still has "dial-a-crypt" problems, but not nearly as > many as if you can use all groups. Seems like its not too far along for > this, and "dial-a-crypt" could be controlled if the rule was implemented as > such and planned for in the design of new sets. Groups 1 & 3 have the different justicars, but that is not too much of an issue I guess (aside from theme). Its difficult to analyze dial-a-crypt effects in anything other than subjective ways because there are a lot of different combinations out there. I looked at a couple of basics like weenie pot or weenie presence and it does not appear to be that much different that 1&2 and 2&3. (Which surprised me) It does make the testing of future sets more difficult as currently there are only 3 group combinations and adding an hypothetical and future group 5 only adds 1 more combination. Each new vampire must only be examined for interaction with at most two other groups of vampires. Using any two groups would mean that a new vampire must be considered in combination with all other groups (3 groups plus its own) which increases with every new crypt number. I guess I'm saying that it makes the likelyhood of a problematic vampire combination slipping through the playtest system more likely than it currently is. Not a huge problem, but an issue none the less. The other issue is future vampires in relation to how large a group is. Approximate numbers. Currently (Pre-Gehenna) Group 1: 116 vampires (15/16 per clan) Group 2: 376 vampires (9 per cam clan, 15 per sabbat clan, 24 per indep clan) and some assorted bloodlines Group 3: 207 vampires (16 per cam, 8 per sabbat, 2 per indep) Gehenna brings 1 or 2 per clan to group 4 and adds a vamp to some group 2 clans. The largest playable groups currently are 25-26 for cam, indep, 23 for sabbat. Gehenna does not change this much. I would suggest that we will never see more than maybe 27/28 vampires in two legal together groups. If you can link group 2 with any other group as you are suggesting then I think it likely that we will never see any more than two of any particular independant clan in a single group. Otherwise you could end up with independants having the largest group legal crypt selection. This would mean that every independant based deck would need to be based on group 2 + other unless the deck only uses 4 vampires or less. Whereas under the current rule or LSJ's suggested rule they can make group 4 independants up to 25 per clan if they so desired without creating an imbalance. Personally I would like any two groups. But I think it would necessitate screwing the independant vampires clans in all future expansions. As a result I favour 1 odd and 1 even. And I also applaud WW for seeking opinions on this. -JTP

>In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering >modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed >with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one >odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > >For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) >options of >1 and 2 >2 and 3 >3 and 4 > >Anyone have any thoughts on that change? 17 replies when I saw this thread, apparently so. I have no idea what people are talking about with the indies since group 4 gets filled out with future expansions. Nor do I see the relevance to Bloodlines as it's easier to do another set of bloodlines than have special groupless rules after the fact. In the short run, this allows for 1/4 combinations. Group 1 is still playable but, boy, does it have a lot of problems with large quantities of junk vampires, poor crossover with vampires with newer disciplines, tendency to lack the discipline combinations to mix with newer vampires well, for instance Obf/Pre to go with FoS, Baali. While it's entirely possible that group 1 will never be left completely behind, it seems highly likely under the current grouping mechanism that it continues to get squeezed out to where only the most powerful crypt options will see play. Sounds a bit more interesting to have the 123 or so group 1 vampires contribute more to the game, though there's an issue that any future even group is going to have some problems meshing well. I suppose that a lot of Sabbies will make up even groups and that means clan/antitribu crossovers that may work well. ... Maybe !Malks change disciplines to Aus/Dom/Obf ... Would be funny, if broken. Seems nice in the short run because it shouldn't have much pain. However, the long run may have some additional issues. In a way, while it gives players more options to have the odd-even rule, it can lead to staler deck construction where a group's strength is so clear that adding new bits to it doesn't substantially change its nature. Or, if one mix does, another doesn't and just reinforces the nature of a familiar group. The constant checking back in playtesting to make sure nothing combines for abuse - less a problem maybe with group 1 mixes but with the enormous group 2 and likely enormous group 4, 6, etc. - is a hassle. The idea of a grace period is interesting but oh so confusing. Eventually, even odd-even is likely to get confusing. The lack of numbers on group 1's and 2's already requires thought. So, I see two things that might interest me more. One, give some help to the junky side of group 1. If not the anniversary set, then special sets (which CCGs have done often enough at times) can address group 1, though probably mostly just through advanced vampires unless we start having alternate versions of vampires who aren't advanced but still contest. Two, have group rules options for special (sanctionable or, at least, recognized in some way) tournament formats. Standard constructed uses current grouping mechanic. Odd/Even constructed format uses, uh, odd-even grouping mechanic. Etc. with whatever variations on fiddling with the grouping rule, like anything goes or only groups 2 and 7 in this tournament or whatever.

>> this does not help the indies! >> current group 4 indies should be groupless untill the next set is >rerleased > >I honestly think that is silly. No vampire should be groupless. Yes, vampires are very social creatures. A vampire without a "group" would just be very lonely! =P Halcyan 2

I generally agree with Ian on the issue. >Seems nice in the short run because it shouldn't have much pain. However, >the >long run may have some additional issues. In a way, while it gives players >more options to have the odd-even rule, it can lead to staler deck >construction >where a group's strength is so clear that adding new bits to it doesn't >substantially change its nature. Or, if one mix does, another doesn't and >just >reinforces the nature of a familiar group. The constant checking back in >playtesting to make sure nothing combines for abuse - less a problem maybe >with >group 1 mixes but with the enormous group 2 and likely enormous group 4, 6, >etc. - is a hassle. The change might be helpful in the short-run, but I think it creates a lot of problems (balancing, distribution, etc.) in the long-run. I'll hold off making any further comments until I've actually seen the Group 4 vampires. That way I can make a better informed statement. Halcyan 2 BTW, if we do go to an Odds/Evens Grouping idea, what are people's thoughts regarding the Ventrue Law Firm of Crowley, Nash, and Bridges opening up an international branch in Milan with Giangaleazzo? From what we've seen in the preview, he'd fit in pretty well (and even shares Potence with Emerson!).

I see two potential issues with the odd/even idea. The first is that you force each incoming set of vampires to be well-balanced with a larger potential crypt. This cascades into a monumental task for play balancing, etc. as time progresses, since group 6 would now have to work with groups 1, 3, and 5. This point has been echoed by many other posters. The second issue is that if you require a new set of vampires (let's consider group 5's example) to merge with group 2 and 4, the range of possibilities (or more specifically) the deviation from group 3 will be limited. In other words, I'd argue that there's only a certain amount of outward trajectory from "group 3-ness" that one can safely execute. As a result, we'll tend to see this scenario propagate throughout, where huge numbers of cards are added (vampires for a new group), yet gameplay does not appreciably change as a result. If you break the link with the cascade of prior groups, small changes in one group can be developed/mitigated in a drastically different way in future sets/groups. Ankur Gupta VEKN Prince of West Lafayette, IN

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? _With the present sets_, this seems pointless. It'd allow all the group 4 vampires to be played with group 1, i.e a starter's set worth of Camarilla vampires. But all the group 4s can _already_ be played with a starter's set of Cam vamps from group 3. And I don't believe that a single player has expressed (in the several forms I frequent) _any_ concerns that these Group 4 vampires cannot be played with enough Camarilla vamps, or with group 1 vampires. Oh wait, I take that back - I've seen one 'player' complain about group 4, but that player also admitted in his complaint-post to not having bought or played with virtually any cards since the Grouping rule was introduced two years ago, nor ever bothering to read the rule fully before griping about it. So I'm discounting him. So what about the future? Pretty much all of the concerns I've seen about group 4 boil down to these two issues: A) None of the group 4 vamps (or beyond) can be played with the group 2 Bloodlines vamps, and it has been stated in the past that more Bloodlines vamps would not be forthcoming (possibly ever). B) None of the group 4 independents can be played with enough of their clans, because almost all the existing independent vamps printed are group 2, and too few group 4 independents exist in the Gehenna set. For A), making the odd/even rule change would someday allow the Group 2 Bloodlines vamps to be played with group 5, whenever that might be. It wouldn't make them any more accessible to group 4 vamps, or group 6 when that comes out, etc - so in the future it's only a little helpful. For B), making the odd/even rule won't matter until group 5 vamps are out, because they'll be usable with the group 2 or group 4 vamps. Prior to that, allowing group 4 to mix with group 1 really counts for nothing. But for B, the problem pretty much resolves itself already over time, assuming that group 4 will include a 'base set' of 20 or so of each of the Independents. If it doesn't, those vamps would ideally need some way to be able to mix with group _two_, or else you've got a half-dozen independent vamps in group 4 that have to wait for group 5 to be as playable as every other clan's group 4s. A simpler solution to A), assuming no new Bloodlines vamps will ever be printed again, is to simply say that all the vampires from the Bloodlines set mix freely with any other set - but you'd have to choose to set the rule as either any other single set, or any other legal grouping. Or a future set of Bloodlines vamps needs to be planned for and announced to players to stop the griping - a group 5 Bloodlines set, for instance, would future-balance the inability of group 4 to mix with the existing group 2 Bloodlines, and there'd be no real push of players clamoring to get to that expansion ASAP as long as they new it was in the pipeline (unlike how there is plenty of clamoring for filling out the group 4 independents under the current grouping rules ASAP.) -John Flournoy

>In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering >modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed >with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one >odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). Here's another thought on the issue: Since we don't know what the Group 4 vampires are like and we don't know exactly how they will eventually be used with Group 1 vamps (i.e. look at the Archon NRA situation where it took a real long time for people to find and exploit the loophole), much of what people are saying on the newsgroup is speculation and theorizing. And many problems might not rear up their heads for quite some time. What if the VEKN created a new tournament format to further explore the issue of Grouping? Grouping rules could either be removed altogether or at least relaxed (allowing the odd/even combination). Now first off, if such a thing would be done, it would be important to not follow the path of "Type I vs. Type II" in MtG, "Open vs. Gold/Diamond" in L5R, or "Open vs. Campaign" in Warlord. In all of those cases, the company nominally supported the original format but in actuality, pretty much used it as an excuse to shift playing environments. The standard VTES (with adjacent grouping rules) would still be the mainstream form of the game. One of the things that has really impressed me about Create-a-Clan is allowing all sorts of discipline combinations to be explored. We can see firsthand how strong certain disciplines are, and what they're like when combined with other disciplines. Personally, I've been meaning to run a tournament without Grouping rules for quite some time. It would be an interesting chance to see how powerful the "dial-a-crypt" problem is if you can combine Group 1 with Group 3. A similar format could be used as a testing ground for Odd/Even. It would be a meaningful evaluation of how such a combination would affect deck styles, while not actually committing the game to opening a potential Pandora's Box. In addition, since adjacent grouping decks would still be valid for all those tournaments, everyone wouldn't be forced to build new decks. In fact, seeing how "optimized" decks compare to traditionally adjacent decks would be very telling. If Limited, Rapid Thought, Toy Chest Test, and Create-a-Clan are all alternative formats that work, I don't see why one that relaxes Grouping rules would be a problem. Heh. I'm kinda reminded of all those Marvel (and other comic) scenarios where alternate universes merge. And so Sheldon and Cock Robin can join forces to conquer the World of Darkness! =P What do you guys think about this idea? Halcyan 2

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? My concerns are simply that I'm not interested in buying group 4 vampires if there are not enough to play them in 3/4 decks, and/or with bloodlines. If bloodlines were made group Z (playable with any group) and current group 4s could be treated as group 3s until true group 4 came out, something like Aramis suggested, then these 2 issues could be addressed, if somewhat temporarily in the latter case. What is the 'loop' of 1 and 4 supposed to do? That doesnt seem to really address either issue, as group 1 is cam and you can already play the new group 4s with the group 3 cams.

[ quoted text not captured ] > > THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR OUR OPINIONS! > > Seconded on this as well. > > David Cherryholmes Looks like lately I agree a lot with David... ;-) Yes, of course, the Odd / Even would be a "little better", but wouldn't address the Indie and Bloodlines issue. So what ? A "2 groups" rule ? And we could mix G3 and G1 ? Big deal... Let's wait and see. But trying to change the rule as it is a good sign IMO. Let's hope it will lead to a more acceptable rule, for Sabbat / Indies / Bloodlines included. Orpheus

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? As an avid hater of the group rule, any change that gives us more options is a good change in my opinion. However, this particular change does NOT help the main "problem" we have so far with group, which is the independent problem. What precisely are your reasons for this change? Why now? Daniel.

>BTW, if we do go to an Odds/Evens Grouping idea, what are people's thoughts >regarding the Ventrue Law Firm of Crowley, Nash, and Bridges opening up an >international branch in Milan with Giangaleazzo? From what we've seen in the >preview, he'd fit in pretty well (and even shares Potence with Emerson!). Thoughts in terms of what? Overpoweredness? That he'd be useful to a PRE Prince deck - seems obvious. He's not optimal crossover with the old Ventrue, but he's a stud no matter how you look at it. That they'd have more diverse crypt options? I see the VLF's main problem being match ups (intercept, anticombat ends) rather than crypt issues.

In article <eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>, LSJ says... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I actually *like* the grouping rule the way it is. Diluting it down from how restrictive it currently is opens the door to more "dial-a crypt" combos, especially when groups 5/6/7 show up. It also favors people who have been playing longer, since they have better access to group 1. They'll have a larger pool of cards to combine with group 4. (This could be alleviated by reprinting group 1, but there's still the first issue to worry about). And while it may create some new crypts to toy with, it still won't change that the Indies don't have a large presence in group 4; I'd rather just see an expansion with a bunch of new group 4 Indies to play with. -- -Snapcase

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2gk1v7F...@uni-berlin.de>... > LSJ wrote: > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > It doesn't do anything to help the Indies, who are the ones most > hampered by the grouping rule currently. I can't see the motivation to > fiddle with grouping otherwise. I would suppose that the proposed change isn't meant to address people's worries about the "orphaned" group 4 indies so much as to increase the types of crypts people can build with the new group 4 vamps. That's why I like the new grouping rule: more opportunities to use much-loved Group 1 vamps aside new faces. As far as the "orphaned" indies go, we can expect them to get plenty of company in future expansions, and like the group 4 Camarilla Lasombra, they might be oddballs who work well even without much in-clan support. Time will tell.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ I don't mind the current grouping rule. However, now that group 4 is upon us, I would very much like to see a rule change that would allow BL clans to be mixed without regard to grouping rules. - Pat

To address an option (with variations) brought up in several posts on this thread: Options which make a constructed deck that is legal one day become illegal the next are not considered tenable options. Treating group 4 vampires as groupless (which really means "any group") until a certain number were printed falls into this category. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Flournoy wrote: > it has been stated in the past that more > Bloodlines vamps would not be forthcoming (possibly ever). This is not true, if by "stated" you mean "by an official source". [ quoted text not captured ]

Daniel Figueiredo wrote: > What precisely are your reasons for this change? Why now? Players' concerns. This particular change was suggested by several players and still maintains some of the anti-dial-a-crypt effect of the grouping rule and avoids "hard limit" problems like planned obsolescence of certain crypt combinations. If not now, when would be more suitable? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > I'll echo the thought: for the sake of future playtesting and balance among groups, the proposed change is a bad idea. Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere ...will be playing his group 1 vampires by themselves :)

> > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > > > It doesn't do anything to help the Indies, who are the ones most > > hampered by the grouping rule currently. I can't see the motivation to > > fiddle with grouping otherwise. > > I would suppose that the proposed change isn't meant to address > people's worries about the "orphaned" group 4 indies so much as to > increase the types of crypts people can build with the new group 4 > vamps. That's why I like the new grouping rule: more opportunities to > use much-loved Group 1 vamps aside new faces. Sure. > As far as the "orphaned" indies go, we can expect them to get plenty > of company in future expansions, and like the group 4 Camarilla > Lasombra, they might be oddballs who work well even without much > in-clan support. Time will tell. It will. But it implies being "forced" to buy that next expansion if we want to play them at all ("buy the next expansion or don't use your vamps..."). It is this idea I'm against, maybe more than anything else. -- Solaris Nocturnus, Orpheus

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4... I'm curious what specific player concerns weighed heaviest when this change was proposed. If we collectively knew, we could also collectively comment and/or propose alternate solutions which might even result in other elegant fixes. > we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). As an Assamite fan, I am personally concerned about Group 4 as it would affect them, and by extension all the major Indie clans. The major Indies each have exactly ZERO vampires in Group 1 and ONE vampire in Group 3. This change will not affect them at all until Group 5 is introduced or if more Group 1/3 major Indies are introduced (very unlikely). All that would happen from this perspective is that the Camarilla clans would get many new options, the Sabbat clans would get some new options (they are also absent from Group 1), and the Indies would be left dealing with new synergies and have nothing new in their arsenal until much later. This to me seems exactly opposite the priority in which the sects need help compared to the others. Someone else proposed this idea and I like it so much I'll mention it again. All Final Nights vampires (or perhaps just Indies) should be designated as Group 3. Of course, this could cause some issues with the Group 4 vampires already developed, but I would hope that the next expansion after Gehenna (which is likely to be Indie heavy) isn't already finalized. Adjustments could be made to address any "dial-a-crypt" concerns if it is early enough in the process. The only fallout from the Final Nights chance would be several Advanced signature character cards would become misprints since they all currently sport the Group 2 designation. I think the gameplay benefit of smoothing the vampire/group graph for the Indies would far outweigh the slight confusion caused by the misprints which are "created." Jeff

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:RFbpc.59131$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > John Flournoy wrote: > > it has been stated in the past that more > > Bloodlines vamps would not be forthcoming (possibly ever). > > This is not true, if by "stated" you mean "by an official source". > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Apologies here - I re-checked past posts, and you are correct; someone _misquoted_ you second-hand as having said that, something you have since corrected. Even if it had been stated in the past, I'd been assuming for a while now that there would be more Bloodlines vamps in the future, since it's an easy solution (and one people have been asking about for some time). -John Flournoy

> It will. But it implies being "forced" to buy that next expansion if we want > to play them at all ("buy the next expansion or don't use your vamps..."). > It is this idea I'm against, maybe more than anything else. > There is no way to force you to buy any cards at all.

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2gk69fF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Seconded again! :) Daniel.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:24:58 +0200, Francois Gombault <gombault...@BROKEN.ADDRESS.wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> powercreep, simply because it becomes impossible to playtest all the >> possible permutations. >I reckon that the playtesters are doing a great job. Pass that crack pipe over here. Two group 4 vampires for clans with almost non-existant group 3 vampires is "a great job"? Heaven and Hell should have been moved to prevent that from happening. Playtesters did not do a good job if they did not prevent that. Clan Group3 Group4 Assamites 2 2 Followers of Set 2 2 Giovanni 2 2 Ravnos 2 2 There is no question in my mind that Zero vampires for these clans would have been better for sales of the game than two group 4 vampires. As for playability, the numbers speak for themselves. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On 14 May 2004 16:27:49 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote: >The >major Indies each have exactly ZERO vampires in Group 1 and ONE >vampire in Group 3. Less than accurate. Clan Group3 Group4 Assamites 2 2 Followers of Set 2 2 Giovanni 2 2 Ravnos 2 2 Assamite 1. Ali Kar 2. Yazid Tamari Followers of Set 1. Ezekiel, Lord of Montreal 2. Kahina the Sorceress Giovanni 1. Lia Milliner 2. Ignazio Giovanni Ravnos 1. Zip 2. Etienne Fauberge [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > Heaven and Hell should have been moved to prevent that from happening. __ This assumes that playtesters have it withing their ability. It's at least conceivable that the upper limit of a playtester's power is an email saying "dude, this is fucked up." DTIFU emails have a terrible track record of effecting change on the other end. __ David Cherryholmes

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:43:10 -0400, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: -Heaven and Hell should have been moved to prevent [2 group 3 + 2 group 4] from happening. >This assumes that playtesters have it withing their ability. No, it assumes that even adequate playtesting would enable this. Good playtesting and great playtesting require more. If you cannot effect the design, why bother wasting your time? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <dorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2gkvbnF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > I'll echo the thought: for the sake of future playtesting and balance among > groups, the proposed change is a bad idea. > > Dorrinal Blackmantle I'm unconvinced. Can you give an example of a theoretical Vampire that would be balanced with Group 3 but not with Group 1, and would require a great deal of scruitiny by playtesters to spot the problem? For example... Bobanson Group 4 Toreador Capacity 10 AUS PRE CEL obf Camarilla Prince of Paris. While Bobanson is ready, you gain an additional master phase action in your master phase. You may not move blood from Bobanson to your pool during your master phase. ...would be balanced with Group 3 but not with Group 1, but the problem is obvious to anyone familiar with both sets. Similarly... Avenray Amillecay Group 4 !Gangrel Capacity 5 FOR PRO ani ...again, a problem with Group 1 Vamps but not with Group 3, but again, fairly obvious. Designers and playtesters can balance new groups carefully against the previous group, then more casually against previous groups, and all should be well.

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > -Heaven and Hell should have been moved to prevent > [2 group 3 + 2 group 4] from happening. > > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >>This assumes that playtesters have it withing their ability. > > No, it assumes that even adequate playtesting would enable this. > > Good playtesting and great playtesting require more. > > If you cannot effect the design, why bother wasting your time? Hypothetical Q: Your playgroup is selected to playtest Gehenna. You receive the playtest materials and you see group 4 vampires. You realize the potential problems until the next set comes out, and you suggest in your playtest report that because of all the issues associated with so few group 4 vamps in this expansion, group 4 vamps should wait until the next expansion. The design team changes nothing, and you receive no feedback on this issue. You're saying that you'd then just STOP playtesting the expansion in protest? > Carpe noctem. > Lasombra > http://www.TheLasombra.com Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:19:02 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Hypothetical Q: >Your playgroup is selected to playtest Gehenna. You receive the playtest >materials and you see group 4 vampires. You realize the potential problems >until the next set comes out, and you suggest in your playtest report that >because of all the issues associated with so few group 4 vamps in this >expansion, group 4 vamps should wait until the next expansion. The design >team changes nothing, and you receive no feedback on this issue. >You're saying that you'd then just STOP playtesting the expansion in >protest? No. I'm saying I wouldn't playtest any other sets, nor would I continue to waste my time offering my thoughts on the game. I did playtest Sabbat War and Final Nights. I have not playtested since then. I have no interest in playtesting in the future. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.04051...@posting.google.com... Regarding mixing 1 odd group and 1 even group: > All that would happen from this perspective is that the Camarilla > clans would get many new options, the Sabbat clans would get some new > options (they are also absent from Group 1), and the Indies would be > left dealing with new synergies and have nothing new in their arsenal > until much later. This to me seems exactly opposite the priority in > which the sects need help compared to the others. I'm still not buying that the independants as a whole need a great deal of additional help. Giovanni and ravnos do just fine, Setites appear to be improving (at least gaining new options). Assamites probably need most help, and how much they need is uncertain, (all IMO). Regardless of how much help they need I believe the help they need is not in the crypt but in the library. (I am open arguements though). > Someone else proposed this idea and I like it so much I'll mention it > again. All Final Nights vampires (or perhaps just Indies) should be > designated as Group 3. Of course, this could cause some issues with > the Group 4 vampires already developed, but I would hope that the next > expansion after Gehenna (which is likely to be Indie heavy) isn't > already finalized. Adjustments could be made to address any > "dial-a-crypt" concerns if it is early enough in the process. The independant vampires have the single largest group of vampires to choose from. Making Group 2 indies playable with any significant number of other group indies gives them a wider selection than any other clans. So if you make Final nights vampires group 3, then you should not see any significant numbers of new independants until group 5 was introduced. I would rather avoid group 5 for an expansion or two, thus I prefer FN vamps to stay group 2 and the next expansion to have a good number of group 4 independants. This next part kinda meanders off of your thread, but its kinda tangentially relevant... Should the group 4 indies have been produced? Two sides to the issue (IMO): 1) Producing more than the two group 3 indies per clan (already in existance) gives indies a larger group than the other clans. There is no justification for this to happen. Thus new indies in Gehenna could not be group 3. The alternative was to make them group 4. (Cause making them group 2 is even worse). 2) The other side of course is how much complaining would have occurred if Gehenna contained NO independants. Many of the same people complaining about group 4 indies would have complained just as loudly about no new indies. I think the only solution (in hindsight of course) would have been to produce no new indies in gehenna, and provide the promise of a fair number of indies (which would be group 4) in the next set. > The only fallout from the Final Nights chance would be several > Advanced signature character cards would become misprints since they > all currently sport the Group 2 designation. I think the gameplay > benefit of smoothing the vampire/group graph for the Indies would far > outweigh the slight confusion caused by the misprints which are > "created." Do you propose that the reprinted final nights vampires become group 3 as well? Or just the new ones? Moving them all to group 3 has the group 5 problem noted above. Moving just the new ones (12 per clan) that appeared in the boosters would seem to be an equitable solution except for the procedural nightmare in keeping track of them. Moving the new ones would make group 2 indies total 12, group 3 would total 14, and shortly group 4 would total 2. This would allow group 4 indies in future sets up to approx 12 per clan. Moving all final nights vamps does not smooth the graph, it only shifts the problem (a vary large single group). Moving part of final nights vampires would seem to me to be procedurally insane. -JTP

[ quoted text not captured ] LOL. See the quotes. And just give some thought about what I really said, if you will. Orpheus

>>This assumes that playtesters have it withing their ability. > >No, it assumes that even adequate playtesting would enable this. > >Good playtesting and great playtesting require more. > >If you cannot effect the design, why bother wasting your time? Amazing experience designing your own CCG - when you playtest it, the designers care what you think. I could rant more, but why bother?

