Was it time for Group 4 vampires?

Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. Questions: - Can anyone find a Gehenna vampire that would have been overbalanced if it was not Group 4? (please list them) - Are there any new disciplines for the clans? (ex: POT for Lasombra) - What new mechanics have you noticed? - Why was it a good idea to print group 4 vampires? (or why not?) - Could it have been done any better?? ****** Personally, I wish that they would have held off on printing so many group 4 vampires until later. My favorite part of a new expansion is usually the minions. Unfortunately, I am not very excited by most of the vampires in this expansion. A few group 4 vampires here and there that worked well with current groups would have been fine with me (ex: Count Germaine & Celeste Lamontagne). But there are several that are not easily used with current clans (especially independant & sabbat). I would have liked to see some "Anarch" vampires... why not?? A few more Black Hand vampires would have been nice. And several of the Group 4 vampires could have been Group 3 without causing any serious problems (IMHO). Does anyone agree with this?? At this point, I am just hoping that the next expansion prints lot of vampires that make more of the group 4 vampires in Gehenna more useful and interesting. Cheers, Howard PS I should also say that I really love a LOT of the new cards. This is a really cool expansion and I am looking forward to trying out some of the new stuff. Lots of great combat options, funky master cards, interesting rares, and those wacky Event cards. Wow! :o) And with all the new 3-way cards, the day of the Anarchs may have finally arrived...

HD wrote: > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. I think it was past time, in fact. (Given that group 4 was ultimately the way they were headed.) If anything, they should have started in Black Hand (not making _all_ the new vamps group 4, but some), instead of the excessive numbers of group 3 sabbat in particular that we have ended up with. Taken on vampire numbers, groups 1/2 and 2/3 were reasonably balanced before Black Hand, so it would have been as good a place as any to start group 4. Appolonius.

Appolonius <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote in message news:<40ab3613$3...@duster.adelaide.on.net>... > HD wrote: > > > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. > > I think it was past time, in fact. (Given that group 4 was ultimately > the way they were headed.) If anything, they should have started in > Black Hand (not making _all_ the new vamps group 4, but some), instead > of the excessive numbers of group 3 sabbat in particular that we have > ended up with. Counterbalancing the comparatively small number of group 2 Sabbat in particular that we had before. (See below.) > Taken on vampire numbers, groups 1/2 and 2/3 were reasonably balanced > before Black Hand, so it would have been as good a place as any to start > group 4. I beg to differ. Certainly the Camarilla and Independents were balanced prior to Black Hand, 'taken on vampire numbers' as you describe. Camarilla clans 2/3: 25 or 26 unique vamps. Camarilla 1/2: 24 uniques. Independents 2/3: 25 uniques. Yep, that's reasonably balanced. But what about the Sabbat? !Malk, !Tor, !Bru, !Nos, !Ven: 17 vampires. !Tre: 16 Vampires. Las: 16 unique vampires, w/ 2 Advanced versions. Tzi: 18 vamps. So the Sabbat clans (excepting the wacky counts for !Gangrel and Panders) had on average 7-9 less vampires than the other major clans. So how, exactly, was it 'reasonably balanced', taken on numbers of vampires, when all the Camarilla and Independent clans had roughly _half again_ as many vampires as the Sabbat clans? What's _not_ reasonable to you? Twice as many? So again, I'm totally disagreeing with your statement that there are an 'excessive' number of group 3 Sabbat, or that therefore group 4 vampires should have started appearing for those clans in Black Hand. > Appolonius. -John Flournoy

hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote in message news:<c0922a66.04051...@posting.google.com>... > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. > Nope. Considering how Gehenna is such a 'miscellaneous' expansion insomuch as no clan is getting more than 2 vampires, starting a new group was a hideous decision imo. G