On 14 May 2004 19:52:53 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled: [snip] >would be a problem. Heh. I'm kinda reminded of all those Marvel (and other >comic) scenarios where alternate universes merge. And so Sheldon and Cock Robin >can join forces to conquer the World of Darkness! =P > >What do you guys think about this idea? well, one of them is going to have to yield that contested title. ;) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 04:36:10 GMT, "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [snip] >Moving all final nights vamps does not smooth the graph, it only >shifts the problem (a vary large single group). Moving part of final >nights vampires would seem to me to be procedurally insane. i must concur with this. even with Most Recent Printings of errata'd cards to go by, significant deck contruction changes due to shifts in rules like this really hamper the newer player, or those who have little net access, when they want to have a stab at playing in larger/other playgroups and/or competatively. as to the larger grouping issue: bloodlines has 5 vamps per clan, on average. people still build decks with just those 5 vampires, and can be competative, and have fun. consider your group 3/4 indie crypts to be like small bloodlines, but with a host of clan cards to play with. when more G4 indies arrive, rejoice. i mean, people were unhappy when DS came out, as they couldn't field effective decks. no one ever suggested DS should never have been printed. they just asked for more vamps, and waited, and were rewarded for their patience. keep the grouping rule the same. store your g4 indies in a safe place until they print more. if you don't want to have to buy the next set just to make your g4 indies playable, trade them away. just like if you don't want to have to buy boosters of anarchs to enable you to play this Shape Mastery you picked up in BH, you trade away your Shape mastery. this is a tcg. if you don't like certain cards, trade them away. it shouldn't matter if they're crypt or library cards. sure, it might be 'necessary' to buy later sets to make some of your current set cards playable. but you don't _have_ to play with all the cards you have from the current set. just like if you don't have ally decks, you'll not use The Unmasking. trade it away. trade your g4 indies away when the next set is here (or whenever they make more g4 indies. which, after this kerfuffle, i presume will be next set). and as a request, don't make too many g4 indies. if you do you'll be in the same poo as you are now if you want to print g5 indies. [ quoted text not captured ]

"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.04051...@posting.google.com... > > Regarding mixing 1 odd group and 1 even group: > > > All that would happen from this perspective is that the Camarilla > > clans would get many new options, the Sabbat clans would get some new > > options (they are also absent from Group 1), and the Indies would be > > left dealing with new synergies and have nothing new in their arsenal > > until much later. This to me seems exactly opposite the priority in > > which the sects need help compared to the others. > > I'm still not buying that the independants as a whole need a great > deal of additional help. I'm talking relative strength of clans, not absolute strength. If you ranked the Sects on the power curve, I think you'd find 60% of players think the Camarilla are most powerful, 35% think Sabbat are most powerful, and 5% would think the Independents are most powerful. If this game isn't supposed to be competitive among clans, then there is no cause for worry, but otherwise, the proposed change to the grouping rule benefits most those who need help least. > > Someone else proposed this idea and I like it so much I'll mention it > > again. All Final Nights vampires (or perhaps just Indies) should be > > designated as Group 3. Of course, this could cause some issues with > > the Group 4 vampires already developed, but I would hope that the next > > expansion after Gehenna (which is likely to be Indie heavy) isn't > > already finalized. Adjustments could be made to address any > > "dial-a-crypt" concerns if it is early enough in the process. > > The independant vampires have the single largest group of > vampires to choose from. Making Group 2 indies playable with > any significant number of other group indies gives them a wider > selection than any other clans. So if you make Final nights vampires > group 3, then you should not see any significant numbers of > new independants until group 5 was introduced. I would rather avoid > group 5 for an expansion or two, thus I prefer FN vamps to stay group > 2 and the next expansion to have a good number of group 4 independants. Let's look at the numbers a bit more closely at the Sects and Groups. I'm using Brujah, Assamites and !Brujah as my representatives: Sect/Group 1/2/3/4: Camarilla: 15/9/16/2 Independent: 0/24/2/2 Sabbat: 0/16/7/2 Here is how the Groupings would look if all FN vampires (not reprints from AH or DS) were changed to Group 3 (only 1 new Camarilla or Sabbat vampire per clan for the most part): Camarilla: 15/8/17/2 Independent: 0/10/16/2 Sabbat: 0/15/8/2 If the ideal is to have 24-25 vampires per grouping pair, then they ought to be levelled out some regardless. It seems to me that 15-16 in one Group and 8-9 in the next would be optimal, and look how nicely changing FN to Group 3 would accomodate this. While it might be fun to have 20 new Group 4 Indies appear in a given expansion, this will not happen--we usually get about 50 new vampires TOTAL with 12 or so max per clan per expansion. Part of the problem is that there are only four Independent clans, so when an expansion focuses on them, it REALLY focuses on them. I'm sure WW realizes these expansions have less widespread appeal since there are logically fewer players interested in the 4 Indie clans versus the 6/7 Camarilla or 9/10 Sabbat clans. These "constraints" make designing expansions tricky. I think a good "solution" might be to inject more Camarilla- or Sabbat-like Indies into the non-Indie expansions and more Indie-like Camarilla and Sabbat vampires into the Indie expansions. This has occurred in some recent sets, but I wish it could be more prevalent. > Should the group 4 indies have been produced? Two sides to the > issue (IMO): > 1) Producing more than the two group 3 indies per clan (already in > existance) gives indies a larger group than the other clans. There is > no justification for this to happen. Thus new indies in Gehenna could > not be group 3. The alternative was to make them group 4. (Cause > making them group 2 is even worse). The Indies, by fiat, have the largest Group 2 right now. Why not, by fiat, change FN and level the Groups just the same? Then there would be no issues at all. All future Indies could be considered Group 4 and we could just call it a day. Sure the Indies might end up with the largest Group 3/4 selection, but is that such a bad thing? They might have 28 vampires to choose from while the other clans have 25? HORRORS! > 2) The other side of course is how much complaining would have occurred > if Gehenna contained NO independants. Many of the same people > complaining about group 4 indies would have complained just > as loudly about no new indies. > > I think the only solution (in hindsight of course) would have been to > produce no new indies in gehenna, and provide the promise of a > fair number of indies (which would be group 4) in the next set. There will always be complaining. :) Hopefully some of the complaints which are actually meant to be constructive criticism will make their way through the various channels and help effect positive change. > > The only fallout from the Final Nights chance would be several > > Advanced signature character cards would become misprints since they > > all currently sport the Group 2 designation. I think the gameplay > > benefit of smoothing the vampire/group graph for the Indies would far > > outweigh the slight confusion caused by the misprints which are > > "created." > > Do you propose that the reprinted final nights vampires become > group 3 as well? Or just the new ones? Moving them all to group 3 > has the group 5 problem noted above. Moving just the new ones > (12 per clan) that appeared in the boosters would seem to be an equitable > solution except for the procedural nightmare in keeping track of them. > Moving the new ones would make group 2 indies total 12, group 3 > would total 14, and shortly group 4 would total 2. This would allow > group 4 indies in future sets up to approx 12 per clan. Perhaps just the booster vampires since it would smooth things out even more. I think it would be easier for most if you could simply look for the FN expansion symbol and that would notate they are Group 3. > Moving all final nights vamps does not smooth the graph, it only > shifts the problem (a vary large single group). Moving part of final > nights vampires would seem to me to be procedurally insane. But it does smooth the graph as I demonstrated above. What it does do is transforms the really big problem of Group 2/3 Indies (don't forget wacky the DS/AH design standards, which eliminate several vampires from each clan as playworthy), into a relatively small problem of Group 3/4 Indies, which actually might put them a bit head on the power curve. But isn't their time due? This is Gehenna afterall. ;) Jeff

On 14 May 2004 07:02:19 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I was one of the people who didn't see the point of the grouping rule because of the situation my own playgroup was in. I was convinced of the need for something like it in earlier discussions on this forum. This did _not_, however, change the way my playgroup is doing things. We still ignore the grouping rule as a houserule, but we've started talking about using it, or at least making the people who own more cards use it, while letting those fewer cards not worry about it. I honestly think the best thing to do is to leave the rule _exactly_ how it is, but to reduce the "stigma" of using houserules for things like this. Tournaments need to be regulated to stop potential abuse and the simpler and more obvious the rule is the better. So don't change it. Games at home don't necessarily need to be like that. It's social pressure that reduces the amount of old-style dom/obf S&B and that kind of pressure can work fine in this situation too. If a group decides to use "odd and evens" as their grouping rule then they can do it, but if they go in a tournament they'd have to tighten their deck up or use a different one. If someone came up with something that was really broken in "odds and evens" then their local group would let them play it once or twice and then pressure them into making that particular deck use the proper grouping rule instead. (I doubt brokenness of that magnitude will turn up, but don't want to rule it out.) The problem isn't the grouping rule. (Not amidst those who have enough cards, anyway.) The problem is that the clans aren't balanced. A lot of the complaints come back to that. The group 4 vamps may stay mostly as novelties for a little while, but that's ok. Specially seeing the new anarch stuff in Gehenna makes any of them without titles playable regardless of their own clan numbers. The real issue is that things don't add up between the clans. (Figures taken from Jeff Kuta's post) Sect/Group 1/2/3/4: Camarilla: 15/9/16/2 Independent: 0/24/2/2 Sabbat: 0/16/7/2 The suggestion to change fallen nights to group 3 is interesting, it'd make things Camarilla: 15/8/17/2 Independent: 0/10/16/2 Sabbat: 0/15/8/2 But what about changing Fallen nights to group 1 instead? Camarilla: 16/8/16/2 Independent: 14/10/2/2 Sabbat: 1/15/7/2 Grin. Not really viable I don't think... I actually think that vampires should be printed to fill in the gaps and the grouping rule left exactly as it is. This would require _backfilling_ some of the earlier groups to fix the discrepancy. The large size of indy group2 and small size of group3 to compensate is a big pain, but why not balance things out the _other_ way? Make the numbers into: Camarilla: 24/9/24/2 Independent: 0/24/9/2 Sabbat: 0/24/9/2 instead. Print vamps in the following numbers: Camarilla: 9/0/8/0 Independent: 0/0/7/0 Sabbat: 0/8/2/0 Hell, print 9 group 1 independant and Sabbat vamps as well! Whether it's "odds and evens" or "adjacent" groups, the same problem will exist unless the numbers are evened up everywhere. If done carefully back filling the older groups is easily possible. If you don't want the numbers increased so much then changing Fallen Nights to group 3 and _then_ balancing the vampires to 17/10 numbers instead is also good. But there's no reason to avoid printing group 1 or 2 vampires as long as you are explicitly chasing balance in the process and finding and filling holes in the current lineup. Rather than complicating the grouping rule I'd prefer the rule was simple and cards were printed to fill in the gaps. (With the making clear that houserules are fine for those who want them.) ThunderFoot. -- Nihil mutatem, omni delendum est...

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Designing and playtesting will be much easier to implement, especially in the future, if designers only NEED to be familiar with the sets immediately before and after the current set. Dorrinal Blackmantle I am Hungry.

LSJ wrote: > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I don't think that such modification of the grouping rule would make things easier, as others have already pointed out throughout this thread. I like the grouping rule as it is now. However, I see that the main problem comes from having a large group 2 of independent vampires, and a small group 3 of vampires of such a sect, which makes group 4 independents "less playable". Therefore, I think that the way to go would be the one suggested by John P. and Jeff Kuta, i.e., changing the Final Nights only independent vampires from group 2 to group 3. Greetings, Damnans

Francois Gombault wrote: > The way I understand things, this change is not needed from the game's > perspective. Gameplay will only be slightly affected by this. > > However, it's a great improvement towards increasing the player base, as > it creates more trading opportunities between newbies and old-timers. > And it also allows folks with a tighter budget to keep buying cards at > their own pace, without risking to be left behind as the group numbers > increase. Thus, momentarily cash-strapped customers are less likely to > choose to quit the game, as they know that later, shiny cool new > vampires will still be compatible with the old ones they already own. > > Hope I made some sense this time. ;) You did. That's probably the one really good argument for the change. Fred

XZealot wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > > I think that this change to the grouping rule eliminates the balancing > mechanism that it was created for. Once we get to group 5 you will have > what 6 different pairs (1-2,1-4,2-3,2-5,3-4,4-5). Once we get to group 6 it > gets really ugly (1-2,1-4,1-6,2-3,2-5,3-4,3-6,4-5,5-6). Not really, assuming the vampires' groups are designed correctly. The point is that you can't choose a given type of vampire from every group. I have to assume the intent around grouping (from the start - whether this change is made or not) is that certain clans tend to be much more strongly represented in certain groups. That is, the odd numbered groups tend to have a lot of Camarilla vampires and few Sabbat and Independent vampires and the other way around for the even-numbered groups. If so, the balancing mechanism is still in place (decks can be made out of one Camarilla group and one Sabbat/Independent group), it's just more flexible. The downside, as I posted in the earlier thread, is that the rule gets rather more complex, easier to violate by accident, and it becomes harder to detect violations as quickly, before the problems they cause become awkward for judges to resolve. Fred

"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <dorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2gmu77F...@uni-berlin.de>... > Designing and playtesting will be much easier to implement, especially in > the future, if designers only NEED to be familiar with the sets immediately > before and after the current set. > > Dorrinal Blackmantle > I am Hungry. "Dorrinal Blackmantle" <dorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2gmu77F...@uni-berlin.de>... > Designing and playtesting will be much easier to implement, especially in > the future, if designers only NEED to be familiar with the sets immediately > before and after the current set. > > Dorrinal Blackmantle I hear what you're saying, you and others, but I'm not convinced that you're right. It seems to me that if you balance a group to fit with 3, it will fit with 1 because 3 is balanced for 2 and 2 is balanced for 1. There might be a few exceptions, but they'll be incredibly obvious to designers and playtesters of any quality and not increase the difficulty of their job significantly. If you want to convince me otherwise, give me some examples of vampires that would be balanced for group 3 but not for group 1, and that aren't completely obvious problems.

On 15 May 2004 08:24:22 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) scrawled: >"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... [snip] >> Do you propose that the reprinted final nights vampires become >> group 3 as well? Or just the new ones? Moving them all to group 3 >> has the group 5 problem noted above. Moving just the new ones >> (12 per clan) that appeared in the boosters would seem to be an equitable >> solution except for the procedural nightmare in keeping track of them. >> Moving the new ones would make group 2 indies total 12, group 3 >> would total 14, and shortly group 4 would total 2. This would allow >> group 4 indies in future sets up to approx 12 per clan. > >Perhaps just the booster vampires since it would smooth things out >even more. I think it would be easier for most if you could simply >look for the FN expansion symbol and that would notate they are Group >3. But you'd have to be looking for a FN symbol _and_ remembering/researching every time you build a crypt which Indie vamps had previously been printed in DS/AH. This would be a nightmare for new players, who might not have ever seen AH/DS, and so Al-Ashrad and Ur-Shulgi to them both seem like G3 vampires. and neither has +1 bleed. which they should. but that's not my point.. And then there's the G2 Cam vamps printed in FN. You'd have to either be making them G3 too (which means they can't play with G1 anymore), and errata'ing the ones printed in the Cam Ed. starters, OR put even more convoluted steps into the rule to remember which FN are G3. Step 1: FN symbol? Step 2: Not printed previously in DS/AH? Step 3: A member of a indie clan? if answered yes to all these, the guy is probably G3, under this proposed change. (can you, little newbie, remember which clans are the 'indie' clans? oh yes, there are a bunch of independant bloodline clans, but they're not the indies we mean. what's the difference? well, they weren't in DS/AH were they? what's DS/AH? gee, how long have you been playing? lucky i made this rule to stop newbies being able to understand how to build decks...) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Francois Gombault" <gombault...@BROKEN.ADDRESS.wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:c82o7s$u22$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr... > XZealot wrote: > > I think that this change to the grouping rule eliminates the balancing > > mechanism that it was created for. Once we get to group 5 you will have > > what 6 different pairs (1-2,1-4,2-3,2-5,3-4,4-5). Once we get to group 6 it > > gets really ugly (1-2,1-4,1-6,2-3,2-5,3-4,3-6,4-5,5-6). > > If the grouping rule was introduced to prevent 'dial-a-crypt', then this > suggested change still works ok in that respect. Having more pairs of > well-desinged sets to choose from only means more variety, and doesn't > imply that perfect crypts are easier to cast. In a perfect world, maybe, but playtesting specifically has to cover synergies between existing and new groups. It is very difficult with the new "even and odds" scheme. > > powercreep, simply because it becomes impossible to playtest all the > > possible permutations. > > I reckon that the playtesters are doing a great job. But I don't > personnaly believe in the fact that the current playtesting process > examines all the possible permutations. > I believe game balance is achieved thanks to experience, knowledge, and > attempts to break the new cards. Not through exhaustive examination of > all the combos. For Crypt Selection, you have to do a exhaustive examination of all the combos. Contrary a popular urban myth, LSJ is human. He has to design the cards (along with his team of imaginary forest gnomes) and then farm them out to playtesters. Playtesters then not only try to break the cards but create uber-crypts. The change to the grouping rule makes it difficult once you get to group 6. Some Uber-crypts are obvious (i.e. weenie pre) some are not (+1 str ani). -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0s4da09ihm0230nvb...@4ax.com>... > On 15 May 2004 08:24:22 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) > scrawled: > > >"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... > [snip] > >> Do you propose that the reprinted final nights vampires become > >> group 3 as well? Or just the new ones? > > > >Perhaps just the booster vampires since it would smooth things out > >even more. I think it would be easier for most if you could simply > >look for the FN expansion symbol and that would notate they are Group > >3. > > But you'd have to be looking for a FN symbol _and_ > remembering/researching every time you build a crypt which Indie vamps > had previously been printed in DS/AH. This would be a nightmare for > new players, who might not have ever seen AH/DS... > > And then there's the G2 Cam vamps printed in FN. You'd have to either > be making them G3 too (which means they can't play with G1 anymore), > and errata'ing the ones printed in the Cam Ed. starters, OR put even > more convoluted steps into the rule to remember which FN are G3. All the G2 Camarilla starter vamps and most G2 Indie vamps (except starter/promo only) are still G2 since DS/AH are G2. Only the Camarilla and Sabbat vampires introduced in the FN boosters should be designated G3. > Step 1: FN symbol? > Step 2: Not printed previously in DS/AH? > Step 3: A member of a indie clan? > if answered yes to all these, the guy is probably G3, under this > proposed change. Remembering the Indie clans is easy since in FN all Sects are properly noted--only Tegyrius and Anka break ranks. I guess I do understate the notion that many people, particularly those outside North America, have relatively few DS/AH vampires. I usually make a point to use my DS/AH Assamites in my crypts since I have more of them compared to those singles from my lone FN starter (and tons of promotional Fatimas and Parmenideseses). A simplified flow chart would be this: Step 0: FN symbol? (hardly a step) Step 1: Indie Clan? No ==> Group 2, except for 1 clan exception, 2 from !Gangrel and !Tremere Step 2: Reprint from DS/AH? Yes => Group 2 (essentially from the starters) No ==> Group 3 (essentially from the boosters) > (can you, little newbie, remember which clans are the 'indie' clans? > oh yes, there are a bunch of independant bloodline clans, but they're > not the indies we mean. what's the difference? well, they weren't in > DS/AH were they? what's DS/AH? gee, how long have you been playing? > lucky i made this rule to stop newbies being able to understand how to > build decks...) It is not hard to remember FOUR traditionally independent clans, especially if you're expected to remember hundreds of card functions instantly. Couple that with the FN symbol and your job is even easier. :) Jeff

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.04051...@posting.google.com... > "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... > > I'm still not buying that the independants as a whole need a great > > deal of additional help. > > I'm talking relative strength of clans, not absolute strength. If you > ranked the Sects on the power curve, I think you'd find 60% of players > think the Camarilla are most powerful, 35% think Sabbat are most > powerful, and 5% would think the Independents are most powerful. If > this game isn't supposed to be competitive among clans, then there is > no cause for worry, but otherwise, the proposed change to the grouping > rule benefits most those who need help least. While I believe your numbers (close enough) I do not agree with the implied reason that people think the indies suck is their vampires. Its thinks like the traditions, PTO, Hungry Coyote, etc and other sect and clan specific cards. I have never (until possibly now if that is what you are trying to tell me) heard someone tell me that the reason the indies don't do well is choice of vampires. Sabbat have some of the most powerful and low costed boys out there. Looking just at where the favored vampire arrives with all three in clan superiors for many sabbat clans: !Malk, !Nos, !Tre, Tzim, !Gang(city) have 6 caps. !Bru, !Vent, !Tor have 7 caps !Gang(country) have an 8 Las have a 9. Average of the lowest occurance: 6.8 capacity Indies: Assamite 8, Rav 6, Gio 7, Followers 7 Average:7 Cam: Bru 8, Gang 7, Malk 7, Nos 8, Tor 9, Tre 7, Vent 7 Average 7.5 While this stat is not soley indicative of power, it may remind you that some sabbat were created with lower cost "formula" and I would judge those vampires more powerful than their non-sabbat bretheren. Also lacking in the indies are inner circles, justicars, prisci, and cardinals. I don't expect this to change in the future. In addition to the lack of power cards of the camarilla and sabbat, the indies are hampered by the lack of other clans to work with. At best an indy vampire shares 2 in clan disciplines with another clan or bloodline giving fewer opportunities for mixing in another clan, whereas a brujah deck can often add a !Brujah with little effort. (you touch on this later). A third reason for looking down on the indies might be discipline selection. Only one indy clan has dominate, none have auspex, only 1 has potence. And aside from the gio (who are doing okay if the storyline is any indication) no independent has any of these three common disciplines in-clan. While this might be argued to be a crypt selection problem, I would say its the design of the disciplines of the independents that creates the low appeal. And this cannot be corrected with new indy vamps as very few people would want a majority of assamites to have Dominate instead of Obfuscate. - I'ld love it though :) **Its not the vampires, its the library cards and discipline design that makes the camarilla and sabbat more powerful** <snipage> > Let's look at the numbers a bit more closely at the Sects and Groups. > I'm using Brujah, Assamites and !Brujah as my representatives: > > Sect/Group 1/2/3/4: > Camarilla: 15/9/16/2 > Independent: 0/24/2/2 > Sabbat: 0/16/7/2 I've looked at the stats, spent some time last night graphing the groups for each clan... my problem with your solution before was that when you said move the FN vamps I thought you mean all the FN vamps, not just the new ones. Moving just the booster vamps would be an ideal solution except for the nightmare of explaining it to a new player. (and to certain older players). more snipage > These "constraints" make designing expansions tricky. I think a good > "solution" might be to inject more Camarilla- or Sabbat-like Indies > into the non-Indie expansions and more Indie-like Camarilla and Sabbat > vampires into the Indie expansions. This has occurred in some recent > sets, but I wish it could be more prevalent. This would be nice but it raises the ire of those players who like those clans. "Geeze my Brujah only get X new vampires and half of them are wanna be assamites! WTF?" > The Indies, by fiat, have the largest Group 2 right now. Why not, by > fiat, change FN and level the Groups just the same? Then there would > be no issues at all. All future Indies could be considered Group 4 and > we could just call it a day. Sure the Indies might end up with the > largest Group 3/4 selection, but is that such a bad thing? They might > have 28 vampires to choose from while the other clans have 25? > HORRORS! But that still will not make the indies competitive with the sabbat and camarilla. (Unless those few vampires are six caps with 4 votes, all in clan superiors, with dominate and auspex bolted on). If the problem is power of indies the solution is in the library. If the problem is wanting to play group 4 the easiest solution is 12 to 14 of each indy clan in the next expansion and never recreate the group 2 mess that exists today. -JTP

"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5IApc.492757$oR5.304220@pd7tw3no>... > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.04051...@posting.google.com... > > "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... > > > I'm talking relative strength of clans, not absolute strength. If you > > ranked the Sects on the power curve, I think you'd find 60% of players > > think the Camarilla are most powerful, 35% think Sabbat are most > > powerful, and 5% would think the Independents are most powerful. If > > this game isn't supposed to be competitive among clans, then there is > > no cause for worry, but otherwise, the proposed change to the grouping > > rule benefits most those who need help least. > > While I believe your numbers (close enough) I do not agree with the implied > reason that people think the indies suck is their vampires. Its thinks like > the traditions, PTO, Hungry Coyote, etc and other sect and clan specific > cards. Nowhere above do I mention individual vampires. I did mention that many DS/AH vampires were poorly designed, but that isn't a major issue. The cards you mention are very key. Still, the change to an odd/even grouping rule benefits the Camarill and Sabbat the most. Their vampires are more evenly spread out among the groups currently. Looking forward, I wonder what WW plans to do. Do they really want to have 20+ Group 4 vampires for each traditional Indie clan? That would mean *EVERY* time a new even Group was introduced, it would be nearly a year before the Independent clans would have more than say 14 vampires in any Odd/Even group combination--we'd have to wait for the second expansion within an even group *EVERY* time, while the Camarilla and Sabbat reap the benefits of a smooth curve. > I have never (until possibly now if that is what you are trying to tell me) > heard someone tell me that the reason the indies don't do well is choice > of vampires. <snipping low-cost and discipline analysis> > **Its not the vampires, its the library cards and discipline design > that makes the camarilla and sabbat more powerful** I agree totally with this. The lack of synergy with other clans is a big issue with me. Since this is the case, I think the Independent Sect/Clan cards need to be slightly more buff than those available to the Camarilla/Sabbat. > > These "constraints" make designing expansions tricky. I think a good > > "solution" might be to inject more Camarilla- or Sabbat-like Indies > > into the non-Indie expansions and more Indie-like Camarilla and Sabbat > > vampires into the Indie expansions. This has occurred in some recent > > sets, but I wish it could be more prevalent. > > This would be nice but it raises the ire of those players who like > those clans. "Geeze my Brujah only get X new vampires and half of > them are wanna be assamites! WTF?" I really don't know how well disciplines cross-pollenate among the clans. I do seem to recall that Chimistery is very rare among non-Ravnos however. At any rate, if every new expansion would feature a single vampire from every clan with one superior out of clan discipline, that would probably be enough. If only Lucas Halton or Joaquin Murietta had QUI instead of qui, for example. I am rather happy with the new Assamite Antara, except for current issues with Grouping of course. I do realize this can be overdone, especially if only 1-2 vampires of a clan are introduced, but when there are many vampires of a clan to play with (CE and BH for example), I wish more liberties could have been taken. (And no, I'm not going to look for every single example from BH. I know there are a few, Reymundo I think has NEC, but I'm in the mood to agitate a bit because there's an opportunity right now for change, and once things are decided, we'll all have to live with the decision. > > The Indies, by fiat, have the largest Group 2 right now. Why not, by > > fiat, change FN and level the Groups just the same? Then there would > > be no issues at all. All future Indies could be considered Group 4 and > > we could just call it a day. Sure the Indies might end up with the > > largest Group 3/4 selection, but is that such a bad thing? They might > > have 28 vampires to choose from while the other clans have 25? > > HORRORS! > > But that still will not make the indies competitive with the sabbat and > camarilla. (Unless those few vampires are six caps with 4 votes, all in > clan superiors, with dominate and auspex bolted on). Of course not, but it will still strengthen the Camarilla and Sabbat relative to the Indies, for pure numeric reasons. With the proposed change, they can actually play Group 1/4 right now while the Independents cannot use Group 4 effectively at all except in "single vampire" crypts (spoilers pending). > If the problem is power of indies the solution is in the library. > If the problem is wanting to play group 4 the easiest solution is > 12 to 14 of each indy clan in the next expansion and never recreate > the group 2 mess that exists today. If WW wanted to keep the status quo, they'd need to make 20+ Group 4 vampires for each Indie clan so they wouldn't run into a future problem if they allowed say 8 vampires in Group 5. A Group 2/5 Indie crypt would then have well over 30 vampires to choose from. If they don't split the extra-large Group 2 *now*, then we'll have to deal with that as a legacy from here forward, and all the problems associated Even/Odd group pairings that are inevitable. Any improvement to the Sect is a different issue in my mind. :) Jeff

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > If WW wanted to keep the status quo, they'd need to make 20+ Group 4 <snipage> > vampires for each Indie clan so they wouldn't run into a future > problem if they allowed say 8 vampires in Group 5. A Group 2/5 Indie > crypt would then have well over 30 vampires to choose from. If they > don't split the extra-large Group 2 *now*, then we'll have to deal > with that as a legacy from here forward, and all the problems > associated Even/Odd group pairings that are inevitable. Any > improvement to the Sect is a different issue in my mind. :) > > Jeff Fair enough. I guess I'ld prefer no odd/even grouping rule then cause I would really like to see the indies adopt 16/8 vamps per expansion similar to sabbat and cam. Even better would be 12 every group. (either one starting with group 4). Wandering off topic again but it would be nice if they went and filled in the uneven vampires per clan per group so that within a group all cam clans would have the same number of vamps, and all the sabbat clans would have the same number of vamps (possibly different from the cams) etc. (with obvious exceptions like Panders, caitiff, and bloodlines). -JTP

On 15 May 2004 19:20:12 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0s4da09ihm0230nvb...@4ax.com>... >> On 15 May 2004 08:24:22 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) >> scrawled: >> >> >"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_6hpc.480297$oR5.384592@pd7tw3no>... >> [snip] [snippy] >> But you'd have to be looking for a FN symbol _and_ >> remembering/researching every time you build a crypt which Indie vamps >> had previously been printed in DS/AH. This would be a nightmare for >> new players, who might not have ever seen AH/DS... >> >> And then there's the G2 Cam vamps printed in FN. You'd have to either >> be making them G3 too (which means they can't play with G1 anymore), >> and errata'ing the ones printed in the Cam Ed. starters, OR put even >> more convoluted steps into the rule to remember which FN are G3. > >All the G2 Camarilla starter vamps and most G2 Indie vamps (except >starter/promo only) are still G2 since DS/AH are G2. Only the >Camarilla and Sabbat vampires introduced in the FN boosters should be >designated G3. the cam vampires introduced in the FN boosters were reprinted in the cam ed starters with "2" just above their text box. you planning on errata'ing them? >> Step 1: FN symbol? >> Step 2: Not printed previously in DS/AH? >> Step 3: A member of a indie clan? >> if answered yes to all these, the guy is probably G3, under this >> proposed change. > >Remembering the Indie clans is easy since in FN all Sects are properly >noted--only Tegyrius and Anka break ranks. I guess I do understate the >notion that many people, particularly those outside North America, >have relatively few DS/AH vampires. I usually make a point to use my >DS/AH Assamites in my crypts since I have more of them compared to >those singles from my lone FN starter (and tons of promotional Fatimas >and Parmenideseses). > >A simplified flow chart would be this: >Step 0: FN symbol? (hardly a step) >Step 1: Indie Clan? > No ==> Group 2, except for 1 clan exception, 2 from !Gangrel and >!Tremere >Step 2: Reprint from DS/AH? > Yes => Group 2 (essentially from the starters) > No ==> Group 3 (essentially from the boosters) oh. i see. erm, this might boil down to being reasonably simple (for some values of reasonably), but i think the harm this rule would create would outweigh the benefit. wouldn't it just be better to wait until they print some more g4 indies? i think your _idea_ isn't too bad, i think it's practical implementation is too painful an exercise, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Let's look at the numbers a bit more closely at the Sects and Groups. >I'm using Brujah, Assamites and !Brujah as my representatives: > >Sect/Group 1/2/3/4: >Camarilla: 15/9/16/2 >Independent: 0/24/2/2 >Sabbat: 0/16/7/2 > >Here is how the Groupings would look if all FN vampires (not reprints >from AH or DS) were changed to Group 3 (only 1 new Camarilla or Sabbat >vampire per clan for the most part): > >Camarilla: 15/8/17/2 >Independent: 0/10/16/2 >Sabbat: 0/15/8/2 > >If the ideal is to have 24-25 vampires per grouping pair, then they >ought to be levelled out some regardless. It seems to me that 15-16 in >one Group and 8-9 in the next would be optimal, and look how nicely >changing FN to Group 3 would accomodate this. While it might be fun to >have 20 new Group 4 Indies appear in a given expansion, this will not >happen--we usually get about 50 new vampires TOTAL with 12 or so max >per clan per expansion. Yeah, but if we take your suggestion and go with a Independent: 0/10/16/2, that doesn't leave much room in Group 3/4 for additional vampires until it fills out. If anything, this would greatly accelerate the ushering in of Group 5. Only 8 new vampires could fit in before then. Either that means no major Independent expansion (4 expansions where Indies get 2 a piece each time), or there really can't be any more Group 3/4 vampires after printing a major Independent expansion. And imagine the complaints and rants that will start when that comes out! Are you really that eager to move on to Group 5 Independents? >The Indies, by fiat, have the largest Group 2 right now. Why not, by >fiat, change FN and level the Groups just the same? Then there would >be no issues at all. All future Indies could be considered Group 4 and >we could just call it a day. Sure the Indies might end up with the >largest Group 3/4 selection, but is that such a bad thing? They might >have 28 vampires to choose from while the other clans have 25? >HORRORS! The main obstacle I can see from a management and design standpoint is that it sets the very very dangerous precedent of having currently legal decks suddenly become illegal. Yeah, most Indie players probably focus on just Group 2 or Group 2/3, but I'm sure a fair number *do* combine their Group 2 vampires with Group 1 vampires (especially the older players). Even if it's as minor as not being able to use Smudge in certain Assamite decks or not being able to include Group 1 POT or dom weenies with your Giovanni, this has the potential of A.) older player shows up to a tournament with a deck and is informed "oh didn't you know these vampires had their Group changed? Sorry you can't play because your crypt is now illegal." and B.) By reclassifying an entire group of vampires, you make currently existing decks (and decks that have been legal since 2001) suddenly illegal. One of the things VTES players exult about the game is that it's avoided many of the phasing out problems of MtG and L5R. Once you open the door to making previous deck combinations completely illegal, it would greatly damage White Wolf's credibility in this area. If they were able to do it once, what's to prevent them from doing it again? And what's to prevent them from just banning all previous Groupings and forcing a set rotation sort of schedule? This is a door that I think should stay firmly shut (and sealed, locked, bolted, & welded, if you ask me!). >But it does smooth the graph as I demonstrated above. What it does do >is transforms the really big problem of Group 2/3 Indies (don't forget >wacky the DS/AH design standards, which eliminate several vampires >from each clan as playworthy), into a relatively small problem of >Group 3/4 Indies, which actually might put them a bit head on the >power curve. But isn't their time due? This is Gehenna afterall. ;) Okay, let's try and get things a little straight. Are you talking about "Independents" or are you *really* just referring to "Assamites?" As others have noted, Giovanni and Ravnos are already doing pretty damn well (especially in regards to storyline tourneys) and the FoS aren't exactly pushovers either. And from what people are saying over on The Path of Blood, it seems like the Assamites got quite a big boost from Gehenna anyway. It's okay to have slight biases towards certain clans (I sure as hell have some myself!). But I'd personally prefer people to be more open and straight-forward instead of trying to obfuscate them within generalities (and that statements not addressed specifically just to you). And finally, I hope I don't sound completely unsympathetic to the Indies. I personally love Giovanni and FoS myself. I also think the Indies have plenty of perfectly viable deck archetypes. Thus I don't think truly drastic action is necessary at this point. Halcyan 2 P.S. How is Penny???

Although I'm still mostly in favor of "Leave the Grouping Rule alone", I've come up with a slight modification to LSJ's original proposal that might work to "fix things" in the eyes of people who have problems with Grouping: The idea is, instead of "Odds+Evens", it's "Evens+*something*". You can still only mix two groups in your crypt, but if one is even, the other one can also be even if you desire. So you could use 1+2 or 2+3 or 3+4, but you could also use 1+4, *2+4*, or 6+11.. Would that work? (As I said, "keep the grouping rule the way it is" is still where I lean, but this struck me as a possibility) Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:X4Jpc.57582$536.9857465@attbi_s03... > > Although I'm still mostly in favor of "Leave the Grouping Rule alone", > I've come up with a slight modification to LSJ's original proposal that > might work to "fix things" in the eyes of people who have problems with > Grouping: > > The idea is, instead of "Odds+Evens", it's "Evens+*something*". You can > still only mix two groups in your crypt, but if one is even, the other > one can also be even if you desire. > > So you could use 1+2 or 2+3 or 3+4, but you could also use 1+4, *2+4*, > or 6+11.. > > Would that work? "Evens and Something" allows 2&4. Right now (see elsewhere in this thread) the indies are sitting on 24 group 2 vampires for each clan. Whitewolf appears to want no more than 26/27 vampires per clan in any legal group combination. As a result of making 2 & 4 a legal combination, no new indies could be then printed past Gehenna without starting group 5. We do not want group 5 in the next expansion. (3 expansions per group seems the current pattern) meaning we would see no new indies for at least 2 more expansions. -JTP

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2gnka2F...@uni-berlin.de>... > For Crypt Selection, you have to do a exhaustive examination of all the > combos. Contrary a popular urban myth, LSJ is human. He has to design the > cards (along with his team of imaginary forest gnomes) and then farm them > out to playtesters. Playtesters then not only try to break the cards but > create uber-crypts. The change to the grouping rule makes it difficult once > you get to group 6. > > Some Uber-crypts are obvious (i.e. weenie pre) some are not (+1 str ani). C'mon, someone show some evidence for this claim that it'll be tricky to balance cards with the proposed grouping rule. Give me an example of a vampire that would A) be balanced with group 3, but not with group 1 and B) not an obvious problem that designers and playtesters would catch instantly.

In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Your statement for (B) indicates that you've never been either, and as such you have little idea of the enormous task involved in figuring out, in a very short time period, not just how to effectively use each of 100-150 brand new cards that you've never seen before, but how to break them as well -- and to do so while actually PLAYING the game, not just idly reading the cards and offering opinions. To give you some perspective, it took over five years for someone to break Temptation of Greater Power. Anarchs has been out for how long now, and people are STILL finding new tricks in it? People haven't even begun to properly take a look at Black Hand yet. Now consider playtesting a set like Bloodlines. Who DO those Harbingers mix with, anyway? !Ventrue? Giovanni? Can they stand on their own? What about the isolated specials? What do those specials mix with? People are still poking through Bloodlines, for god's sake; do you really think those of us who playtested it were so superhumanly omniscient that we saw every possible deck that could be made with those vamps and cards, and cleared it as "OK, not broken"? As WELL as every deck that could be made with a combo of those and previous vamps? You have no concept of the magnitude of the issues involved. Before you whine about "show me some evidence", you should try to understand the process a little better first. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<afaea0phqi67uv3p3...@4ax.com>... > On 15 May 2004 19:20:12 -0700, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) > scrawled: > >All the G2 Camarilla starter vamps and most G2 Indie vamps (except > >starter/promo only) are still G2 since DS/AH are G2. Only the > >Camarilla and Sabbat vampires introduced in the FN boosters should be > >designated G3. > > the cam vampires introduced in the FN boosters were reprinted in the > cam ed starters with "2" just above their text box. you planning on > errata'ing them? Forgot about those. Again, it is just a handful, but these are more problematic since they do already have a Group number printed on them. > >A simplified flow chart would be this: > >Step 0: FN symbol? (hardly a step) > >Step 1: Indie Clan? > > No ==> Group 2, except for 1 clan exception, 2 from !Gangrel and > >!Tremere > >Step 2: Reprint from DS/AH? > > Yes => Group 2 (essentially from the starters) > > No ==> Group 3 (essentially from the boosters) > > oh. i see. erm, this might boil down to being reasonably simple (for > some values of reasonably), but i think the harm this rule would > create would outweigh the benefit. > > wouldn't it just be better to wait until they print some more g4 > indies? > > i think your _idea_ isn't too bad, i think it's practical > implementation is too painful an exercise, though. While it is obvious that given time everything will work itself out, sometimes change moves at a glacial pace. The proposed Odd/Even grouping rule will do nothing to help the Independent (weakest Sect) clans in the short term (they have no Group 1 so 1/4 is irrelevant, same for Sabbat the second weakest sect), and seem to preserve the status quo in the long term by 1) requiring enormous even Groups to fit the legacy Group 2 model, and 2) creating "lag time" where even grouped Indie vampires are barely playable due to paucity as they are introduced.

> Anyone have any thoughts on that change? A few : - good to see things moving @ WW in response to players concerns - this effectively allows combining 1 and 4 (at the current) moment on top of the allready available choices. that gives (if any) only a boost to the camarilla sect, because group 1 vampires are only camarilla. i think there are other sects in need of some crypt improvement, not the camrilla. -- johannes walch

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I haven't got the time to read all the replies to this question, but i will give my thoughts. I think it is great. I love using all the cards i have to full extent. I miss a lot of group 3 vampires, and instead of going after those i can just buy into the group 4 ones, because i can use them then with the group 1s. I think it is great for the playerbase, but it might become more difficult to playtest all the possible groupings, especially when future groups come to (un)life. But hey, then playtesters should take even more time testing everything. I offer myself to look at the cards thoroughly. It doesn't change a lot to the possible current problem many see with the indy-4s not being playable, but i guess that was kinda obvious and not the reason you proposed it. I don't really mind that they are not very playable at this point..i will buy into more cards later anyway, so they will be playable at some point, i don't care much if they are in this set or the next one. W

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20040516065854...@mb-m02.aol.com>... > Yeah, but if we take your suggestion and go with a Independent: 0/10/16/2, that > doesn't leave much room in Group 3/4 for additional vampires until it fills > out. If anything, this would greatly accelerate the ushering in of Group 5. > Only 8 new vampires could fit in before then. Either that means no major > Independent expansion (4 expansions where Indies get 2 a piece each time), or > there really can't be any more Group 3/4 vampires after printing a major > Independent expansion. And imagine the complaints and rants that will start > when that comes out! Are you really that eager to move on to Group 5 > Independents? I would have no problem with a future expansion where there were only 8 vampires of each major Indie (that's 32 vampires, leaving room for 18 others, which is roughly 1 per Camarilla/Sabbat clan).* As should be obvious, I think that if it works out where the total number of Group 3/4 vampires for the major Indies is less than 30, I don't think they'll become hyper-competitive compared to all the other clans. They certainly aren't now, for their isolated successes. So, if FN were Group 3, we'd have 0/10/16/2. Add a major Indie expansion for 8 more, and then 1-2 more Indies trickling in over each next Camarilla and Sabbat expansion then you'd end up with 0/10/16/12-14, which is not a problem at all AFAIC. If White Wolf is going to juggle the numbers, why force it's consumers to play the waiting game? * I wonder if it would be worth While Wolf's while to break the mold and include the Lasombra and Tzimisce as major components of the traditionally major Indie expansions. The reason I toss this idea out is that those 6 major clans are the only ones who have in-clan disciplines which are completely unique to themselves. Heck, they could even include Gangrel and !Gangrel since those are the only two which specialize in Protean. An expansion built around 6 or 8 clans would possibly be better received than one built around only 4 since there are more potential buyers. I know plenty of folks who ignore expansions that don't support their favorite clans. Of course, this will create many thematic issues, but we're post-Gehenna now anyway. Does theme matter any more? > The main obstacle I can see from a management and design standpoint > is that it sets the very very dangerous precedent of having currently > legal decks suddenly become illegal. While this is an important consideration in theory, I think in practice it is much less prevalent. The biggest potential for problems here is with the FN Camarilla vampires. For example, lots of people still play Euro-Brujah with Theo Bell and Anvil. This would become illegal if all new FN vampires were Group 3. People learn. I think if change is going to be made, it ought to be the best change possible and not just some minor tweak that leaves all sorts of legacy issues. I applaud the design team on how they've integrated things thus far and loosened the reins a bit, but they're talking about a major structural change, not just a smooth transition of the power curve between clans and disciplines. > One of the things VTES players exult about the game is that it's avoided > many of the phasing out problems of MtG and L5R. Once > you open the door to making previous deck combinations completely illegal, it > would greatly damage White Wolf's credibility in this area. If they were able > to do it once, what's to prevent them from doing it again? And what's to > prevent them from just banning all previous Groupings and forcing a set > rotation sort of schedule? This is a door that I think should stay firmly shut > (and sealed, locked, bolted, & welded, if you ask me!). I think you're overstating your case a bit here, you fearmonger! :), but this should be a concern to White Wolf too. They're concerned enough about Group 4 to open the floor to critiques of a proposed change, so that is weighing heavily for them now. Personally, I think the benefits of immediately addressing legacy Group 2 issues is the best way to set the stage to proceed forward with Group 3/4 issues. > Okay, let's try and get things a little straight. Are you talking about > "Independents" or are you *really* just referring to "Assamites?" I'm talking traditional Independent clans. I have been careful not to take Haqim's name in vain here. They're all affected the same way by the proposed even/odd group change (that is, Camarilla sees immediate impact, Sabbat sees it next, and the Indies get the scraps last), regardless of any individual clan's location on the power curve. I've only talked numbers of vampires, and spit a bit of vitae against weak DS/AH vampires, but that's it. The Independent sect is weakest as a whole. > And from what people are saying over on The Path of Blood, it seems like the > Assamites got quite a big boost from Gehenna anyway. Until I've seen the complete set of spoilers (couldn't attend either pre-release we had yesterday...my girls had a softball game that conflicted with BOTH!), I'll take the comments at TPoB purely as excitement over new Assamite related cards. I'm sure the other clans and disciplines all got some goodies to work with as well. > And finally, I hope I don't sound completely unsympathetic to the Indies. I > personally love Giovanni and FoS myself. I also think the Indies have plenty of > perfectly viable deck archetypes. Thus I don't think truly drastic action is > necessary at this point. Again, it's not that they're not viable. It's that the proposed change helps most those who need help least, strictly from a numbers standpoint. The combinations that are opened to the Camarilla with their lock on Group 1 make this proposed change seem unfair to me. Splitting the large Group 2 block would make the Odd/Even group change more desirable to the Indies in the future and allow WW to break from the current cycle of 20+ vamps/2 vamps cycle. Jeff > P.S. How is Penny??? I haven't seen you lately to mention it, but Penny has a new friend, Pippy! We got a baby chick about 3 weeks ago and she peeps up a storm. She's very cute, and particularly likes roosting on shoulders. I need to get a picture of her so I can send it around. :)

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... > > I hear what you're saying, you and others, but I'm not convinced that > you're right. It seems to me that if you balance a group to fit with > 3, it will fit with 1 because 3 is balanced for 2 and 2 is balanced > for 1. It is possible to have a vampire that is balanced for play with group 1, but broken when combined with group 3, and vice-versa. Therefore a vampire balanced for one group is not necessarily balanced for others. You admit that much, but... > There might be a few exceptions, but they'll be incredibly > obvious to designers and playtesters of any quality and not increase > the difficulty of their job significantly. Speculation? What is the basis for your assumption? > If you want to convince me otherwise, give me some examples of > vampires that would be balanced for group 3 but not for group 1, and > that aren't completely obvious problems. If my example isn't completely obvious, it's possible that you would deny that it is a proper example -- because you think it will be balanced. Are you a "playtester of [any] actual quality"? ;) Dorrinal Blackmantle

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I think it would be an improvement, but I don't think it's the best option. For what it's worth, I really dislike the grouping rule. I have been playing since the early days of Jyhad, and the group 1 vampires are very much my favourite (and best known) - so much so that it is a real effort for me to even consider using 2/3 rather than 1/2. Although I have a substantial amount of more recent sets, I still find my crypt choice more limited for 2/3 than for 1/2. This tends to encourage me to stick with 1/2, and I miss out on the exciting new vampires. (Not to mention that they seem, in general, to be more powerful in later groups). As for group 4, I really can't imagine playing them before the next expansion comes to round out the numbers. By then, they'll be old hat. Doesn't really seem like the way it should be, for a new expansion (though I have to say, apart from group 4, Gehenna looks *fantastic*). I can quite understand that the grouping rule was judged necessary when CE came out, as suddenly the Camarilla would have vastly more crypt choice than the Sabbat - I presume this was the reason for it? However, I'm not sure that this holds true any more. I haven't checked, but my impression has been that recent expansions - especially BH - have filled out the Sabbat crypts substantially. Is there so much of an imbalance any more? It may be controversial, but I would advocate dropping the grouping rule entirely. Perhaps not immediately - perhaps with the next expansion, which could be deliberately tailored to balance the scales in terms of the vampires available to each sect? Seems to me that, provided the Sabbat are given enough to match the 1+3 Camarilla, where's the harm? Is it so bad if everyone has twice as many vampires to choose from, more flexibility? I can't be the only one who *hates* having cards that are no longer playable? We surely don't want to end up like M:tG! Now, I fully accept that the grouping rule is much more reasonable than the way M:tG expansions phase out, but if more recent vampires are in general more powerful, and being added to, it makes the early ones less and less attractive - perhaps to the point of being virtually unplayable in a competitive environment. Anyway, I've said my piece. I doubt this is the way it will go, but I believe it's worthy of consideration. If not removing the restriction entirely, then any relaxation is still a Good Thing in my view. Perhaps allow any two groups, regardless of being consecutive, odd, even, whatever? Regards, Aaron

>All the G2 Camarilla starter vamps and most G2 Indie vamps (except >starter/promo only) are still G2 since DS/AH are G2. Only the >Camarilla and Sabbat vampires introduced in the FN boosters should be >designated G3. I think this would be a pretty significant shift. I had previously commented on the problem of making currently legal decks illegal but that was in the framework of only considering Independent decks. Changing the Grouping of FN Camarilla and Sabbat vampires would greatly complicate things IMO. Others have already noted that Theo Bell is frequently used in Group 1 Brujah decks. This will also cause Group 1/2 Gangrel to lose the options provided by Ramona and her Advanced version. Nosferatu Princes and weenie Animalism lose Calebros. Thaumaturgy Tremere lose two key lynchpins with Aisling & Hannigan. Group 1 Ventrue can no longer use Jan, and Group 1 Malks have to give up Anatole. (Those are some of the more common vamps that I've seen). Many Group 1 decks may also utilize a few of the Independents. Badr shows up in OBF or dom/obf decks as does Count Ormonde. Jalal and his built-in Psyche shows up in some cel/pot decks. Weenie CEL uses Parmenides and possibly Yusef. I've seen Samat in some Group 1 Thaumaturgy decks. Chas and Paul are used in Group weenie POT. *A lot* of decks use Marciana Giovanni as a mini-Rumor Mill (many of them Group 1/2). Weenie Group 1 Animalism also have to give up the likes of Anka, Sennuwy, and Spleen, while weenie Fortitude loses Ghivran & Vedel. I think Group 1 and Group 3 are decently balanced compared to each other but I still occasionally hear older players complain that Group 1 is oftentimes outclassed by Group 3. Changing the Group Numbers in this way heavily shifts things in favor of Group 3. Group 1 suddenly loses a lot of options while Group 3 strengthens theirs. What I'm saying is that this suggested change affects more than "just a few" decks and really shakes things up in a very bad, destabilizing way, IMHO. Tell me, how many players can really tell the difference (off the top of their head) between the DS/AH Independents, and the FN-only ones? Outside of the telltale Shy artwork, it's really not that easy to do. Your suggestion requires *everyone* to go through *all* their decks (or at least all Group 1/2 ones), correctly identify the newly Grouped vampires, and figure out a way to replace them (easier for some decks than others). Last time I talked to Ben Peal he had like 100 decks or so. Having to go through 10, 20, or even 30 decks to do this seems like an awful lot of work for everyone who plays the game. And *that* is why I don't think it's a good idea for currently legal decks to suddenly become illegal. Halcyan 2

On 16 May 2004 10:18:10 -0700, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) scrawled: [snip] > >I think it is great for the playerbase, but it might become more >difficult to playtest all the possible groupings, especially when >future groups come to (un)life. But hey, then playtesters should take >even more time testing everything. I offer myself to look at the cards >thoroughly. looking, no matter how thorough, is no substitute for actually _playing_ the cards. as a playtester, you need to play games. proper games. no house rules, 4-5 players. and then play again. and again. and againandagainandagain. and then, in case luck was ruling the outcomes the previous times, play some more games. _Then_ comment on the merits/flaws of the playtest cards. all this within a sensible design->release schedule set by the producing company. oh, and you know, maybe going to work to earn money to pay for rent for the house you live in in which you want to playtest the cards. it's not all wine and roses. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 May 2004 15:22:32 -0700, illa...@lineone.net (Aaron Gunstone) scrawled: > >I can quite understand that the grouping rule was judged necessary >when CE came out, as suddenly the Camarilla would have vastly more >crypt choice than the Sabbat - I presume this was the reason for it? i guess that was part of it. however, consider your crypt choices for making the uber-weenie mono-discipline deck of your choice. the more expansions, the more uber it becomes. and the less brain you need to put it together. >However, I'm not sure that this holds true any more. I haven't >checked, but my impression has been that recent expansions - >especially BH - have filled out the Sabbat crypts substantially. Is >there so much of an imbalance any more? if you want to play clan-based decks, not so much of a problem. but base your deck around a discipline or two and whey-hey! perfect crypt. and it'll be so effective no one would be able to compete with a mere clan-based deck any more. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR OUR OPINIONS! > > Seconded on this as well. Thirded! ;) Aaron Gunstone.

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? well...seems everyone has thoughts!!! i did prepose something of the order even-odd in a private mail some times ago primarily concerned on the fear of progressive dismissal of old groups (as someone well said in another post (John Flournoy maybe?) [quote] "However, it's a great improvement towards increasing the player base, as it creates more trading opportunities between newbies and old-timers. And it also allows folks with a tighter budget to keep buying cards at their own pace, without risking to be left behind as the group numbers increase. Thus, momentarily cash-strapped customers are less likely to choose to quit the game, as they know that later, shiny cool new vampires will still be compatible with the old ones they already own." [end quote]) But then discussion on playtesting is a convincing issue. I would like this corrected rule if the pace of new vampires stays as is and the playtesters feel they could imagine and find the "worst cases", otherwise leave the situation as-is Andrea

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:JFbpc.59128$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > To address an option (with variations) brought up in several posts on this > thread: > > Options which make a constructed deck that is legal one day become > illegal the next are not considered tenable options. Treating group > 4 vampires as groupless (which really means "any group") until > a certain number were printed falls into this category. > ...In which case I'll vote for 'No change'. The proposal doesn't address the problem at hand sufficiently to warrant change. If player concerns are an issue, information is the key to enlightenment. Is there a plan in place to resolve the grouping population disparity (especially for indies) within the next expansion or two? If so, then I can be patient until then. As Dave C. mentioned elsewhere, the amount of exploration for existing expansions is vast. It may take me until the next expansion to work through my Anarchs ideas, nevermind Black Hand and Gehenna... Thanks again to Scott and White Wolf for asking player opinions! DaveZ Atom Weaver

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<0d3fa0t60u4untird...@4ax.com>... > In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, > emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: > >C'mon, someone show some evidence for this claim that it'll be tricky > >to balance cards with the proposed grouping rule. Give me an example > >of a vampire that would A) be balanced with group 3, but not with > >group 1 and B) not an obvious problem that designers and playtesters > >would catch instantly. > > Your statement for (B) indicates that you've never been either... You're a betting man, Derek, right? Would you like to bet $500? We'll have to wait a short time before we can resolve said bet. > You have no concept of the magnitude of the issues involved. Before you > whine about "show me some evidence", you should try to understand the > process a little better first. > > -- Derek Gosh, Derek, I guess you don't have any examples to offer the class, do you? Thanks for introducing plenty of heat and no light into the discussion. I understand very well the magnitude of the task of balancing a ton of new vamps with an existing set, as Group 3 was balanced with Group 2. That is why I believe that the processes of balancing Group 3 with Group 2 and Group 4 with Group 3 will almost certainly result in Group 4 vamps being balanced with Group 1 vamps, with the possible exception of some extremely obvious problems. If you think I'm wrong, let's see some evidence.

"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <dorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2gq7qfF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... > > > > I hear what you're saying, you and others, but I'm not convinced that > > you're right. It seems to me that if you balance a group to fit with > > 3, it will fit with 1 because 3 is balanced for 2 and 2 is balanced > > for 1. > > It is possible to have a vampire that is balanced for play with group 1, but > broken when combined with group 3, and vice-versa. Therefore a vampire > balanced for one group is not necessarily balanced for others. You admit > that much, but... > > > There might be a few exceptions, but they'll be incredibly > > obvious to designers and playtesters of any quality and not increase > > the difficulty of their job significantly. > > Speculation? What is the basis for your assumption? It seems reasonable to me because I can’t think of any counterexamples. I could be wrong. > > If you want to convince me otherwise, give me some examples of > > vampires that would be balanced for group 3 but not for group 1, and > > that aren't completely obvious problems. > > If my example isn't completely obvious, it's possible that you would deny > that it is a proper example -- because you think it will be balanced. Are > you a "playtester of [any] actual quality"? ;) > > Dorrinal Blackmantle I promise you I'm not out to score cheap points. I don't want this game to become imbalanced because playtesters can't do their job properly. If anyone can give me a good counterexample, I'll concede the point and not stubbornly pretend the example isn't a good one. If we can't agree on what a good example is, perhaps we could defer to the judgement of an experienced player who is neutral on the odd/evens question. Sound fair?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > First of all, thanks for asking the players for their opinion! Personally, I like the grouping rule as it is at the moment. It was said before in this thread, there are 2 main problem with group 4 at the moment: 1) There are very few group 4 independent vampires: either you use them in a very special deck that doesn't focus on a clan or uses very few different vampires, or you don't use them. 2) Bloodlines vampires cannot be used together with vampires of group 4 or any later group. In my opinion, the new grouping idea doesn't address these two problems. Also, not implementing it will make future card design / play testing easier. 1) will be alleviated as soon as more independent group 4 vampires have been released.It has been said before, it would probably have been better to have no group 4 indies than only 2 of them. Effectively Gehenna gives us 8 vampires that cannot really be used efficiently. While this is no big deal for me (we had useless vampires before - Patricia Giovanni or Nakova anyone?) the slots for those guys could have been put to better use. If I take a look at how group 3 vampires were introduced I get this picture: CE had many camarilla vampires, Anarchs many Gangrel and Caitiff, Black Hand many Sabbat vampires Likewise, you could design a fair number of group 4 vampires for certain clans. Only when their number reaches an playable level (including adjacent groups) move on to the other clans. In other words, the next new set should contain many group 4 indies so they can be used in "normal" deck. It would be fine to release only a single vampire for the camarilla and sabbat clans, or even none at all. 2) makes me hope to see more bloodlines vampires eventually. The grouping rule as it is makes it possible to release more bloodlines vampires in group 4 or a later group. my 2 cents. pallando(at)gmx(dot)at

"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <dorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2gq7qfF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... > > > > I hear what you're saying, you and others, but I'm not convinced that > > you're right. It seems to me that if you balance a group to fit with > > 3, it will fit with 1 because 3 is balanced for 2 and 2 is balanced > > for 1. > > It is possible to have a vampire that is balanced for play with group 1, but > broken when combined with group 3, and vice-versa. Therefore a vampire > balanced for one group is not necessarily balanced for others. You admit > that much, but... > > > There might be a few exceptions, but they'll be incredibly > > obvious to designers and playtesters of any quality and not increase > > the difficulty of their job significantly. > > Speculation? What is the basis for your assumption? It seems reasonable to me because I can’t think of any counterexamples. I could be wrong. > > If you want to convince me otherwise, give me some examples of > > vampires that would be balanced for group 3 but not for group 1, and > > that aren't completely obvious problems. > > If my example isn't completely obvious, it's possible that you would deny > that it is a proper example -- because you think it will be balanced. Are > you a "playtester of [any] actual quality"? ;) > > Dorrinal Blackmantle I promise you I'm not out to score cheap points. I don't want this [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<l3sga0dh4v60ft500...@4ax.com>... > On 16 May 2004 10:18:10 -0700, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) > scrawled: > > [snip] > > > >I think it is great for the playerbase, but it might become more > >difficult to playtest all the possible groupings, especially when > >future groups come to (un)life. But hey, then playtesters should take > >even more time testing everything. I offer myself to look at the cards > >thoroughly. > > looking, no matter how thorough, is no substitute for actually > _playing_ the cards. as a playtester, you need to play games. proper > games. no house rules, 4-5 players. and then play again. and again. > and againandagainandagain. and then, in case luck was ruling the > outcomes the previous times, play some more games. _Then_ comment on > the merits/flaws of the playtest cards. all this within a sensible > design->release schedule set by the producing company. oh, and you > know, maybe going to work to earn money to pay for rent for the house > you live in in which you want to playtest the cards. > > it's not all wine and roses. > (second try, sorry if it doubleposts) I have helped with playtesting already, i know what it is, W

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Okay, lets take for example. Killy 9 10 Ravnos Group 4 CHI FOR AUS PRE +1 bleed Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<l3sga0dh4v60ft500...@4ax.com>... > On 16 May 2004 10:18:10 -0700, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) > scrawled: > > [snip] > > > >I think it is great for the playerbase, but it might become more > >difficult to playtest all the possible groupings, especially when > >future groups come to (un)life. But hey, then playtesters should take > >even more time testing everything. I offer myself to look at the cards > >thoroughly. > > looking, no matter how thorough, is no substitute for actually > _playing_ the cards. as a playtester, you need to play games. proper > games. no house rules, 4-5 players. and then play again. and again. > and againandagainandagain. and then, in case luck was ruling the > outcomes the previous times, play some more games. _Then_ comment on > the merits/flaws of the playtest cards. all this within a sensible > design->release schedule set by the producing company. oh, and you > know, maybe going to work to earn money to pay for rent for the house > you live in in which you want to playtest the cards. > > it's not all wine and roses. > (second try, sorry if it doubleposts) [ quoted text not captured ]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I really feel that an important consideration is the following: > If you require a new set of vampires (let's consider group 5's example) > to merge with group 2 and 4, the range of possibilities (or more > specifically) the deviation from group 3 will be limited. In other > words, I'd argue that there's only a certain amount of outward > trajectory from "group 3-ness" that one can safely execute. As a result, > we'll tend to see this scenario propagate throughout, where huge numbers > of cards are added (vampires for a new group), yet gameplay does not > appreciably change as a result. If you break the link with the cascade > of prior groups, small changes in one group can be developed/mitigated > in a drastically different way in future sets/groups. This actually implies agreement with Emmit's posts (in some sense), but the few differences you *could* have if you didn't have to eliminate odd problems among groups would be eliminated. And frankly, I can't see there being a problem in the game having several "flavors" based on which crypt choices you choose to follow. Ankur

LSJ, There has been a wealth of discussion here, and I am not sure if anything concrete has come from it, but I thought I would share what I think is a "new?" idea, at least to the post. It can also fix the current group 4 woes, although I do not think they necessarily need to be fixed. What if we allowed each crypt to contain 1* exception to the grouping rule, in a storyline like fashion. More specifically*, 75% of your crypt must come from up to 2 consecutive groups. 25% of your crypt can be from any other group you want. I have mentioned the idea to a few folks, they initially thought it was too convaluted, but we have all proven that we can build 75%/25% splits in the storyline. Possible additional convalution, make the rule only applicable if your crypt has an average capacity of 5 or more? I would appreciate all comments, including criticisms, David

LSJ wrote: >In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering >modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed >with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one >odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). >For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) >options of >1 and 2 >2 and 3 >3 and 4 >Anyone have any thoughts on that change? It's an interesting idea. It would be very strange to see these new group 4 vamps rubbing elbows with the old farts from '94. I imagine that the reprocussions of those relationships were not explored by the designer or the playtesters. For me, the fate of the group 4 vamps lies in the sets to come. If they are to get more group 4 (and eventually 5) friends in future sets, then I think we should be patient and let the future sets fill in the holes (keeping the current grouping rule). If lightning strikes, and Gehenna ends up being the last set ever printed for V:TES, then I would support this new odds and evens option. Jay Kristoff

"David Wilson" <Wil...@vtes.org> wrote in message news:0z5qc.208$j9....@news.itd.umich.edu... > LSJ, > > There has been a wealth of discussion here, and I am not sure if anything > concrete has come from it, but I thought I would share what I think is a > "new?" idea, at least to the post. It can also fix the current group 4 > woes, although I do not think they necessarily need to be fixed. > > What if we allowed each crypt to contain 1* exception to the grouping rule, > in a storyline like fashion. > > More specifically*, > > 75% of your crypt must come from up to 2 consecutive groups. > 25% of your crypt can be from any other group you want. This is broken by the Ventrue. Deck Name: I Break for Ventrue Created By: Description: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 11, Max: 19, Avg: 3.67) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Ranjan Rishi DOM for PRE 5, Ventrue:2 1 Melissa Barton cel dom for pre 5, Ventrue:1 1 Jazz Wentworth dom for PRE 5, Ventrue:1 1 Rufina Soledad for 2, Ventrue:1 1 Lana Butcher dom for 3, Ventrue:3 1 Diana Vick dom pre 3, Ventrue:3 1 Roland Loussarian for pre 3, Ventrue:1 1 Itzahk Levine cel pre 3, Ventrue:2 1 Gideon Fontaine PRE 3, Ventrue:1 1 Elena Gutierrez aus dom pre 4, Ventrue:3 1 Violette Prentiss dom PRE 4, Ventrue:1 1 Courtland Leighton dom for pre 4, Ventrue:1 Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (17 cards) 5 Blood Doll 4 Hostile Takeover 6 Presence 1 Ventrue Directorate Assembly 1 Ventrue Headquarters Action Modifier (24 cards) 4 Awe 10 Bewitching Oration 10 Voter Captivation Political Action (26 cards) 4 Consanguineous Boon 14 Kine Resources Contested 1 Peace Treaty 1 Praxis Seizure: Amsterdam 1 Praxis Seizure: Athens 1 Praxis Seizure: Atlanta 1 Praxis Seizure: Barcelona 1 Praxis Seizure: Berlin 1 Sabbat Threat 1 Ventrue Justicar Reaction (16 cards) 8 Deflection 8 Wake with Evening's Freshness Combat (7 cards) 7 Majesty This deck is amazingly fast. Overwhelms its prey by force of numbers and has been shown to be able to out action a intercept wall predator and a casual vote prey (using 2nds). It cycles very fast. Eliminating any one or two vampires doesn't slow it down at all. Discarding excess Masters is a nessasary evil, but you do get to choose the proper master to play each Master Phase. [ quoted text not captured ]

> C'mon, someone show some evidence for this claim that it'll be tricky > to balance cards with the proposed grouping rule. Give me an example > of a vampire that would A) be balanced with group 3, but not with > group 1 and B) not an obvious problem that designers and playtesters > would catch instantly. I can't say for group 1 + 3 since I don't own that many group 1 vampires and started to play with the grouping rule in mind (so I never tried to even LOOK at these possibilities), but with Gehenna spoilers around, I can safely say that group 2 and group 4 indies should NEVER be mixed under any circunstances. Not that Assamites and Setites would become that powerful (as they never were anyway). But the Ravnos got another 11 cap that is really worth of its cost (some kind of a superb minion for a wall ani/chi deck) and the Giovanni would get THREE +1 strength/for or FOR vampires (Silvia, Ignazio and Baldesar). Though all of them are big caps, you can throw in Vittorio and some weenies with pot and you're ready to go. I would make the Giovanni almost as good at pot/for combat as the Blood Brothers are. No way. My vote is: no changes at all. Leave it all as it is. The power level of the game is increasing in front of our eyes. If there's any chance of a powercreep vampire released because the playtesters overlooked some grouping combination, it's not worthy any new ruling for the groups. I also think that some are getting too harsh with the "group 4 indies screwed" issue. We can wait some months to use that shiny new 8 vampires (out of 50!) in any good crypt combination. Let the next expansion compensate for that somehow (with more indy vampires) and we're ready to go. But if I was forced to choose for a change, the 1 odd / 1 even group is the most acceptable of all. cheers Fabio Sooner NC for Brazil

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote: > If player concerns are an issue, information is the key to enlightenment. > Is there a plan in place to resolve the grouping population disparity > (especially for indies) within the next expansion or two? Oddly enough, there's a developer's chat scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm EDT. One of the topics listed for that chat is the next expansion. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2grtjdF...@uni-berlin.de>... > Okay, lets take for example. > > Killy 9 > 10 > Ravnos Group 4 > CHI FOR AUS PRE +1 bleed > Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns Sure, that would be broken with Group 1 because it's Masika under a different name, immune to Kiss of Ra, with CHI tacked on instead of CEL. (Hey, is the name a reference to the Kill-9 command?) Give them both sport bikes or Mr. W and Eagle's Sight + S:CE all day. Or for strange fun, Clan Impersonate to Malks and take double, triple, quadruple or more the bleeding actions (at +1 bleed!) normally possible with the Madness Network. Heck, Killy might be broken with Group 3. :) It would take some time to determine. I honestly think most playtesters would spot the trouble with Killy in a instant. And even if a playtester didn't know the superstars of Group 1 by heart, a routine ELDB crypt search should set his or her alarms off.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... > "XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2grtjdF...@uni-berlin.de>... > > Okay, lets take for example. > > > > Killy 9 > > 10 > > Ravnos Group 4 > > CHI FOR AUS PRE +1 bleed > > Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns > > Sure, that would be broken with Group 1 because it's Masika under a > different name, immune to Kiss of Ra, with CHI tacked on instead of > CEL. (Hey, is the name a reference to the Kill-9 command?) Give them > both sport bikes or Mr. W and Eagle's Sight + S:CE all day. Or for > strange fun, Clan Impersonate to Malks and take double, triple, > quadruple or more the bleeding actions (at +1 bleed!) normally > possible with the Madness Network. Correct > Heck, Killy might be broken with Group 3. :) It would take some time > to determine. What about this version? Killy 9 10 Ravnos Group 4 CHI FOR aus PRE +1 bleed Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com... > "XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2grtjdF...@uni-berlin.de>... > > Okay, lets take for example. > > > > Killy 9 > > 10 > > Ravnos Group 4 > > CHI FOR AUS PRE +1 bleed > > Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns > > Sure, that would be broken with Group 1 because it's Masika under a > different name, immune to Kiss of Ra, with CHI tacked on instead of > CEL. (Hey, is the name a reference to the Kill-9 command?) Actually it is a reference to Fanboy, who loves to play Ravnos. [ quoted text not captured ]

>There has been a wealth of discussion here, and I am not sure if anything >concrete has come from it, but I thought I would share what I think is a >"new?" idea, at least to the post. It can also fix the current group 4 >woes, although I do not think they necessarily need to be fixed. > >What if we allowed each crypt to contain 1* exception to the grouping rule, >in a storyline like fashion. > >More specifically*, > >75% of your crypt must come from up to 2 consecutive groups. >25% of your crypt can be from any other group you want. > >I have mentioned the idea to a few folks, they initially thought it was too >convaluted, but we have all proven that we can build 75%/25% splits in the >storyline. > >Possible additional convalution, make the rule only applicable if your crypt >has an average capacity of 5 or more? > > >I would appreciate all comments, including criticisms, YES! Finally the Betrayer deck (which was made obsolete since Camarilla) can return to the tournament scene! Let's see, with 116 Group 1 vampires, 381 Group 2 vampires, and 202 Group 3 vampires (rough counts using Monger, pre-Gehenna I think) the numbers work out just fine! ((381 + 202) > 116). Yay! Go Betrayer! =D Halcyan 2

andrea....@infinito.it (andrea) wrote in message news:<8b06c4c.04051...@posting.google.com>... > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > > options of > > 1 and 2 > > 2 and 3 > > 3 and 4 > > > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > > well...seems everyone has thoughts!!! > i did prepose something of the order even-odd in a private mail some > times ago > primarily concerned on the fear of progressive dismissal of old groups > (as someone well said in another post (John Flournoy maybe?) > [quote] > "However, it's a great improvement towards increasing the player base, > as > it creates more trading opportunities between newbies and old-timers. > And it also allows folks with a tighter budget to keep buying cards at > their own pace, without risking to be left behind as the group numbers > increase. Thus, momentarily cash-strapped customers are less likely to > choose to quit the game, as they know that later, shiny cool new > vampires will still be compatible with the old ones they already own." > [end quote]) > > But then discussion on playtesting is a convincing issue. > > I would like this corrected rule if the pace of new vampires stays as > is and the playtesters feel they could imagine and find the "worst > cases", otherwise leave the situation as-is > > Andrea It was Francois G. i quoted Sorry Andrea

Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>... > Not to beat a dead horse, but I really feel that an important > consideration is the following: > > > If you require a new set of vampires (let's consider group 5's example) > > to merge with group 2 and 4, the range of possibilities (or more > > specifically) the deviation from group 3 will be limited. In other > > words, I'd argue that there's only a certain amount of outward > > trajectory from "group 3-ness" that one can safely execute. As a result, > > we'll tend to see this scenario propagate throughout, where huge numbers > > of cards are added (vampires for a new group), yet gameplay does not > > appreciably change as a result. If you break the link with the cascade > > of prior groups, small changes in one group can be developed/mitigated > > in a drastically different way in future sets/groups.... [snip] > Ankur Sorry, Ankur, missed this point the first time around. It's worth consideration. Requiring new groups to balance with more than one existing group might tend to make new groups more white-bread. On the other hand, the current grouping rule inhibits the creation of small, highly unusual groups. If the designers came up with an interesting notion for a Group that would be impractical to flesh out completely, such as a Kindred of the East group or a Dark Ages group or an Inconnu group or vampiric sheep or whatever, I suppose that with the current grouping rule they would have to shitcan it. Released as Group 5, a small group like that would limit the value of Groups 4 and 6. Under the proposed rule, such freaky groups become practical. Changing the grouping rule could increase the diversity of vampire design, not decrease it.

andrea wrote: > It was Francois G. i quoted > Sorry It's ok, I'm not looking for fame. People would rush me. :) -- Francois EVERYONE IS TIRED OF THAT RICHARD GERE STORY Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 5F01

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gtuaa0tqt4o0qn2cp...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:43:10 -0400, David Cherryholmes > <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > > -Heaven and Hell should have been moved to prevent [2 group 3 + 2 > group 4] from happening. > > > >This assumes that playtesters have it withing their ability. > > No, it assumes that even adequate playtesting would enable this. > > Good playtesting and great playtesting require more. > > If you cannot effect the design, why bother wasting your time? Some of us have too much time on our hands and need to waste it somehow? :-) Josh appears to be using some kind of time-wasting technology right now

"FabioSooner" <labi...@oemar.org.br> wrote in message news:7a33da49.04051...@posting.google.com... > I can't say for group 1 + 3 since I don't own that many group 1 > vampires and started to play with the grouping rule in mind (so I > never tried to even LOOK at these possibilities), but with Gehenna > spoilers around, I can safely say that group 2 and group 4 indies > should NEVER be mixed under any circunstances. > Not that Assamites and Setites would become that powerful (as they > never were anyway). But the Ravnos got another 11 cap that is really > worth of its cost (some kind of a superb minion for a wall ani/chi > deck) and the Giovanni would get THREE +1 strength/for or FOR vampires > (Silvia, Ignazio and Baldesar). Though all of them are big caps, you > can throw in Vittorio and some weenies with pot and you're ready to > go. I would make the Giovanni almost as good at pot/for combat as the > Blood Brothers are. No way. I feel like people are really overestimating the usefulness of combining high-cap vampires here. Do you truly believe that being able to spend 22 pool on Hazimel + Ezmerelda would make the Ravnos significantly stronger than they are now? I don't think it's the 11-caps that have made the Ravnos a decent clan. Sure, you can always Minion Tap all your 11-caps until they "cost" something more like 3 pool each, but I think we all know there are risks to that approach too. > My vote is: no changes at all. Leave it all as it is. The power level > of the game is increasing in front of our eyes. If there's any chance > of a powercreep vampire released because the playtesters overlooked > some grouping combination, it's not worthy any new ruling for the > groups. I disagree somewhat with this too. "Any chance" is too strict a standard, in my mind. Some power creep should be acceptable in a CCG, I think. You want to be careful not to let the power creep get too fast, or too big all at once (then it wouldn't be "creep" any more), but if you're too cautious about never printing cards that are on the strong side, what you're going to print is cards that can't compete with the many many strong cards that are already out there in the players' hands. > I also think that some are getting too harsh with the "group 4 > indies screwed" issue. We can wait some months to use that shiny new 8 > vampires (out of 50!) in any good crypt combination. Let the next > expansion compensate for that somehow (with more indy vampires) and > we're ready to go. While I don't mind *too* much being patient, it is still true, I think, that people are buying (in random booster packs) vampires that they probably can't get much use out of for at least 9 months if not 18 or more. I can understand being a little annoyed by that. I don't think it was a good idea to print small amounts per clan of group 4 vampires now, myself. It becomes a less-bad idea if group 1 + group 4 becomes legal, I guess, but as others have said, that probably won't make a *huge* difference since there aren't any Independent vampires in group 1. > But if I was forced to choose for a change, the 1 odd / 1 even group > is the most acceptable of all. I also think 1 odd, 1 even would be an improvement to the current grouping rule. I don't think it would unreasonably burden playtesters. I think Josh Feuerstein's idea of "1 even and 1 group of your choice" (ie "even plus even" is also legal) is even better than that, and still not likely to be broken, and still playtestable. As I recently argued in the "group 4 Indies" spoiler thread, I think grouping is probably not necessary for the game at all. But if we take as given that we're keeping grouping, I think "even plus odd" or some variant of that would be better than "has to be adjacent groups". Josh student at the school of soft knocks

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<JFbpc.59128$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > To address an option (with variations) brought up in several posts on this > thread: > > Options which make a constructed deck that is legal one day become > illegal the next are not considered tenable options. Treating group > 4 vampires as groupless (which really means "any group") until > a certain number were printed falls into this category. Fine, erratta all Gehenna group 4s to be group 3. Seriouslly. Who cares if a group 2/3 clan would then have ~2 more vamps available than group 1/2. Barring specefic vampire examples, this isn't a problem. I do like Jeff's idea of making FN vampires group 3 though. They are significantly different from the DS/AH vampires and represent the beginings of the shift to 'canon' vamps within VTES. It also fixes the problem of what to play the group 4 indies with. Still leaves us with the bloodlines issue. I can't see a whole nother stable of BL vamps to replace them, so making the current BL vamps cross-group able makes the best sense to me. Anyways, the even/odd group idea just doesn't fly at all imo. Does not address specefic issues at all and merely opens another pandoras box. G

In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<0d3fa0t60u4untird...@4ax.com>... >> In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, >> emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: >> >C'mon, someone show some evidence for this claim that it'll be tricky >> >to balance cards with the proposed grouping rule. Give me an example >> >of a vampire that would A) be balanced with group 3, but not with >> >group 1 and B) not an obvious problem that designers and playtesters >> >would catch instantly. >> >> Your statement for (B) indicates that you've never been either... > >You're a betting man, Derek, right? Would you like to bet $500? We'll >have to wait a short time before we can resolve said bet. Yap, yap, yap: either you have or you haven't. If you have, you obviously weren't very good at it, because your statements indicate you have NO idea what thorough testing entails. >> You have no concept of the magnitude of the issues involved. Before you >> whine about "show me some evidence", you should try to understand the >> process a little better first. >> >Gosh, Derek, I guess you don't have any examples to offer the class, >do you? Thanks for introducing plenty of heat and no light into the >discussion. You are asking for something that you refuse to believe exists. I see no need to waste time creating something that you'll simply deny is actually a problem; it only detracts from the real issue. Yes, Emmitt, I'm saying that no matter what anyone comes up with, you'll claim it's not a problem. You are obviously 100% closed-minded on this subject; this is why I'm not catering to your zealotry. >I understand very well the magnitude of the task of balancing a ton of >new vamps with an existing set, as Group 3 was balanced with Group 2. And now double that magnitude if you need group 4 to be balanced with both group 3 and group 1. But don't increase the time between sets, or the time for each round of playtesting. And increase the complexity of the specials in question, and increase the number of library cards that must be tested not just with Group 4 now, but with Group 4-3 and Group 1-3. Oh, and add a new twist to the game every set, such as Gehenna cards, the Black Hand mechanic, the Anarch mechanic, the multiple Bloodlines rules, .... the list just goes on and on. And be sure to cover how those mechanics interact with all prior mechanics during your testing. And spend your time actually PLAYING the cards during the testing process, not just reading them and arbitrarily assigning "fine, not fine" to them. Yes, this suggestion more than doubles the amount of work playtesters will have to do, and makes it that much more likely that something won't be caught. I don't care for the idea, myself. I'm not too thrilled with the Group 4 Independent vamps, no, but at the same time I don't think we need to have a knee-jerk modification to the grouping rule just because they exist -- it will cause more problems than it solves. >That is why I believe that the processes of balancing Group 3 with >Group 2 and Group 4 with Group 3 will almost certainly result in Group >4 vamps being balanced with Group 1 vamps, with the possible exception But your words indicate that you haven't the slightest idea. Let's see; how many Group 3 vampires are identical to Group 1 vampires? How many Group 3 specials match up with Group 1 specials? How many Group 3 clan discipline spreads are similar to Group 1 clan discipline spreads? (hint: start by looking at the Brujah) >of some extremely obvious problems. If you think I'm wrong, let's see >some evidence. I just gave you three pieces. Quit yapping about your strawman and try to understand the big picture, OK? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

>>> If you require a new set of vampires (let's consider group 5's example) >>> to merge with group 2 and 4, the range of possibilities (or more >>> specifically) the deviation from group 3 will be limited. In other >>> words, I'd argue that there's only a certain amount of outward >>> trajectory from "group 3-ness" that one can safely execute. As a result, >>> we'll tend to see this scenario propagate throughout, where huge numbers >>> of cards are added (vampires for a new group), yet gameplay does not >>> appreciably change as a result. If you break the link with the cascade >>> of prior groups, small changes in one group can be developed/mitigated >>> in a drastically different way in future sets/groups.... [snip] >> Ankur > > Sorry, Ankur, missed this point the first time around. No problem. > It's worth consideration. Requiring new groups to balance with more > than one existing group might tend to make new groups more > white-bread. On the other hand, the current grouping rule inhibits the > creation of small, highly unusual groups. If the designers came up I'm not particularly talking about a series of extreme cases (you mentioned in an illustrative sense the Kindred of the East) so much as simple things like changing dominant out-of-clans for particular clans for various set instances. For example, Nos Group 1 vampires tend to have fortitude out of clan, and Nos Group 3 have auspex. This is primarily because group 2 was balanced such that it was possible for group 3 vampires to have auspex. If we allow group 4 to avoid making adjustments with respect to group 1, we could provide some interesting mix such that group 5 vampires emphasize yet another out-of-clan. However, if we force group 4 to mix with group 1, how different can it really be from group 2? It still has to retain its standard balance with group 3, but now, it also has to retain balance with group 1. . . just like group 2 does. So what's the (likely) result? Group 5 Nos vampires have fortitude out-of-clan. Goodie. So now we have to delve into axioms: (isn't this fun) Axiom 1 All prior groups are appropriately balanced. Axiom 2 Players want to see more on their vampires than just different names from set to set. If we assume that prior groups are correctly balanced for the game (and as a general rule, I think we can agree on this), any group 4 that is balanced with groups 1 and 3 must deal with a number of the considerations that were handled when developing group 2. As such, group 4 would tend to look very much like group 2, which according to Axiom 2 is an undesireable effect. That's the logic behind my suggestion or point above. Now, this does *not* handle/solve/address the issue of how bloodlines vampires will or will not mix with other groups. This issue is separate. But I think that on the basis of the above argument alone, I'd be against allowing the odd/even crypt mixing. What do you think? > it. Released as Group 5, a small group like that would limit the value > of Groups 4 and 6. Under the proposed rule, such freaky groups become > practical. Perhaps. I tend to see the groups in an evolutionary sense, whereas you seem to be looking at it as a "sliding window". Anyone can still pick up vampires from old groups and play them. I'd like to be able to say that the choice of a deck is best served by groups X and X+1, and then go build a deck based on that. Again, to use the example from before, if I want Nos with fortitude, I could beat my head against a wall for group 3 or I could be all chill and do it with group 1. (Well more chill than I am normally, of course.) > Changing the grouping rule could increase the diversity of vampire > design, not decrease it. My entire point is that it actually wouldn't. The new rule would limit the diversity of vampire design such that the seeming freedom you experience from this more liberal grouping scheme is actually no different from having chosen vampires from an adjacent group to begin with. Cool vampires are easy to make when the potential interactions between them and other vampires is limited. When you increase the number of interactions, avoiding abusive structures becomes more limited. It's entirely possible to build even/odd groups which will be balanced with prior odd/even groups. They'll just end up being exactly like (or really damned similar to) their predecessors. Ankur

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > If player concerns are an issue, information is the key to enlightenment. > > Is there a plan in place to resolve the grouping population disparity > > (especially for indies) within the next expansion or two? > > Oddly enough, there's a developer's chat scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm > EDT. One of the topics listed for that chat is the next expansion. :-) > Yeah, I hope to be there. My thought was that a more pro-active communication from WW (through you) would be more helpful. Balancing out the groups might take a bit longer than the next expansion, as I'm sure you realize more than anyone... 'Frex. I took a long look at the current groupings waaay back at the time of Cam Ed, and guessed then that Group 3 was going to be small for the indies (group 2 is sooo big, it was a logical conclusion). From there, its a simple (non-Kirkegaardian) leap to guess that group 4 indies would be smaller than group 2 (else you would get this disproportionate ebb and flow of Indies being released), and that by group 5, the indie numbers will stabilize such that G 4/5 indies would be similar to the (more proportionate) groupings of cam and sabbat clans, with roughly equivalent numbers per group. If this is the long term plan, then G3/4 for indies can be left 'as is' and we merely have a weak period for those four clans, out of necessity. The alternative is to over-populate G3 with indies, which could easily be worse than the problem which currently faces us. If this is the case, then I could live with it. I (and others) would like to know what the plan is, though. I think that letting people know what the long term plan is can go further towards quieting concerns (more so than the current discussion about changing the grouping rule does). It can also give a better framework for feedback on the suggested rules change, which has repurcussions that go beyond the scope of the current issue(s). As for other reasons to change grouping rules, IMO at this time they don't rise to the level of needing action. Thanks DaveZ Atom Weaver

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2gsddkF...@uni-berlin.de>... > What about this version? > > Killy 9 > 10 > Ravnos Group 4 > CHI FOR aus PRE +1 bleed > Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns Comparing Killy 9 to other Group 3 and 4 vampires, such as Lucas Halston and Helena, I'd say his power needs to be revised. Also, a 10 cap Ravnos without animalism is going to be a lame duck. Here’s a more reasonable design: Killy 9 10 Ravnos Group 4 ANI CHI FOR pre pro +1 bleed Killy 9 may burn 1 blood to untap during any other methuselah’s untap phase. Playtesting with the rest of Groups 3 and 4 is the next step. You see my point? No Group 4 vampire is going to be outrageous in conjunction with 1 because they have to balance with 3. The only exception might be obvious problems like another FOR PRO ani 5-cap.

David Zopf wrote: > The alternative is to over-populate G3 with indies, which > could easily be worse than the problem which currently faces us. I disagree. I don't think available vampires is as significant as titles, sect cards, and discipline spreads. More indies would not address any of those aspects. Less importantly, the indies have already suffered a long period of *extreme* weakness compared to Cam and Sabbat (I'm talking pre-Final Nights). Subjecting them to yet another protracted period, due simply to the short-sightedness of previous designers is unacceptable. Just let them have a few more vampires than the other groups. Maybe the Law Firm lovers will whine some, but people aren't going to leave the game in droves just because the Giovonni have a few more vampires than the !Malk, especially when they really don't have the ability to combine base and antitribu the way most clans can. __ David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2guh8lF...@uni-berlin.de... > David Zopf wrote: > > The alternative is to over-populate G3 with indies, which > > could easily be worse than the problem which currently faces us. > > I disagree. Bah. And what do you know? ***Ttthhpppffffttt!!*** :-P > I don't think available vampires is as significant as > titles, sect cards, and discipline spreads. More indies would not > address any of those aspects. Less importantly, the indies have already > suffered a long period of *extreme* weakness compared to Cam and Sabbat > (I'm talking pre-Final Nights). Subjecting them to yet another > protracted period, due simply to the short-sightedness of previous > designers is unacceptable. Just let them have a few more vampires than > the other groups. So G3 should get how many Indies per clan? 12 to 15? That would populate G2/3 at about 40-41 Indies per clan (vs. 24-25 for Cams or Sabbat), and is what you would need to make a balanced future indie population out of G3/4. I understand that you don't want them to get short-handed, but this option will make for a vastly preferred grouping (G2/3), which will be tough to explain to new players down the road... > Maybe the Law Firm lovers will whine some, but people > aren't going to leave the game in droves just because the Giovonni have > a few more vampires than the !Malk, especially when they really don't > have the ability to combine base and antitribu the way most clans can. > The clan exclusive angles are an issue with available vamps, I'll admit. They might stand a few more in each grouping than Cam/Sabbat do. Even if you disagree on supplying more G3 Indies, you can see the problem if we both implement the Odds and Evens grouping _and_ increase the population of G3, right? This is why I'm interested in the forward plan for populating the groups... Unless you know that, how can one reasonably assess this suggested change? Whats more, it should be recognized that if Odds and Evens is implemented, then G2 Indies become the semi-permanent even group of choice for those clans, due to its heavy population. Is that fair to new and future indie players? If you implement O&E, and intend to give future players equal access, that suggests that further even numbered groups should be populated with indies to roughly the same degree as G2. While I love Indies a bunch, I don't think thats a fair arrangement either(I don't want to see _that_ many indie vamps for G4 ). I take issue with the fact that it could perpetuate the unbalanced per-group population of the indies. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fljia0dj6be289in8...@4ax.com>... > Yes, Emmitt, I'm saying that no matter what anyone comes up with, you'll > claim it's not a problem. You are obviously 100% closed-minded on this > subject; this is why I'm not catering to your zealotry. Huh. Did you skim my usenet history and decide I'm an inflexible, irrational, say-anything-to-come-out-ahead-in-an-arguement kind of guy, or did you just, like, smell it on me. Well, if anyone can recognize close-mindedness and zealotry at a glance, I'm sure it's Derek Ray. Playtesting is a difficult and largely thankless job. No matter what is decided on the grouping issue, it's going to continue getting harder. New library cards increase the difficulty of playtesting geometrically; new vampires are nearly as difficult. Changing the grouping rule to odd/even will make playtesters' job more difficult, that's clear. But I don't believe it will make it significantly more difficult. After a vampire has gone through the exhaustive process of testing a it with all the others in its group, all the vampires in the group before it, and all existing library cards, that vampire's been pretty well vetted. The only additional effort with the proposed rule will be to keep an eye out for crazy synergy with vampires from older groups. After I snipped away all the bile Derek can't seem to keep from dribbling on his keyboard, he had these points to make about how Groups 1 and 3 have very different compositions. > ...how many Group 3 vampires are identical to Group 1 vampires? > > How many Group 3 specials match up with Group 1 specials? > > How many Group 3 clan discipline spreads are similar to Group 1 clan > discipline spreads? Derek's point is that because of these differences, rigorous playtesting under the proposed grouping rule would become too difficult. I disagree, simply because a) for novelty's sake, new groups are designed to be substantially different from old groups, so a two-group restriction will be enough to limit dial-a-crypt syndrome and b) the only balance issues that wouldn't be caught by testing new vamps against two groups would be incredibly obvious problems arising from being combined with distinctive, and therefore well-known, older vamps. I could be wrong. I'm willing to listen.

Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>... > I'm not particularly talking about a series of extreme cases (you > mentioned in an illustrative sense the Kindred of the East) so much as > simple things like changing dominant out-of-clans for particular clans for > various set instances. For example, Nos Group 1 vampires tend to have > fortitude out of clan, and Nos Group 3 have auspex. This is primarily > because group 2 was balanced such that it was possible for group 3 > vampires to have auspex. > > If we allow group 4 to avoid making adjustments with respect to group 1, > we could provide some interesting mix such that group 5 vampires emphasize > yet another out-of-clan. However, if we force group 4 to mix with group 1, > how different can it really be from group 2? Hmmm. Well, the group 4 Nos could have a lot of Quietus out-of-clan. Assuming they balanced with Group 3, they would be quite different from Group 2 and still mix with 1 in a balanced way. Ditto for many other disciplines. They could have a lot of Event-, Anarch-, or Black Hand-related powers, or powers that closely mimic the Obf, Pot, or Ani cards from those releases. Then, the group 5 Nos could have another discipline--Thanatotis, as an off-the-wall example, since they would mix with group 2--and powers that work with the most recent developments in the game. The resulting Groups would have very different flavors indeed. I'm not saying you're totally wrong; eventually it's going to be hard to come up with fresh new vampire concepts that balance with old vampires. But I think that will eventually be a problem no matter which grouping rule we use, and I think the best solution is for the design team to continue introducing new wrinkles (Events, etc.) into the game for new vampires to synergize with. Thanks for discussing these issues so politely, by the way. I tend to take other people's good manners for granted, but I probably shouldn't.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Thanks for discussing these issues so politely, by the way. I tend to > take other people's good manners for granted, but I probably > shouldn't. Ankur played with my group for... what? A year or two? And he never lost his cool once. He's got superior Polite and a +1 polite special! -- David Cherryholmes

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:OLpqc.2411$8z3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... > > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message > news:2guh8lF...@uni-berlin.de... > > I don't think available vampires is as significant as > > titles, sect cards, and discipline spreads. More indies would not > > address any of those aspects. Less importantly, the indies have already > > suffered a long period of *extreme* weakness compared to Cam and Sabbat > > (I'm talking pre-Final Nights). Subjecting them to yet another > > protracted period, due simply to the short-sightedness of previous > > designers is unacceptable. Just let them have a few more vampires than > > the other groups. > > So G3 should get how many Indies per clan? 12 to 15? That would populate > G2/3 at about 40-41 Indies per clan (vs. 24-25 for Cams or Sabbat), and is > what you would need to make a balanced future indie population out of G3/4. > I understand that you don't want them to get short-handed, but this option > will make for a vastly preferred grouping (G2/3), which will be tough to > explain to new players down the road... Projection time! :-) If the current "9 months between expansions" schedule lasts forever, and if, well, this assumption probably needs validation or discrediting at the hands of tonight's developer chat, but if there is never another "base set" (ie we see only "medium size" expansions from now on), here's what might happen in the future. I'll start with what's happened already, grouping-wise. (All numbers subject to my error in use of Monger...) Aug 2002: CE - 100 group 3 May 2003: AN - 52 group 3, 5 group 2 (all Advanced versions) Nov 2003: BH - 51 group 3, 6 group 2 (Advanced) May 2004: GE - 34 group 4, 12 group 3, 4 group 2 (Advanced) Projecting that forward, it looks like group 3 is probably finished with a little over 200 vamps. So in rough terms, here's what we might see: Feb 2005: 50 group 4 Nov 2005: 50 group 4 Aug 2006: 50 group 4 May 2007: 50 group 5 Feb 2008: 50 group 5 Nov 2008: 50 group 5 Aug 2009: 50 group 5 May 2010: 50 group 6 There could easily be a few Advanced or whatever scattered in there from earlier groups, too. It would be possible to start later groups earlier, splitting between groups 4 and 5 sooner than 2007, for example, but I don't know if they'd feel the need to actually do so. Do I have a point? Well, maybe. My initial impression is that in the long run, we are all dead. (thank you, Mr. Keynes. ;-) That is, if I have a point to make at all, it is that I'm not sure it's a good idea to plan for the next fifty years of VTES expansions when we're not sure it'll even be getting expansions for another 10. If a problem were going to develop with, say, an odd/even rule somewhere around group 7... well, it would take us until sometime after 2010 to see it. Perhaps we ought to burn that bridge when we get there...? :-) That is, I can see the point about group 2 having a shot at becoming the preferred group "in eternity" if group 3 got more Independent vampires (though I think this would have mattered more/been more likely if the Indies hadn't already started group 4 with Gehenna now). But even if that *doesn't* happen, group 2 is likely to be the preferred group for Indies at least until August 2006 (when group 4 might be big enough to give group 2 a run for its money). That's more than two years away. That's quite a while in which new players have to deal with this "group 2 is preferred" problem no matter what we do with the grouping rules. Josh damn the groups, full speed ahead!

Joshua Duffin wrote: > If the current "9 months between expansions" schedule lasts forever, and I would like to see this re-examined as well. The flurry of expansions has left my wallet scorched and big holes in what was once a pretty complete collection. I am *not* "whining" about the fact that my hobby costs money, nor would I like to see WW go out of business. But I am suggesting that my "jyhad budget" could easily be occupied with going back and filling out some of the stuff I missed as I chased expansion after expansion. Perhaps WW would be willing to forego an expansion and just release a few choice reprints instead? I believe the future of the game is more threatened by "expansions for expansions sake" than it is from dropping off the radar (even though Scott has done an overall bang up job). If they never printed another new card, this game would still be highly sellable and playable ten years from now, whereas the pursuit of the short term game could leave us with scrambled eggs in five. __ David Cherryholmes

<snipped prior discussion, look on Google if you care> > Hmmm. Well, the group 4 Nos could have a lot of Quietus out-of-clan. > Assuming they balanced with Group 3, they would be quite different > from Group 2 and still mix with 1 in a balanced way. Ditto for many > other disciplines. They could have a lot of Event-, Anarch-, or Black > Hand-related powers, or powers that closely mimic the Obf, Pot, or Ani > cards from those releases. Then, the group 5 Nos could have another > discipline--Thanatotis, as an off-the-wall example, since they would > mix with group 2--and powers that work with the most recent > developments in the game. The resulting Groups would have very > different flavors indeed. True. It is possible to make the sort of adjustments you're talking about when you're considering a particular clan in isolation. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite clear that until you include the same out-of-clan for some even and odd set, you may not have too many problems. . . . As far as out-of-clans for a single clan go. You also have to include for each of these clans the considerations with respect to other clans and their out-of-clan disciplines. (Which I'm sure you already had in the back of your mind.) But, even just considering the isolated point of a single clan's balancing, it's clear that over the course of infinity, we're reducing the amount of fidgeting room each time we release a new group of vampires, because we must exclude otherwise interesting vampires based on poor balancing with an old group. > I'm not saying you're totally wrong; eventually it's going to be hard > to come up with fresh new vampire concepts that balance with old > vampires. But I think that will eventually be a problem no matter > which grouping rule we use, and I think the best solution is for the > design team to continue introducing new wrinkles (Events, etc.) into > the game for new vampires to synergize with. My main question is why we should adopt a rule that exacerbates the difficulty that we'll experience in the future and necessitates rules to shake the game up and potentially rebalance it? I guess I just don't see the current status of the game as desperately needing a shift of this nature. . . . Did I miss your reasons for *why* you think a change needs to be proposed? (Mind also that the Indy grouping issue seems to be fairly key to the discussion, and I'm not sure that's really handled.) Eventually, I am worried that the "point-counterpoint" nature of V:TES will falter when, despite our best efforts, some unbalanced aspect is overlooked. To take a bad example off the top of my head, Qadir becoming a DoC and Concert Touring may not be broken, but it certainly does constitute a case where his potential trick wasn't really discovered until a few months ago. Now this is at least a couple of years after Bloodlines was released. Though the argument can be made that vampire balancing may be easier to perform (with respect to other vampires), I'm not sure just how easy it would be to consider every possible card combination with incoming vampires as well. Let's suppose it hadn't been discovered. In group 37, V:TES sees an Assamite clan with out-of-clan disciplines in Melpominee. Now all of a sudden, Quadir is amazingly useful to such a weird crypt, but it's really not obvious at all that Qadir could be your man. After all, his crypt card says nothing about DoC, nor does he have MEL/mel. A routine ELDB search probably won't find it. It's group 37, so no one remembers poor old Qadir, because he's a loser vampire in general. Bam. Someone finds it because they've been doped up and talked about Touring Trannies. In this case, it could be a problem. (I'm not really worried about analyzing whether the crypt would be broken or not. . . that's not really the point.) I feel that such scenarios are within the realm of reasonably possible, and I don't feel comfortable with instituting a rule which effectively makes them more probable. It's less likely to occur in a case where you can only use an adjacent group, since people will be far more aware of relevant vampires. Here's a quiz to prove this point of awareness: 1) What disciplines does Gillian Krader have? What clan is he? What's his special? 2) What about Rafaele Giovanni? 3) What about Qufur am-Heru? I don't know about you, but I failed horribly on 2 of 3 of these vampires and they all have very interesting and unique spreads of disciplines and interesting specials. It's entirely possible that some combo synergy will exist between these and other vampires in the future. And we may never catch it, because the older cards are no longer in our cache and the specials aren't searchable in a clean way. (Though they may be by the time group 37 comes out. Heh.) In sum, it seems far more elegant to accept that any consecutive grouping is allowed and others are not, where a particular window of groups provide a variety of options that are unavailable in other groups. Incidentally, this sort of concept revitalizes older groups, because a player would revisit older groups in order to manifest a deck based on a discipline spread that's not available anywhere else. This scheme may present issues in a legacy sense, but I consider it entirely feasible that if grouping were to continue in its current form, we might be able to justify a vampire-only expansion, which contains vampires from older sets or something like that. Advanced vampires are yet another mechanic to handle the legacy problem, for instance. > Thanks for discussing these issues so politely, by the way. I tend to > take other people's good manners for granted, but I probably > shouldn't. Hey, thanks. I figure a person can't really talk about an issue if they're frothing at the mouth. Rather than telling people they're stupid, one often learns from trying to figure out what another person means. Because it may be the case that you're the idiot and you just don't know it yet. I think you dodged the potential derailing of this topic quite well. Kudos. Ankur

>> Thanks for discussing these issues so politely, by the way. I tend to >> take other people's good manners for granted, but I probably >> shouldn't. > > Ankur played with my group for... what? A year or two? And he never lost > his cool once. He's got superior Polite and a +1 polite special! lol. I bet. People here have me with SER/DEM/PRE and a +1 BS tabletalk special. ;) Ankur

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Oddly enough, there's a developer's chat scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm > > EDT. One of the topics listed for that chat is the next expansion. :-) > > > Yeah, I hope to be there. My thought was that a more pro-active > communication from WW (through you) would be more helpful. How is the chat not proactive communication? Why would saying <X> here, reactively, be more proactive than saying <X> there? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Oddly enough, there's a developer's chat scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm > > > EDT. One of the topics listed for that chat is the next expansion. :-) > > > > > Yeah, I hope to be there. My thought was that a more pro-active > > communication from WW (through you) would be more helpful. > > How is the chat not proactive communication? > Why would saying <X> here, reactively, be more proactive than saying <X> there? > Access and opportunity. Not everyone can make the 6 pm chat schedule, and the timeframe for posting a chat script has been left unspecified Anyone could check Usenet at a time convenient to them. Pro-active was probably a poor choice of wording, though. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2gut49F...@uni-berlin.de... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > If the current "9 months between expansions" schedule lasts forever, and > > I would like to see this re-examined as well. The flurry of expansions > has left my wallet scorched and big holes in what was once a pretty > complete collection. You may have already considered this, but the most recent three have been more blizzardlike than the "normal standard" is supposed to be - after Anarchs, Black Hand and Gehenna came out after only six months each, not the "usual" nine. If they return to the nine-months schedule (hey, it works for babies ;-) I would think that might be reasonable enough. Although I don't know if you found the expansionary pace too rapid from Sabbat War through Anarchs? Hmm, looks like it was only 6 months from FN to BL, too. Interesting. Then 8 from BL to CE, then 9 from CE to AN. > I believe the future of the game is more threatened by "expansions for > expansions sake" than it is from dropping off the radar (even though > Scott has done an overall bang up job). If they never printed another > new card, this game would still be highly sellable and playable ten > years from now, whereas the pursuit of the short term game could leave > us with scrambled eggs in five. It's possible you're right. From what I've heard, from people in the business at least, though, the "casual player" (the people who perhaps aren't on the newsgroup or the White Wolf forums or whatever) and the retail stores only really think about VTES when there's a new expansion out. Keeping a fairly constant pace of expansions may be pretty key to being able to sell enough cards to sell cards at all, for White Wolf. Sure, the hardcore "been playing since 1994" people like the game with its existing cards enough that they would probably keep playing if the expansions stopped right now and never started again. But it seems that White Wolf doesn't have a business plan, that way - that selling more print runs of the existing expansions doesn't work well, gaming-industry-wise. And I don't know what the true numbers are, but it's possible that there are more people out there playing VTES who aren't the "1994 crowd" (and do want new cards) than those of us who are (and tend to argue for a slower expansion pace on the newsgroup, etc). Josh already planning to drive out to the game store and drop $150 on gehenna tonight

Joshua Duffin wrote: > out. Keeping a fairly constant pace of expansions may be pretty key to > being able to sell enough cards to sell cards at all, for White Wolf. It may be. I freely admit I don't know much about running any kind of business, much less this specific business. But that was my opinion and I thought I'd voice it (you know.... just to see how it felt). ;) __ David Cherryholmes have opinion, will travel

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2guh8lF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree 100% with you! :) It´s so nice when a post comes by that I wish I had written myself!

I'd just like to echo that David has made an excellent point here about the comparison between Independent crypt woes vs. the base/antitribu choices. With few exceptions (!Ventrue and !Gangrel), the antitribu effectively *double* the number of vampires a person can choose from when designing a crypt around disciplines. And heck, if it's well-balanced enough, one also has the opportunity to use clan cards from *two* clans. Neither of these benefits is available to clans without antitribu counterparts. So then why is it wrong/bad to print more vampires from these clans? Ankur Steals posts from masta' as a +1 stealth action

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > I'd just like to echo that David has made an excellent point here about > the comparison between Independent crypt woes vs. the base/antitribu > choices. With few exceptions (!Ventrue and !Gangrel), the antitribu > effectively *double* the number of vampires a person can choose from when > designing a crypt around disciplines. And heck, if it's well-balanced > enough, one also has the opportunity to use clan cards from *two* clans. > > Neither of these benefits is available to clans without antitribu > counterparts. Not true, unless you want/need three discipline overlap... > So then why is it wrong/bad to print more vampires from > these clans? > Because not all deck types need three discipline overlap? Because you get a whole bunch of additional overlap for non-clan (discipline) based decks? Because it could help out monodiscipline decks more than they need? You get three discipline overlap with a Clan/!Clan mix, sure. But very often, overlapping two is more than adequate. Many decks only need one discipline (mono discipline decks based off of Potence, Dominate, or Obfuscate?) As for two-disciline overlap (I know you all know this); Gio (Pot, Dom); overlap with Lasombra, Ravnos (ani, for); overlap with (a plethora of) Gangrel and Country !Gangrel FoS (obf, pre); overlap with Baali, and a wealth of other vamps across the capacity spectrum. Off the Monger utility: 54 out of 75 vamps with at least (obf pre) are non-Setites... Assamite (Obf Cel); overlap City !Gangrel. Off the Monger again; 65 of 83 vamps with at least (obf cel) are non-Assamites. Add more vamps to the indies, and you add more population to the above (and the mono-discipline decks)... its unavoidable. If the problem as you perceive it is access to the 'clan-exclusive' discipline, isn't there a way (a don't print a lot of vamps way) to resolve that without overpopulating the group? For example: I'd be all for a unique trifle which gives the specific clan-exclusive discipline at superior to a member of the corresponding clan; eg: Ophidian Humour Followers of Set Master: Unique Trifle Burn Icon Put this card on a Follower of Set. This vampire now has Superior Serpentis. Not playable on a vampire with Superior Serpentis. Paradoxical Predilection Ravnos Master: Unique Trifle Burn Icon Put this card on a Ravnos. This vampire now has Superior Chimerstry. Not playable on a vampire with Superior Chimerstry. Sovereign Silence Grave Disposition ...or whatever. My point is, alternate solutions exist for resolving the problems around the Indies, which don't require us to either change the grouping rule, or overpopulate Group 3. DaveZ Atom Weaver

> ...or whatever. My point is, alternate solutions exist for resolving the > problems around the Indies, which don't require us to either change the > grouping rule, or overpopulate Group 3. Fair enough. Point conceded. Ankur

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I would just like to express my wholehearted approval and support of this idea. I had been praying for something exactly like this to happen, and this post has made my day. Let me explain why. Having collected a vast amount of Jyhad/DS/AH when they first came out, myself (and much of my playgroup) bought very little Camarilla edition when it was released. This was mainly because we already had a plentiful supply of the library cards (also because of objections to new layout/groups, but that is another story). When Black Hand was released we bought a fair amount, as this expansion focused on Sabbat and the group 3 vampires were easily useable with our existing group 2 Sabbat. Now with the release of Gehenna and the appearance of group 4 vampires, the utility:cost ratio of the set has decreased to such a level that most of us had planned not to buy any at all. After all, most of the new vampires would be incompatible with our existing collection. Now, many may cry "well you should have bought Camarilla Edition!", and that may be fair enough from a purist "money is no object" perspective. However, in most peoples lives money _is_ an object and it was simply not worth it, considering the amount of reprinted library cards. Now, using LSJ's brilliant suggestion, the group number of your vampire collection need _never be an issue_ when deciding to pick up a few boosters of a new set! As long as you have a decent amount of vampires from any two odd/even group, you can buy _any_ new expansion that is released without fear of incompatability! I love this idea. Please implement it as soon as possible. With regard to other concerns: 1) Added playtesting complexity. This is a valid point but I believe it has been exaggerated beyond its real importance. Consider that the same argument can be made for the new library cards introduced with each new set (ie. They have to be tested in compliment with every library card released to date). I believe that the playtesters will be up to the challenge. Extending the playtesting period is an option if it is really essential. 2) Independent vampires. Yes independent vampires have a tough deal at the moment. However this situation would be easily remedied by adding more group 4 independent vampires in a future expansion. We need not hamstring the streamlining of the grouping process forever just because of that concern! As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about this issue. Please, implement this idea. Democritus and co. will love you forever.

Great idea LSJ, it actually welcomes anachronistic Group 1 players back into the fold of being able to buy a v:tes expansion that they can easily use, and that isn't full of more bloody reprints. Gilbert Duane has put in the hard yards for a very long time - I think it would be a shame for him to miss out on the End Times and beyond. Oh please, let him be in the end times. Muahahahaha. People talking about independents sucking are really distracting from how good this idea is. VOTE #1 for EVEN AND ODD!

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? Sorry, it became sort of longish. Feel free to skip. ;) The main difference seems to be a linear vs. a more exponential increase in the possible number of group combinations. The current system is pretty linear; with n groups it yields n-1 possible combinations. The proposed system gives superior numbers; if n=2k, it yields k*k, if n=2k+1, it yields k*(k+1). The difference is less significant with 4 groups (only 3 vs. 4), but with each new group it becomes more and more evident. At 7 groups this means 6 vs. 12 combinations. At 10 it means 9 vs. 25. Increased number of possible combinations seemingly increases the freedom of deck construction. However, with later groups it puts a drastically increased pressure on game developers and playtesters, inevitably leading to one form of adverse compensation: either the developers are more prudent to begin with (and make upcoming groups thinner/weaker), or the regular playtesting schedule proves to be ineffective in isolating the majority of the abusable combos. More possibilities increase the intensity of the game (something which VTES does not currently need IMHO). A lot of us grumpy old timers are pretty tolerant of a more static game. The increased number of options seems more like overkill, as even with the current rate of expansions (and the current grouping rule) it is very easy to fall behind schedule with deck construction. There is also the case of gradual evolution. If the new group is only combined with the previous group, even major changes can be introduced by small, gradual steps. Unique abilities and discipline spreads only need to be synchronised with the previous group to avoid dial-a-crypt-style abuse. So in general I disapprove of the proposed idea, even though I greatly appreciate the initiation of such an open conversation with the fans. I'm sure that the fans who have strong opinions one way or the other will be more tolerant towards the results simply because they feel that WW really tries to make this game be the best for all of us. (Of course, such tolerance is beyond me, but the other fans will undoubtedly compensate... ;) Sidenote: to avoid discouraging players who just want to grab a booster or two from whatever expansion they like and play away, it is possible to encourage moral rules. Like allowing noobies more freedom for their deck construction (because if all you have is 10 different boosters, you are far from min/maxing and crypt-dialing). Other Sidenote: It is possible to be somewhat more lenient with individual card groups. Like introducing some crypt cards that have multiple group identifications. Examples: - Group Omega [greek letter for caps Omega] can be mixed with any one group. - Group Even [symbol similar to percentile] can be mixed with any one odd group. - Group Alpha [greek letter for small-case Alpha] cannot be mixed with any group, and can only be used in itself (hinting at a 'group' predating the modern WoD?). Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > [snip] > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I love it. I'm going to marry it. As the owner of a considerable number of group 1 vamps, the idea of being able to use these guys with some of the latest stuff is awesome. The "cheese limit" imposed by the grouping rule remains effective, but at the same time vamps from older sets (*coughgroup1cough*) suddenly become relevant to the modern game. "Old school" players who were in effect stranded by the grouping rule can now buy the latest expansion and use the vamps with their existing collection. Good stuff all around. Modify away, please. Appolonius.

> 75% of your crypt must come from up to 2 consecutive groups. > 25% of your crypt can be from any other group you want. I'm all for options. My way of doing this would be: The crypt may come from any two consecurive groups. Alternatively, you may limit yourself to one group + freebies. If the crypt contains 75% vampires from a single group, the remaining 25% may come from any (i) three (ii) different groups. Bye, Daneel

David Zopf wrote: > Not true, unless you want/need three discipline overlap... Tripartite equivelancy is simply not the reality. There is one discipline among the three that is much more heavily weighted. If one wished to build an ANI-FOR deck or a POT-DOM deck or a CEL-OBF deck or an OBF-PRE deck, then your counter-argument would hold. Despite the fact that I'll conceded there is no agreed upon definition of what a "clan" deck is, I still think it is a completely mild statement to assert that decks built around the 4 independent clans almost always avail themselves of the unique, signature disciplines those clans possess (except Quietus, and if the designers ever decide to print something decent for it, perhaps even an Uncommon, it too would fall into line). Even if you dispute this, it is a *fact* that the majority of clans in this game have a corresponding antitribu or camarilla counterpart that exactly matches their discipline spread. This is an advantage. An advantage the Independent *clans* (not "Bloodlines", not "masochistic distractions".... "clans") lack. Do they receive anything in return for this weakness? No. If one ascribes to the theory of "Suitably Interesting Targets" -- as I do -- then it makes perfect sense: the Indies are *supposed* to suck. They suck by design. They provide the suitably interesting targets for the easy strategies that hook newbs and maintain the imbalance that keeps experienced players challenged. But if anyone is going to pay lip service to actual *game balance*, then this lack of crypt resources is just one more screw job on the pile that the indies have historically suffered. It would *not* break the game to throw them a bone, and let those of us who happen to like the independent clans have some vampires we can play with sans back flips *now*, as opposed to 2006. And yes, I did catch the mention of the new Indies to come in February of next year. I'll dust off my coasters when they arrive but, in the meantime, 2 extra group 3 vampires in the 2/3 indy split would be a far preferable solution. And as an advance response to any "done is done" replies: they were obviously willing to re-work the grouping rule in its entirety..... shifting 8 vampires is trivial in comparison. __ David Cherryholmes

In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fljia0dj6be289in8...@4ax.com>... >> Yes, Emmitt, I'm saying that no matter what anyone comes up with, you'll >> claim it's not a problem. You are obviously 100% closed-minded on this >> subject; this is why I'm not catering to your zealotry. > >Huh. Did you skim my usenet history and decide I'm an inflexible, >irrational, say-anything-to-come-out-ahead-in-an-arguement kind of >guy, or did you just, like, smell it on me. Well, if anyone can >recognize close-mindedness and zealotry at a glance, I'm sure it's >Derek Ray. Demanding a strawman that you can then shoot down and claim "Hah! I win!" is a typical effort. >Playtesting is a difficult and largely thankless job. No matter what >is decided on the grouping issue, it's going to continue getting >harder. New library cards increase the difficulty of playtesting >geometrically; new vampires are nearly as difficult. And you are proposing to double this task. >Changing the grouping rule to odd/even will make playtesters' job more >difficult, that's clear. But I don't believe it will make it Twice as difficult, at the moment. Exponentially more as new groups arrive. >significantly more difficult. After a vampire has gone through the >exhaustive process of testing a it with all the others in its group, >all the vampires in the group before it, and all existing library >cards, that vampire's been pretty well vetted. The only additional >effort with the proposed rule will be to keep an eye out for crazy >synergy with vampires from older groups. But you must go through the exhaustive process of testing it with all the others in group 1, as well as group 3 and group 4 now. It's relatively safe to start from the assumption that group 4 vampires are balanced with respect to each other; the designer himself is going to catch a lot of things and the testers will never see them. It's the 4-3 and 4-1 that you have to pay attention to. >After I snipped away all the bile Derek can't seem to keep from >dribbling on his keyboard, he had these points to make about how >Groups 1 and 3 have very different compositions. You snipped these points: "And now double that magnitude if you need group 4 to be balanced with both group 3 and group 1. But don't increase the time between sets, or the time for each round of playtesting. And increase the complexity of the specials in question, and increase the number of library cards that must be tested not just with Group 4 now, but with Group 4-3 and Group 1-3. Oh, and add a new twist to the game every set, such as Gehenna cards, the Black Hand mechanic, the Anarch mechanic, the multiple Bloodlines rules, .... the list just goes on and on. And be sure to cover how those mechanics interact with all prior mechanics during your testing. And spend your time actually PLAYING the cards during the testing process, not just reading them and arbitrarily assigning "fine, not fine" to them. " You seem to want to gloss over them and dismiss it as "oh, it's nothing, playtesting is hard and it will just get harder". Do you not see that increasing the effort required to playtest exponentially in this fashion will slowly lead to more and more groups just deciding not to test? Are you aware of the long-term effects of playtesting on a playgroup? >> ...how many Group 3 vampires are identical to Group 1 vampires? >> >> How many Group 3 specials match up with Group 1 specials? >> >> How many Group 3 clan discipline spreads are similar to Group 1 clan >> discipline spreads? > >Derek's point is that because of these differences, rigorous >playtesting under the proposed grouping rule would become too >difficult. I disagree, simply because a) for novelty's sake, new >groups are designed to be substantially different from old groups, so Which only increases the difficulty of playtesting, because those differences mean that different groups mixed together will yield different results. Thank you. Reason (a) supports my point nicely. >a two-group restriction will be enough to limit dial-a-crypt syndrome >and b) the only balance issues that wouldn't be caught by testing new >vamps against two groups would be incredibly obvious problems arising >from being combined with distinctive, and therefore well-known, older >vamps. > >I could be wrong. I'm willing to listen. That's up for debate; you keep snipping the detailed reasons why it'll become more difficult, and instead choose spend your time pissing and moaning because I called you a naughty boo-boo. Get used to it: I call everyone a naughty boo-boo. But at least you're no longer begging for a strawman to shoot down. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: >"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2gsddkF...@uni-berlin.de>... >> What about this version? >> >> Killy 9 >> 10 >> Ravnos Group 4 >> CHI FOR aus PRE +1 bleed >> Killy 9 may untap between Methuselah's turns > >Comparing Killy 9 to other Group 3 and 4 vampires, such as Lucas >Halston and Helena, I'd say his power needs to be revised. Also, a 10 >cap Ravnos without animalism is going to be a lame duck. Here’s >a more reasonable design: 1) You don't get to redesign vampires, as a tester. You have to work with what you have. 2) Why do you think it needs to be changed? What's wrong with him? 3) Ankla Hotep is a 9-cap Ravnos without Animalism, and we see him in play an awful lot. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > Even if you dispute this, it is a *fact* that the majority of clans in > this game have a corresponding antitribu or camarilla counterpart that > exactly matches their discipline spread. This is an advantage. Here's some disputing for the fire: Ventrue/!Ventrue have different "clan discipline" spreads. (pre/dom/for vs aus/dom/for) In much the same way, Assamite/City Gangrel do. (qui/cel/obf vs pro/cel/obf)

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:86Jqc.24198$gr.2072865@attbi_s52... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but "majority". :-) Josh think it's a coincidence that the !ventrue and !gangrel were widely believed to suck for so long...?

[ quoted text not captured ] Missed the "majority" bit, neh? --Colin McGuigan

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jelma0hvpi49llu82...@4ax.com... > In message <75bdf7ed.04051...@posting.google.com>, > emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: > >Playtesting is a difficult and largely thankless job. No matter what > >is decided on the grouping issue, it's going to continue getting > >harder. New library cards increase the difficulty of playtesting > >geometrically; new vampires are nearly as difficult. > > And you are proposing to double this task. I think you're exaggerating. The crypt cards account for less than half of the playtesting job in my experience. Much less than half, in fact. More than doubling the number of possible vampire combinations still wouldn't make VTES playtesting impossible. I actually agree that it would probably only make it slightly more difficult. > You seem to want to gloss over them and dismiss it as "oh, it's nothing, > playtesting is hard and it will just get harder". Do you not see that > increasing the effort required to playtest exponentially in this fashion > will slowly lead to more and more groups just deciding not to test? > > Are you aware of the long-term effects of playtesting on a playgroup? I think this could be alleviated somewhat by making playtest a more open process, though it seems that White Wolf isn't interested in doing that. But yes, I definitely know what you mean. I've seen players who used to be up for playing every week miss games for months on end. Josh no easy answers

Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > news:86Jqc.24198$gr.2072865@attbi_s52... >> David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >> > Even if you dispute this, it is a *fact* that the majority of clans > in >> > this game have a corresponding antitribu or camarilla counterpart > that >> > exactly matches their discipline spread. This is an advantage. >> >> Here's some disputing for the fire: >> >> Ventrue/!Ventrue have different "clan discipline" spreads. >> (pre/dom/for vs aus/dom/for) >> In much the same way, Assamite/City Gangrel do. >> (qui/cel/obf vs pro/cel/obf) > Yes, but "majority". :-) I am well aware he said "majority". I was pointing out that Assamites are "at least as cross-matched" as any other clan.

Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>... > My main question is why we should adopt a rule that exacerbates the > difficulty that we'll experience in the future and necessitates rules to > shake the game up and potentially rebalance it? I guess I just don't see > the current status of the game as desperately needing a shift of this > nature. . . . Did I miss your reasons for *why* you think a change needs > to be proposed? (Mind also that the Indy grouping issue seems to be fairly > key to the discussion, and I'm not sure that's really handled.) "A bird in the hand..." You're saying that the proposed grouping rule will cause some design difficulty at some point down the road. I'm saying that right here, right now, the new grouping rule will create new options for the Group 1 and Group 4 vamps. That's good for all of us that own Group 1, and that's good for Whitewolf since it gives us more reason to want Group 4 vamps. Also, it'll increase the utility of Group 5 and Group 2 by making them usable with each other. And it'll increase the utility of Group 1, 3, and 6 by... > Eventually, I am worried that the "point-counterpoint" nature of V:TES > will falter when, despite our best efforts, some unbalanced aspect is > overlooked. Yeah, I'm worried about that too. But I suspect the real danger lurks in the Library, not the crypt. After all, there's nothing in your Qadir example that couldn't be done by Arika using Clan Impersonation. She already shares FOR and PRE with the Daughters, and you can tap-and-tour with her for more than with Qadir. And crazy as it sounds, her votes, bleed and special might come in handy too. The trouble, if trouble there is, comes from Concert Tour, and the real danger is not future vamps with out-of-clan mel but future library cards that synergize with tap-and-tour in some unforseen way. Okay, I can't resist a quiz. > Here's a quiz to prove this point of awareness: > > 1) What disciplines does Gillian Krader have? What clan is he? What's his > special? She, dude. Pander, ani dem, can't call votes. > 2) What about Rafaele Giovanni? Nedal's big buddy. NEC cel obf, +1 bleed. He can bleed your predator. I think he's Giovanni. > 3) What about Qufur am-Heru?fd My man! Follower of Set, PRE OBF SER tha and he returns to your uncontrolled region if burned.

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:3sKqc.116249$Ik.9667142@attbi_s53... [ quoted text not captured ] I guess I still don't get it. You're pointing out that Assamites are as well cross-matched with City Gangrel as the Ventrue are with the !Ventrue? But the Ventrue and !Ventrue matching makes them *not* work very well together. Whereas Brujah/!Brujah matching makes them work great together. So I'm unclear, are you saying that the fact isn't a fact? Or that there is an example where one of the "strong-sect pairs" only matches itself as well as Assamite vs !Gangrel does? Actually, I guess if your point is that it's not necessarily a majority of the clans that have the "perfect pair" advantage, you may be right. If you disqualify !Gangrel and !Malk from perfectly matching their Camarilla counterparts (in addition to Ventrue/!Ventrue), the loss of those four makes it 8 matches to 12 non-matches. Though personally I would definitely match Malk and !Malk since g3 Malks do have Dem, making it at least 10 to 10, and would probably count Gangrel/!Gangrel as working OK, since there's a fair number of Ani/For/Pro !Gangrel, which would be 12 to 8. (assuming I didn't miss any "major" clans, anyway.) Josh often has trouble counting

> I love it. I'm going to marry it. > As the owner of a considerable number of group 1 vamps, the idea of > being able to use these guys with some of the latest stuff is awesome. > The "cheese limit" imposed by the grouping rule remains effective, but > at the same time vamps from older sets (*coughgroup1cough*) suddenly > become relevant to the modern game. "Old school" players who were in > effect stranded by the grouping rule can now buy the latest expansion > and use the vamps with their existing collection. A hearty agreement here <from a very old school player> :)

LSJ expounded: > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I think it's fine for 1 and 4 at the moment but I think it is a bad idea in principle assuming more groups will come eventually. I think all the reasons have been pretty well put already -it seems to me that the main advocates are people with a vested interest in more options for group 1 (not necessarily a bad thing but worth noting).

>Here's a quiz to prove this point of awareness: > >1) What disciplines does Gillian Krader have? What clan is he? What's his >special? > >2) What about Rafaele Giovanni? > >3) What about Qufur am-Heru? Trying to skim through this thread at this point, what I'm getting from this is that there's the potential for abuse when combining forgotten vampires from old groups with future, nonconsecutive groups. Except, I don't see your quiz supporting that. I actually see it supporting something else, that currently rarely seen or not superbly useful vampires may get a new unlife when mixed with different groups. Group 5 may have a lot of help for Ani/Dem; I don't see the problem with Gillian and that. Actually, in all likelihood, group 4 or 6 is probably going to be more useful for that discipline combination anyway.

>Hmm, looks like it was only 6 >months from FN to BL, too. Interesting. Then 8 from BL to CE, then 9 >from CE to AN. Note that for those of us who don't consider CE an expansion or all that interesting, it was quite the lean and agonizing time waiting between BL and AN.

I think it was Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com>, who once wrote: > Yeah, I'm worried about that too. But I suspect the real danger lurks > in the Library, not the crypt. After all, there's nothing in your > Qadir example that couldn't be done by Arika using Clan Impersonation. Hmm, good point. Most of the vampire abilities are either similar to a minion card, or are corner case/thematic. Since there is thankfully no grouping for minion cards, those effects will have to be considered during playtesting anyway, regardless of grouping. That only leaves 'dangerous' discipline combinations, which can probably be tested for using some sort of automated search on a database of vampires. I'm starting to like the suggestion for the new grouping rule more and more. Let's do it! :) Rogar

[ quoted text not captured ] Or, why weren't the !Assamites, the !Ravnos, and the Serpents of Light ever made given that antitribu already existed for other clans and that the base independent clans were never that powerful? Must never, e-ever let this complaint die even if it serves no purpose anymore unless, for some reason, we get them in the future and *then* they get filled back in in earlier groups. Theoretically possible if so unlikely. "Never forgive, never forget. Only tolerate and ignore."

> Note that for those of us who don't consider CE an expansion or all that > interesting, it was quite the lean and agonizing time waiting between BL and > AN. > CE introduced 115 new cards. Anyone who doesn't consider that "expanding" is just a crotchety old bastard.

> "A bird in the hand..." You're saying that the proposed grouping rule > will cause some design difficulty at some point down the road. I'm > saying that right here, right now, the new grouping rule will create > new options for the Group 1 and Group 4 vamps. That's good for all of > us that own Group 1, and that's good for Whitewolf since it gives us > more reason to want Group 4 vamps. I don't see that benefit outweighing the potential difficulty later. And again, the point isn't so much about difficulty as much as it is about allowing interesting vampires. I think it's perfectly possible to balance new groups with all prior even (odd) groups -- I just don't know that those groups would be "interesting". > Also, it'll increase the utility of Group 5 and Group 2 by making them > usable with each other. And it'll increase the utility of Group 1, 3, > and 6 by... Sure. No argument there. But how different will group 6 really be from groups 4 and 2, if you're creating a geometrically increasing dependance on a larger number of vampires? > Yeah, I'm worried about that too. But I suspect the real danger lurks > in the Library, not the crypt. After all, there's nothing in your > Qadir example that couldn't be done by Arika using Clan Impersonation. Sure. The primary balance point of vampires is their discipline spread, rather than based upon their specials -- for now. Qadir is a bad example, as his ability is something provided by a card also. But I'm not willing to say that certain specials and cards won't have some unintended wonky combo. I wish I could come up with a good example to explain my point here. > She already shares FOR and PRE with the Daughters, and you can > tap-and-tour with her for more than with Qadir. And crazy as it > sounds, her votes, bleed and special might come in handy too. The Well, she loses her votes if she becomes DoC, but you're not making a point of that. ;) > trouble, if trouble there is, comes from Concert Tour, and the real > danger is not future vamps with out-of-clan mel but future library > cards that synergize with tap-and-tour in some unforseen way. I don't think the issue is isolated to library cards, of course. Again, my point has less to do with the difficulty of balancing as much as the complications with effecting some "outward trajectory" from prior groups. > Okay, I can't resist a quiz. Woohoo! >> Here's a quiz to prove this point of awareness: >> >> 1) What disciplines does Gillian Krader have? What clan is he? What's his >> special? > > She, dude. Pander, ani dem, can't call votes. You're a better man than I. >> 2) What about Rafaele Giovanni? > > Nedal's big buddy. NEC cel obf, +1 bleed. He can bleed your predator. > I think he's Giovanni. This is the one that I got. >> 3) What about Qufur am-Heru?fd > > My man! Follower of Set, PRE OBF SER tha and he returns to your > uncontrolled region if burned. I missed the Celerity also when I did this. Ankur

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<stlma0hi7iiqn66j0...@4ax.com>... > 1) You don't get to redesign vampires, as a tester. You have to work > with what you have. I wasn't testing, I was designing. The first step to making a Killy is to design him to work with group 3 and the rest of group 4. Then he is playtested in that environment. Then the playtesters recommend changes. > 2) Why do you think it needs to be changed? What's wrong with him? His special was out of whack with group 3 and group 4 vampires like Lucas Halton and Helena. Both of those pay blood for similar effects. The special I wrote me seems balanced with those vampires--heck, it's nothing he couldn't do with a Homonculus on him--though it's stronger than Lucas' special in nearly all cases and stronger than Helena's in most cases, and therefore needs to cost more. > 3) Ankla Hotep is a 9-cap Ravnos without Animalism, and we see him in > play an awful lot. It's OK for Ankla to be an oddball. He's a Group 2 vampire, and there are tons of Group 2 Ravnos. Since there are far fewer Group 3/4 Ravnos, it makes sense when designing new ones to flesh out the standard Ravnos discipline spread.

> Trying to skim through this thread at this point, what I'm getting from > this is that there's the potential for abuse when combining forgotten > vampires from old groups with future, nonconsecutive groups. Not exactly the point. I think my original post in this thread summarizes the idea pretty well. It doesn't have to do with balance issues per se; more to do with the idea of "evolving" a crypt, and that that process might be difficult to balance with all other groups. Hm, so I guess it is about balancing after all. :) > Except, I don't see your quiz supporting that. I actually see it > supporting something else, that currently rarely seen or not superbly > useful vampires may get a new unlife when mixed with different groups. > Group 5 may have a lot of help for Ani/Dem; I don't see the problem with > Gillian and that. Actually, in all likelihood, group 4 or 6 is probably > going to be more useful for that discipline combination anyway. I would love it if Gillian were more useful. But I'm more worried that group 5 won't be able to print guys with certain spreads based upon the fact that group 2 has many vampires that would work with it, and another would break the camel's back. And as a result, such a vampire isn't printed at all, even if he might have something new and/or interesting to offer in a new instantiation of groups. Ankur

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:3Wuqc.53$717...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > If the problem as you perceive it is access to the 'clan-exclusive' > discipline, isn't there a way (a don't print a lot of vamps way) to resolve > that without overpopulating the group? For example: I'd be all for a unique > trifle which gives the specific clan-exclusive discipline at superior to a > member of the corresponding clan; > > eg: > Ophidian Humour > Followers of Set > Master: Unique Trifle > Burn Icon > Put this card on a Follower of Set. This vampire now has Superior > Serpentis. Not playable on a vampire with Superior Serpentis. [snip] > ...or whatever. My point is, alternate solutions exist for resolving the > problems around the Indies, which don't require us to either change the > grouping rule, or overpopulate Group 3. I like these card ideas *a lot*. Hey Scott, you should totally put this kind of thing in the next expansion. That would rock! :-) Josh would also not mind seeing "super-discipline" masters for every discipline (or at least every non-bloodlines discipline) that were unique and cost 1 pool to grant superior in one fell swoop

> Hmm, good point. Most of the vampire abilities are either similar to a > minion card, or are corner case/thematic. Since there is thankfully no > grouping for minion cards, those effects will have to be considered > during playtesting anyway, regardless of grouping. That only leaves > 'dangerous' discipline combinations, which can probably be tested for > using some sort of automated search on a database of vampires. Some vampires are very good for certain crypts, though. And I'm mainly arguing that the odd/even rule prevents you from introducing truly unique and interesting out-of-clans across the board (to take one example). Ankur

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jelma0hvpi49llu82...@4ax.com>... > Demanding a strawman that you can then shoot down and claim "Hah! I > win!" is a typical effort. Typical of me, or typical of other Usenet personalities you've dealt with in the past? I think you'll find I'm more interested in determining what is really best for the game, not in scoring cheap rhetorical points. > But you must go through the exhaustive process of testing it with all > the others in group 1, as well as group 3 and group 4 now. I disagree. After designing and testing a vampire exhaustively for group 3 and group 4, I think relatively little effort will be needed to test it against group 1. That's our disagreement; rather than shout "Will not!" "Will too!" at each other, I thought moving the discussion into the realm of concrete examples might be a good way to resolve it. > It's > relatively safe to start from the assumption that group 4 vampires are > balanced with respect to each other; the designer himself is going to > catch a lot of things and the testers will never see them. > You snipped these points: I'll address them individually, if you like, although they're not greatly removed from the core of our arguement. > "And now double that magnitude if you need group 4 to be balanced with > both group 3 and group 1. I disagree that the proposed grouping rule would double the magnitude of playtesting. Even if it doubled the difficulty of testing the crypt, which I dispute, much of the time of playtesting is devoted to library cards. And since library cards have to be tested with all groups, as well as all library cards, playtesting them should take a greater and greater percentage of playtesters' time as the game expands. >But don't increase the time between sets, or > the time for each round of playtesting. I'm off topic here, but I wanted to mention that it would be great if expansions being released at a slower rate (9 months to a year) would result in more time for playtesting. > And increase the complexity of the specials in question, and increase > the number of library cards that must be tested not just with Group 4 > now, but with Group 4-3 and Group 1-3. Group 1-3 would not be legal under the proposed grouping rule. You meant 1-4, I think? Since cards would have to be tested against 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 anyway, it doesn't seem like a great increase in difficulty to me...certainly not double, as you suggest. > Oh, and add a new twist to the game every set, such as Gehenna cards, > the Black Hand mechanic, the Anarch mechanic, the multiple Bloodlines > rules, .... the list just goes on and on. And be sure to cover how > those mechanics interact with all prior mechanics during your testing. Yes, please do, no matter what the grouping rule. > And spend your time actually PLAYING the cards during the testing > process, not just reading them and arbitrarily assigning "fine, not > fine" to them. " Yes, please do, no matter what the grouping rule. > You seem to want to gloss over them and dismiss it as "oh, it's nothing, > playtesting is hard and it will just get harder". Do you not see that > increasing the effort required to playtest exponentially in this fashion > will slowly lead to more and more groups just deciding not to test? I disagree that the effort will increase exponentially due to the proposed grouping rule, so I suppose I don't see that. Considering that most gamers I've known consider it an honor to be chosen to playtest, and love the feeling that they are somehow "in the know" before everyone else, I doubt the increase in difficulty due to the proposed grouping rule (which is small compared to the inevitable increase in difficulty due to any new cards at all) will ever result in Whitewolf lacking capable volunteers for playtesting. > Are you aware of the long-term effects of playtesting on a playgroup? Burnout, resulting in other playgroups taking up the slack? Inevitable, I fear. Or did you mean cancer? I heard it causes cancer. I think I saw that in the non-disclosure form for Changeling. :) > >Derek's point is that because of these differences, rigorous > >playtesting under the proposed grouping rule would become too > >difficult. I disagree, simply because a) for novelty's sake, new > >groups are designed to be substantially different from old groups, so > > Which only increases the difficulty of playtesting, because those > differences mean that different groups mixed together will yield > different results. Thank you. Reason (a) supports my point nicely. Yes, if you cut the sentence off before dial-a-crypt, the reason for the grouping rule existing, is mentioned. And reason (b) below is the antithesis of your arguement. > >a two-group restriction will be enough to limit dial-a-crypt syndrome > >and b) the only balance issues that wouldn't be caught by testing new > >vamps against two groups would be incredibly obvious problems arising > >from being combined with distinctive, and therefore well-known, older > >vamps. [snip] > Get used to it: I call > everyone a naughty boo-boo. Oh, I'm used to it--I think we're all used to the insulting tone it amuses you to take with your peers on this newsgroup. You might as well get used to me snipping the gratuitous cheap shots out of your posts when I respond. Heck, you might even notice that your arguements sound more convincing when the insulting bits are taken out.

> I don't see that benefit outweighing the potential difficulty later. And > again, the point isn't so much about difficulty as much as it is about > allowing interesting vampires. I think it's perfectly possible to balance > new groups with all prior even (odd) groups -- I just don't know that > those groups would be "interesting". > Even groups will continue to be interesting since they won't have to worry about mucking things up with bloodlines and whatnot. Odd groups will be vanilla by comparison.

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2h1odaF...@uni-berlin.de... > > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > news:3Wuqc.53$717...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > > > Ophidian Humour > I like these card ideas *a lot*. Hey Scott, you should totally put this > kind of thing in the next expansion. That would rock! :-) > Gee, thanks :-) I've always thought that Master:Discipline cards were of lesser value, and should get a bit of a boost... > > Josh > > would also not mind seeing "super-discipline" masters for every > discipline (or at least every non-bloodlines discipline) that were > unique and cost 1 pool to grant superior in one fell swoop > One pool, really? The MPA is the greater obstacle to their use, IMO. Me likes the trifle mechanic... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:lzPqc.2612$pQ2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:2h1odaF...@uni-berlin.de... > > > > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > > news:3Wuqc.53$717...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > Ophidian Humour > > > I like these card ideas *a lot*. Hey Scott, you should totally put this > > kind of thing in the next expansion. That would rock! :-) > > > Gee, thanks :-) I've always thought that Master:Discipline cards were of > lesser value, and should get a bit of a boost... I used to use them relatively frequently, but do so much less nowadays, it seems. I think it is in part because there are more "tier 1" generally-useful master cards that compete for the space... > > would also not mind seeing "super-discipline" masters for every > > discipline (or at least every non-bloodlines discipline) that were > > unique and cost 1 pool to grant superior in one fell swoop > > > One pool, really? The MPA is the greater obstacle to their use, IMO. Me > likes the trifle mechanic... Unique might do it. I also like the trifle mechanic, a lot, but since existing M:D cards are free and only grant one level of discipline, it seems that new "super-M:D" cards would need some kind of relatively serious restriction to grant superior of the discipline with a single card. Unique by itself might be enough (I'm talking in this section about "super-M:D cards" without a clan requirement), but compared to the "equipment superior discipline" cards, also costing a pool (and yet still being trifles, maybe?) might be reasonable. Josh though the discipline equipments do frequently also grant some other cool ability...

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2h1351F...@uni-berlin.de>... > David Zopf wrote: > > > Not true, unless you want/need three discipline overlap... > > Tripartite equivelancy is simply not the reality. There is one > discipline among the three that is much more heavily weighted. If one > wished to build an ANI-FOR deck or a POT-DOM deck or a CEL-OBF deck or > an OBF-PRE deck, then your counter-argument would hold. Despite the > fact that I'll conceded there is no agreed upon definition of what a > "clan" deck is, I still think it is a completely mild statement to > assert that decks built around the 4 independent clans almost always > avail themselves of the unique, signature disciplines those clans > possess (except Quietus, and if the designers ever decide to print > something decent for it, perhaps even an Uncommon, it too would fall > into line). > > Even if you dispute this, it is a *fact* that the majority of clans in > this game have a corresponding antitribu or camarilla counterpart that > exactly matches their discipline spread. This is an advantage. An > advantage the Independent *clans* (not "Bloodlines", not "masochistic > distractions".... "clans") lack. Do they receive anything in return for > this weakness? No. If one ascribes to the theory of "Suitably > Interesting Targets" -- as I do -- then it makes perfect sense: the > Indies are *supposed* to suck. They suck by design. They provide the > suitably interesting targets for the easy strategies that hook newbs and > maintain the imbalance that keeps experienced players challenged. But > if anyone is going to pay lip service to actual *game balance*, then > this lack of crypt resources is just one more screw job on the pile that > the indies have historically suffered. It would *not* break the game to > throw them a bone, and let those of us who happen to like the > independent clans have some vampires we can play with sans back flips > *now*, as opposed to 2006. > Throw them a bone. OK. You still haven't quantified exactly what you're asking for here. (Granted, I haven't asked, either.) Give me some number of vampires you feel is a fair one to offset their 'weakness' as you describe it. 5? 10? 20? Get me in the range of what you're asking for... > And yes, I did catch the mention of the new Indies to come in February > of next year. I'll dust off my coasters when they arrive but, in the > meantime, 2 extra group 3 vampires in the 2/3 indy split would be a far > preferable solution. And as an advance response to any "done is done" > replies: they were obviously willing to re-work the grouping rule in its > entirety..... shifting 8 vampires is trivial in comparison. > Sure. Would two per clan be enough to make you happy though? Given the effort you put into this thread, I get the impression that the real number is a fair bit higher. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b159fbdf...@news.eclipse.co.uk>... > I think it's fine for 1 and 4 at the moment but I think it is a bad idea > in principle assuming more groups will come eventually. I think all the > reasons have been pretty well put already -it seems to me that the main > advocates are people with a vested interest in more options for group 1 > (not necessarily a bad thing but worth noting). What, as opposed to the vested interest in Group 2 or 3 that people have been showing? As far as WW are concerned, Group 3 is now over, which puts it in the same boat as 2 and 3....why not let Group 1 players be treated on equal terms? If you're big into Group 2 you can group with 1 or 3. If you're big into Group 3 you can group with 2 or 4. If you're big into Group 1 you can only group with 2?? Time for an even footing, methinks...its the Group 1 players that kept this game going.

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<6Rsqc.126$jd5...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com... > > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > Oddly enough, there's a developer's chat scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm > > > > EDT. One of the topics listed for that chat is the next expansion. :-) > > > > > > > Yeah, I hope to be there. My thought was that a more pro-active > > > communication from WW (through you) would be more helpful. > > > > How is the chat not proactive communication? > > Why would saying <X> here, reactively, be more proactive than saying <X> > there? > > > Access and opportunity. Not everyone can make the 6 pm chat schedule, and > the timeframe for posting a chat script has been left unspecified Anyone > could check Usenet at a time convenient to them. Pro-active was probably a > poor choice of wording, though. > > DaveZ > Atom Weaver Yeah I agree totally. I'm in Australia, so 6pm for you guys is pretty useless for me for the most part being in the middle of the (next) day. This sort of thing is much more helpful.

>Or, why weren't the !Assamites, the !Ravnos, and the Serpents of Light ever >made given that antitribu already existed for other clans and that the base >independent clans were never that powerful? Why leave out the Giovanni, Ian? Aren't you the one who's always saying that just because Pander are crap in the RPG, this doesn't mean they should be treated as crap in the CCG? So just because Giovanni have no antitribu in the RPG doesn't mean they should be shut out in the cold too, right? =P Halcyan 2

>2) What about Rafaele Giovanni? Hey, Rafaele is a *great* vampire! Ask CHRISTIAN about the game where I bled him 3 times with Rafaele for a total of 11 pool - when he was my predator! =P Halcyan 2

atomweaver expounded: > > And yes, I did catch the mention of the new Indies to come in February > > of next year. I'll dust off my coasters when they arrive but, in the > > meantime, 2 extra group 3 vampires in the 2/3 indy split would be a far > > preferable solution. And as an advance response to any "done is done" > > replies: they were obviously willing to re-work the grouping rule in its > > entirety..... shifting 8 vampires is trivial in comparison. > > > Sure. Would two per clan be enough to make you happy though? Given > the effort you put into this thread, I get the impression that the > real number is a fair bit higher. Not sure about the other clans but I think 3 or 4 group 3 Ravnos would make a very nice addition. Isuspect that Hazimel was a large part of the reason why we didn't see this in Gehenna but then LSJ sayd group 3 is full so I doubt we will get them...

> LSJ expounded: > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). I like very much this option. But for now group 4 is very small and i like also the option of consider group 4 as "groupless" (as already exposed by LSJ in a previous post) Regards & deranges, RavATwoFaces

Yeah, I think the situation we have with independent players carrying on now is a bit akin to having been in a tizz over not being able to play Giovanni before Dark Sovereigns came out. Settle down, guys, this is an entirely separate proposal. I think the joining of Group 1 & 4 would be a good way to encourage older games who have been left in the cold to come back into the fold...they may well start getting into the Group 4 vampire, and from there onwards they're sucked into any future expansion. I think it should work, though I'm no marketing strategist. Even if you don't go `odds & evens', making 1&4 a linked couplet should be fine....its only one exception, and I think v:tes players are smart enough to deal with that. It ain't Yu-Gi-Oh. "Angelus" <roma...@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:3aaa7607.04051...@posting.google.com... > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > > options of > > 1 and 2 > > 2 and 3 > > 3 and 4 > > > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > > I would just like to express my wholehearted approval and support of > this idea. I had been praying for something exactly like this to > happen, and this post has made my day. > > Let me explain why. > > Having collected a vast amount of Jyhad/DS/AH when they first came > out, myself (and much of my playgroup) bought very little Camarilla > edition when it was released. This was mainly because we already had a > plentiful supply of the library cards (also because of objections to > new layout/groups, but that is another story). > > When Black Hand was released we bought a fair amount, as this > expansion focused on Sabbat and the group 3 vampires were easily > useable with our existing group 2 Sabbat. > > Now with the release of Gehenna and the appearance of group 4 > vampires, the utility:cost ratio of the set has decreased to such a > level that most of us had planned not to buy any at all. After all, > most of the new vampires would be incompatible with our existing > collection. > > Now, many may cry "well you should have bought Camarilla Edition!", > and that may be fair enough from a purist "money is no object" > perspective. However, in most peoples lives money _is_ an object and > it was simply not worth it, considering the amount of reprinted > library cards. > > Now, using LSJ's brilliant suggestion, the group number of your > vampire collection need _never be an issue_ when deciding to pick up a > few boosters of a new set! As long as you have a decent amount of > vampires from any two odd/even group, you can buy _any_ new expansion > that is released without fear of incompatability! > > I love this idea. Please implement it as soon as possible. > > With regard to other concerns: > 1) Added playtesting complexity. > This is a valid point but I believe it has been exaggerated beyond its > real importance. Consider that the same argument can be made for the > new library cards introduced with each new set (ie. They have to be > tested in compliment with every library card released to date). I > believe that the playtesters will be up to the challenge. Extending > the playtesting period is an option if it is really essential. > > 2) Independent vampires. > Yes independent vampires have a tough deal at the moment. However this > situation would be easily remedied by adding more group 4 independent > vampires in a future expansion. We need not hamstring the streamlining > of the grouping process forever just because of that concern! > > As you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about this issue. > > Please, implement this idea. Democritus and co. will love you forever.

atomweaver wrote: > Throw them a bone. OK. You still haven't quantified exactly what > you're asking for here. (Granted, I haven't asked, either.) Give me > some number of vampires you feel is a fair one to offset their > 'weakness' as you describe it. 5? 10? 20? Get me in the range of > what you're asking for... God, this is the death of an argument, I know, but.... it's not the number of vampires so much as the principle of the thing. I don't think +/- 2 vampires is going to affect play balance, per se. I just don't want to have the independent vampires this set offers be barely useful to me for a year or more, when there's no play balance reason to exclude them, and an argument to be made that such a shift would actual redress an imbalance. The very idea that these vampires get shafted into group 4 now because "there's more beans in this pile here than in that pile over there" is ridiculous when there are elephants like "Dominate Does Everything" and "Designed In The Age of Giants" lumbering around the room. > Sure. Would two per clan be enough to make you happy though? Given > the effort you put into this thread, I get the impression that the > real number is a fair bit higher. What makes you think it was any effort? The call it venting for a reason, you know.... you just open your mouth and out it comes. ;) __ David Cherryholmes

Tony W fan wrote: > Time for an even footing, methinks...its the Group 1 players that kept > this game going. Good point. I'm undecided on all the balance issues, but... good point. __ David Cherryholmes

Theophilus Thistler wrote: > Yeah, I think the situation we have with independent players carrying on now > is a bit akin to having been in a tizz over not being able to play Giovanni > before Dark Sovereigns came out. Settle down, guys, this is an entirely > separate proposal. As the self-appointed spokesperson for those "carrying on", I must say I do not get the analogy. Before Dark Sovereigns, there were no Giovanni at all, and unless you knew industry secrets there was no reason to think there ever would be. The analogy would hold if people were ranting about not having the African clans (or whatever they are), or maybe Kindred of the East. No one is doing that. I think it is you who is lumping together the issue with Group 4 Indies showing up now and the possible change to the grouping rule itself. I assure you the two are entirely seperate in my mind. __ David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2h3mgbF...@uni-berlin.de... > atomweaver wrote: > > > Throw them a bone. OK. You still haven't quantified exactly what > > you're asking for here. (Granted, I haven't asked, either.) Give me > > some number of vampires you feel is a fair one to offset their > > 'weakness' as you describe it. 5? 10? 20? Get me in the range of > > what you're asking for... > > God, this is the death of an argument, I know, but.... it's not the > number of vampires so much as the principle of the thing. I don't think > +/- 2 vampires is going to affect play balance, per se. I'd go as high as five, and I'm on the other side of this argument from you... Five more well designed G3's for each Indie clan (broad capacity spread) wouldn't tilt the cart. You could then take a look at what was changed in the meta game, and make additional adjustments from there. > I just don't > want to have the independent vampires this set offers be barely useful > to me for a year or more, when there's no play balance reason to exclude > them, and an argument to be made that such a shift would actual redress > an imbalance. The very idea that these vampires get shafted into group > 4 now because "there's more beans in this pile here than in that pile > over there" is ridiculous when there are elephants like "Dominate Does > Everything" and "Designed In The Age of Giants" lumbering around the room. > Your most compelling argument, and it budged me off the 'no new G3 indies' track just a little. Its the same one I would have used to try to keep Twisting the Knife from being reprinted, had I been given the opportunity. (You don't _need_ exactly equal numbers of cards for each discipline (or clan), especially if you're going to print crap like that...) > > Sure. Would two per clan be enough to make you happy though? Given > > the effort you put into this thread, I get the impression that the > > real number is a fair bit higher. > > What makes you think it was any effort? You didn't answer the question... :P > The call it venting for a > reason, you know.... you just open your mouth and out it comes. ;) > ...Is that how you type? Huh. I've been doing wrong all these years. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2h21n1F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, but consider the Indies, and their clan-specific disciplines; Even odds that you use it to boost someone from basic to the superior level, just based on how few of them lack their in-clan discipline... > Unique by itself might be enough (I'm talking in this section > about "super-M:D cards" without a clan requirement), but compared to the > "equipment superior discipline" cards, also costing a pool (and yet > still being trifles, maybe?) might be reasonable. > If it costs a pool, then you'd need to boost it with a minor special advantage, as well. How about costing it with a blood off of the target vampire? DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040520032112...@mb-m20.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I know you were joking, but I love the idea of introducing rogue Giovanni into the Sabbat or Cam in a future expansion, and a good back-plot reason for doing so. Then again, I'm all for anything which asserts VTES' position as the new "owner" of WoD 1.0... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Well crap, I didn't say it was a perfect metaphor. However, WW have announced that the next expansion after Gehenna will be based around independent clans, so really whats the problem? You have to wait a little while to make all-new independent decks? If thats the biggest problem involved, I would have thought its a non-issue. In the meantime, use them in other ways, or just sit on them. I know I did that with city !gangrel between Sabbat and Sabbat War and it was no big deal. At least you know the expansion is actually coming. As for the two issues being separate in your mind, well thats cool, but then why are these arguments about the revision not helping independents coming up in this thread? Obviously other people are of a different mind...maybe you shouldn't be the self-proclaimed spokesperson for them if you disagree with their perception of things? "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2h3n77F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tony W fan" <tro...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:2583550c.04051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] The chat transcript got posted. Sadly, my questions about the plan going forward with populating the new groups went unforwarded in the moderated discussion. So its still an unknown what the deal will be with G4+. We did get the 'if you've seen G4 for a clan, it means G2 and G3 are full for that clan' comment. Thats a bit helpful, but doesn't give quite enough to put this Odds and Evens thing to bed (one way or another)... Yah, well. Educated guesses will need to be used, then. I can do those... Honest I can ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

David Zopf wrote: > I'd go as high as five, and I'm on the other side of this argument from > you... Five more well designed G3's for each Indie clan (broad capacity > spread) wouldn't tilt the cart. You could then take a look at what was > changed in the meta game, and make additional adjustments from there. Nice to know. :) > You didn't answer the question... :P Yes, making these Indies group 3, and then making large numbers of group 4 at once, would be perfectly acceptable to me. __ David Cherryholmes

Theophilus Thistler wrote: > Well crap, I didn't say it was a perfect metaphor. However, WW have > announced that the next expansion after Gehenna will be based around > independent clans, so really whats the problem? You have to wait a little > while to make all-new independent decks? If thats the biggest problem > involved, I would have thought its a non-issue. Because I'm paying money for these cards now and I'd like to use them now, not later. > In the meantime, use them in other ways, or just sit on them. I know I did > that with city !gangrel between Sabbat and Sabbat War and it was no big > deal. At least you know the expansion is actually coming. I've never adhered to the "I sucked it up, so now *you* suck it up" line of reasoning (although, fwiw, I'm an old-timer). > As for the two issues being separate in your mind, well thats cool, but then > why are these arguments about the revision not helping independents coming > up in this thread? Obviously other people are of a different mind...maybe > you shouldn't be the self-proclaimed spokesperson for them if you disagree > with their perception of things? Speaking just for myself then, it's being discussed here because this thread became a natural place to campaign for getting this particularly poor piece of judgement fixed. It arose as a quick response to why changing the grouping rule was a bad idea, and then took on a life of its own as threads are wont to do. P.S. I've never really cared much about it, but I'm sure your top-posting is annoying someone. __ David Cherryholmes

Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>... > ...I think it's perfectly possible to balance > new groups with all prior even (odd) groups -- I just don't know that > those groups would be "interesting". > ...how different will group 6 really be from > groups 4 and 2, if you're creating a geometrically increasing dependance > on a larger number of vampires? Making 6 different from 2 in interesting ways should be possible, since 6 will be designed in a post-Anarch, post-Black Hand, post-Event environment. Presumably other major elements will pop up in future expansions, making it possible to differentiate it from 4 as well. Also, if 5 can match with 2 as well as 4, 6 doesn't have to be a meat-and-potatoes group that gives 5 everything that 2 gives to 1 and 3 gives to 2. It can be small and unusual, if the designers like. Hell, it could be a 13 vampire group of 13-cap vampires if the designers had some idea along those lines. It could be a caitiff whose weakness is he's a group unto himself--a great vamp, but you're stuck with narrow crypt choices. Many things become possible, because making group 6 weird doesn't cripple group 5 under the proposed grouping rule. > >> 3) What about Qufur am-Heru?fd > > > > My man! Follower of Set, PRE OBF SER tha and he returns to your > > uncontrolled region if burned. > > I missed the Celerity also when I did this. > > Ankur Qufur's so broken. :)

> > Yeah, I think the situation we have with independent players carrying on now > > is a bit akin to having been in a tizz over not being able to play Giovanni > > before Dark Sovereigns came out. Settle down, guys, this is an entirely > > separate proposal. > > As the self-appointed spokesperson for those "carrying on", I must say I > do not get the analogy. Before Dark Sovereigns, there were no Giovanni > at all, and unless you knew industry secrets there was no reason to > think there ever would be. > That is incorect. Information on the four Independent Clans was printed on the back page of the V:TES rulebook. We knew they were coming. Am I really the only one trying to build a 3/4 Independent Deck?

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > That is incorect. Information on the four Independent Clans was printed on > the back page of the V:TES rulebook. We knew they were coming. Am I really > the only one trying to build a 3/4 Independent Deck? VTES and Dark Sovereigns were released at the same time. I know because I was living in Seattle at the time, crashed the stockholder-only release party and got a box of each set a month before the distributors got them. Maybe there was some buzz in industry magazines that I didn't follow, though. Regardless, it was a bad analogy. __ David Cherryholmes

"Theophilus Thistler" <mof...@dogf.com> wrote in message news:<UZ1rc.49919$TT.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... > Well crap, I didn't say it was a perfect metaphor. However, WW have > announced that the next expansion after Gehenna will be based around > independent clans, so really whats the problem? The problem as I see it is that we still have an enormously large selection of Independent Group 2 vampires. If WW plans to continue the trend, we'll have an enormously large selection of Independent Group 4 vampires as well. This will just set us up for another tiny Indie Group 5 selection, much like the pathetically small TWO vampires in Group 3 the Indies have now. I think it would actually be nice to be able to play both Group 2/3 and Group 3/4 and actually have quite a few good options available to me like all the Sabbat and Camarilla clans have available to them. > You have to wait a little > while to make all-new independent decks? If thats the biggest problem > involved, I would have thought its a non-issue. "A little while" is relative, and even WHEN Group 4 has "finally arrived" for the Indies, we'll still have less options available to us for crypt selection because of the miniscule Group 3. Why make the Indies, the least powerful sect, deal with the fallout while the other clans don't have to deal with it at all? > In the meantime, use them in other ways, or just sit on them. I know I did > that with city !gangrel between Sabbat and Sabbat War and it was no big > deal. At least you know the expansion is actually coming. Big difference there. Then the game was dead. Now the game is alive, but odd decisions are still being made. The Group 2/3/4 issue could have, SHOULD HAVE, been dealt with in a much more elegant fashion. But, now we are stuck with the choices made. Since WW solicited our feedback, they're getting it. :) Jeff

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:0U1rc.394$jd5...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > Ophidian Humour > Yeah, but consider the Indies, and their clan-specific disciplines; Even > odds that you use it to boost someone from basic to the superior level, just > based on how few of them lack their in-clan discipline... Oh totally, for the Indies (and any clan-specific discipline, probably including Bloodlines and Protean, Obtenebration, Vicissitude, Thaumaturgy) having the "cool specialized discipline master" be free, Unique, clan-requiring, Trifle would be fine, I think. I'm just thinking that for cards like this that *don't* require a clan, being Unique might still make them quite a bit better than "normal" discipline masters. So if those were made, having some additional "cost" beyond Unique might make sense. I think the "1 blood from the target vamp" would probably be reasonable, yeah. Josh a fickle little twister

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:<2004051914...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>... > > Note that for those of us who don't consider CE an expansion or all that > > interesting, it was quite the lean and agonizing time waiting between BL and > > AN. > > CE introduced 115 new cards. Anyone who doesn't consider that "expanding" > is just a crotchety old bastard. 100 of those were new vampires. Sure that's fun, but I still think that I see more Group 1/2 Camarilla crypts than Group 2/3 by a three to one margin. Perhaps that has to due with the fact that lots of locals have Group 1, but the Group 1 vampires are just better than their Group 3 counterparts, mainly due to the Prince/Justicar titles. The 15 new library cards are for the most part not competitive, with Baltimore Purge being the lone exception. Abandoning the Flesh, Bounty, Brothers Grimm, Forgery, Gregory Winter, High Ground, Scrounging, Secret Passage, Special Report, Tension in the Ranks, Weighted Walking Stick, Zoning Board and two others I missed along the way. Only Gregory Winter, High Ground, Secret Passage and Weighted Walking Stick make occasional appearances locally. Tension in the Ranks does to a lesser degree. CE also reprinted well over 115 old cards. Is that "expanding" too?

Rava, > consider group 4 as "groupless" (as already exposed by LSJ in a This option is horrible. I know it sounds nice now, but imagine the decks you'll build and then one day find out that they're all illegal. Why waste your time? I believe LSJ said this idea was bad(groupless). David

>So just because Giovanni have no antitribu in the RPG doesn't mean they >should >be shut out in the cold too, right? The only independent clan with Dominate as an inclan discipline? The Gangrel, if you bother to include them in the discussion, have one other clan with Protean. The FoS, Ravnos, and Assamites have no other clans that share their signature disciplines. The Giovanni have 3. If WW wants to create !Giovanni, whatever, though I don't see it as being necessary. Final Nights could have been a very similar set to what it turned out to be while also finishing off the Sabbat and "doubling" the number of crypt options for not strong clans. Fourth clan to get a precon in the set could have been something like Pander or !Gangrel if it was really necessary to have a fourth. Still would have some members of the independents just as there were Sabbat and Camarilla vampires in the set. Then, later, could fill in the crypts for independents, even something along the lines of what Kuta wants - more group 3 independents. Massive hindsight in this scenario, but the obvious expansion after Sabbat was always "finish the Sabbat" both to, er, finish the Sabbat *and* to support the independents with vamps with similar discipline spreads.

Aaron Gunstone wrote: > I can quite understand that the grouping rule was judged necessary > when CE came out, as suddenly the Camarilla would have vastly more > crypt choice than the Sabbat - I presume this was the reason for it? No. It 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". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

David Zopf wrote: > ...In which case I'll vote for 'No change'. The proposal doesn't address > the problem at hand sufficiently to warrant change. Seconded, since I don't think I stated this explicitly in my original post. __ David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes expounded: > Tony W fan wrote: > > > Time for an even footing, methinks...its the Group 1 players that kept > > this game going. > > Good point. I'm undecided on all the balance issues, but... good point. My point was that wanting group 1 to be better because you have a lot does not give you a good view of the balance issues which is something people should bear in mind while reading your posts. That doesn't necessarily mean that Group 1 shouldn't benefit from more options.

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04051...@posting.google.com>... > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? I think the change would depend on whether WW plans on printing new group 4 vamps. If so, leave the grouping rule as is. Else, this change would be ok.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2h3mj2F...@uni-berlin.de... > Tony W fan wrote: > > > Time for an even footing, methinks...its the Group 1 players that kept > > this game going. > > Good point. I'm undecided on all the balance issues, but... good point. > Yeah. To throw out more crazy, ill-defined ideas; How's about if the grouping rule 'wrapped'?, i.e. the latest printed group was considered 'adjacent' to Group 1. I guess it'd suffer from the problem of obsoleting certain vampire combos at some point (each time a new Group is released), but I'm not so certain that'd be as great a problem as LSJ makes it out to be, particularly if the players knew ahead of time that it could be an issue. DaveZ Atom Weaver

LSJ schrieb: > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > options of > 1 and 2 > 2 and 3 > 3 and 4 > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? > As a long-term effect, this change would certainly facilitate returning to the game for players who - for whatever reason - stop playing the game for an extended period of time. Granted, this is mostly a theoretical consideration, but nonetheless, consider the possibility of someone who took up the game with Jyhad or VTES and stopped before Dark Sovereigns: With the current grouping rule, if that person - for whatever reason - decided to return to the game with any of the four (!) most recent sets, they couldn't combine old and new crypt cards at all. With the change, at least they could fiddle with group 1-4. As another theoretical consideration, take someone who quit after Sabbat (because the game was presumed dead, entirely possible), and one day, about the time of the first group 4/5 set, realizes the game is still around (granted, that'd be a bit slow on the takeup, but it could happen [in fact, I actually know someone that it might happen to]). They could get back into the game and have their crypt options doubled (1-4 & 2-5 in addition to 1-2 and 4-5). As a less theoretical consideration, take any players who own lots of old cards but didn't buy tons of CE because, well, money doesn't grow on trees and it didn't really of much in the way of new stuff except for the vampires. Are group 4 vampires much good to them now? I'm in favor of any change that might facilitate helping people back into the game (or just keeping them in the game), so I'm in favor of an odd/even grouping rule. Thomas Pichler

XZealot wrote: > Why don't we let Bloodlines be group 2 so that they can print a group 4 > bloodlines expansion? Now you're talkin' Norm. This is a great idea. chris -- chris shorb prince of torrance, where the 5th tradition rules.

Frederick Scott wrote: > Francois Gombault wrote: > > The way I understand things, this change is not needed from the game's > > perspective. Gameplay will only be slightly affected by this. > > > > However, it's a great improvement towards increasing the player base, as > > it creates more trading opportunities between newbies and old-timers. > > And it also allows folks with a tighter budget to keep buying cards at > > their own pace, without risking to be left behind as the group numbers > > increase. Thus, momentarily cash-strapped customers are less likely to > > choose to quit the game, as they know that later, shiny cool new > > vampires will still be compatible with the old ones they already own. > > > > Hope I made some sense this time. ;) > > You did. That's probably the one really good argument for the change. > If this is sort of a straw poll, I think this is a great idea too. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Why don't we let Bloodlines be group 2 so that they can print a group 4 >> bloodlines expansion? > >Now you're talkin' Norm. This is a great idea. I like it as well. And that's a worthwhile discussion, since Kindred Most Wanted may possibly include one or more Bloodlines vampires (Genina the Samedi and Angelo the Blood Brother are potential candidates). It might be useful to get a good discussion going so the Grouping of such KMW vampires (2? 3? 4?) doesn't screw things up! Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:JFbpc.59128$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > To address an option (with variations) brought up in several posts on this > thread: > > Options which make a constructed deck that is legal one day become > illegal the next are not considered tenable options. Treating group > 4 vampires as groupless (which really means "any group") until > a certain number were printed falls into this category. I would be in favor of the "odds and evens" grouping idea. I think the benefit to players over the course of time who would be able to jump back into purchasing cards even if they had missed several expansions would far outweigh any dial-a-crypt issues (at least, I think those issues would be eminently avoidable). I would also probably be in favor of an "any two" groups rule (ie no need for one to be odd and the other even), though I haven't examined the actual vampires that would be available with such a rule too closely yet. Josh doesn't think the group 4 princes *quite* make up for arika and company, at the moment

> LSJ wrote: > > In response to player's concerns about group 4, we're considering > > modifying the grouping rule to allow crypts to be constructed > > with vampires from any one even-numbered group and any one > > odd-numbered group (not necessarily just adjacent groups). > > > > For instance, 1 and 4 in addition to the current (as of Gehenna) > > options of > > 1 and 2 > > 2 and 3 > > 3 and 4 > > > > Anyone have any thoughts on that change? this question has been asked on a french forum. the majority is for that change (about 15 people replied). the list of pro and cons for that change : arguments for : -increase options for group 1 crypt construction, because it is stagnant -motivate oldbie players frustrated because of power escalation in disciplines since group 1, e.g. they'll be able to use group 1 vamps with group 4 vamps who will have a better spread of disciplines -it mitigates the bad effect of group 4 ("bad effect" meaning having a not much playable pool of group 4 vampires) -it helps with « end groups » (first and last) arguments against plus other concerns : -it would be better to have a crypt with 2 groups, but without any restriction (e.g. group 1+3) -would this option imply that a would-be group 5 would be « weak » to compensate ? if you're allowed to group 1-4 and 4-5, then the group 5 would have weaker vamps to maintain overall crypt balance ? -this solution doesn't adress the indies problem (no indies in group 1). If indies are printed in Kindred Most Wanted, this problem will be solved without having to resort to a group 1+4 fix. -a proper answer would need WW's policy on which group 4 vamps will be printed and on how many groups will be created (group 5, 6 ?) -adding a 1+4 fix could be harmful after an expansion release, since it's haven't been playtested -fixing a rule, just because a handful of players complain so early after group 4 is introduced, isn't right. we should wait for players to cool down, play the game get a clear picture on the overall balance before seeing if there is a problem. Stone

I think it was Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr>, who once wrote: > -fixing a rule, just because a handful of players complain so early after > group 4 is introduced, isn't right. we should wait for players to cool down, > play the game get a clear picture on the overall balance before seeing if > there is a problem. Except it would be better to change the grouping rule before the new group 4 becomes tournament-legal, so that we can pretend the grouping rule was like that all along. ;) Rogar