HD wrote: > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. In an absolute sense, yes. There were enough vampires of groups 1, 2, and 3, generally speaking already. Adding more than are added in the set would throw the balance out the window. Group 4 was an inevitable result of the grouping rule, it makes sense, and is appropriate. This being said, and as much as I'll defend the decision to make Group 4 now, while opening my packs today, I was kinda bummed that most of the cool new vampires are Group 4, as I'll have to make entirely new crypts to use them, where group 3's I can just shuffle into many of my existing decks. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCD14123.16DD2%pd...@lightlink.com>... > HD wrote: > > > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. > > In an absolute sense, yes. There were enough vampires of groups 1, 2, and 3, > generally speaking already. Adding more than are added in the set would > throw the balance out the window. Group 4 was an inevitable result of the > grouping rule, it makes sense, and is appropriate. Sure. I agree with that. BUT... they could have focused on the vampires that were more readily available to use in current decks (ie. camarilla, gangrel, etc.). Some of the Group 4 vampires will be hard to use and I wish they would have shown up later on when they "fit" in more decks/crypts/ > This being said, and as much as I'll defend the decision to make Group 4 > now, while opening my packs today, I was kinda bummed that most of the cool > new vampires are Group 4, as I'll have to make entirely new crypts to use > them, where group 3's I can just shuffle into many of my existing decks. Right. That's what I was thinking. Sorry I rambled on above.. > But that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea. Again, I agree. It was fine with me that they printed Group 4 vampires. I just wish that they didn't spread them around so much (a few for each clan) and focused on particular clans instead (ex: camarilla). > > > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. > Ask what you can do for your rest home." > -Elvis Cheers, Howard PS I hope this all made sense. I'm pretty buzzed right now. I went to a bar and some guy grabbed the breasts of a girl I was talking to. I stepped back for a moment to see if he was her friend or something (I was a little shocked), but it turns out that he was just some random guy... a big body builder type that thought that was ok. I stepped in when he tired again, and told him to leave (in very rational and sensible way - a little forcefull.. but appropriate). Then when I though he was going to leave, I turned to the bar and got cold-cocked in the back of the head. Not hard enough to do much more than make me mad... I took him to the floor and quickly got the better of the situation. After I got a few shots off while I had him immobilized (I couldn't believe how bad of a fighter he was), some people seperated us... very wierd night. Not something that usually happens... AND the girl kept saying thank you, let me buy you a drink, next time we go out I'm buying, and so on... Overall, it worked out ok. Wow. I must be pretty smashed... why did I write that?? I just told the story to Oscar and Albert, but you guys don't need to hear about it. ANYWAY... I'm happy about the Gehenna set and I am looking forward to more group 4 vampires that make these ones more useful. (please forgive any mispellings or errors - kind of "effected" right now) ;o)

John Flournoy wrote: >> >>Taken on vampire numbers, groups 1/2 and 2/3 were reasonably balanced >>before Black Hand, so it would have been as good a place as any to start >>group 4. > > I beg to differ. > > Certainly the Camarilla and Independents were balanced prior to Black > Hand, 'taken on vampire numbers' as you describe. > > Camarilla clans 2/3: 25 or 26 unique vamps. > Camarilla 1/2: 24 uniques. > Independents 2/3: 25 uniques. > > Yep, that's reasonably balanced. But what about the Sabbat? > > !Malk, !Tor, !Bru, !Nos, !Ven: 17 vampires. > !Tre: 16 Vampires. > Las: 16 unique vampires, w/ 2 Advanced versions. > Tzi: 18 vamps. Prior to Black Hand: Sabbat clans 2/3: 17-20 vamps (except the !trem who get 16) Sabbat 1/2: 15-17 vamps (except the !trem who get 13) ie. Reasonably balanced (allowing for a few "bridging" group 3 sabbat). Then in Black Hand we got a crapload _more_ sabbat vamps pumped into group 3. WTF? > So how, exactly, was it 'reasonably balanced', taken on numbers of > vampires 489 vamps in group 1/2, 527 in group 2/3. Not perfect, but could be worse (and indeed after Black Hand, it was). > when all the Camarilla and Independent clans had roughly > _half again_ as many vampires as the Sabbat clans? What's _not_ > reasonable to you? Twice as many? I don't care about the numbers of clan X vs clan Y within a single grouping pair (for the purposes of this discussion anyway). I'm talking about the balance of vampire numbers between different grouping pairs. > So again, I'm totally disagreeing with your statement that there are > an 'excessive' number of group 3 Sabbat, or that therefore group 4 > vampires should have started appearing for those clans in Black Hand. Well, did there really have to be _any_ group 3 sabbat? Group 3 was designed as predominantly a Camarilla group, and made incompatible with group 1 (exclusively Camarilla) to avoid the well documented crypt saturation problem. There was no reason to deny additional sabbat vamps to group 1 as well. OK, I'm prepared to wear a few group 3 sabbat to "spice things up" / "bridge" whatever, until the next major sabbat release presumably comes in group 4. Instead we got 72 of them. The 5-6 per clan we got in Black Hand would have been sufficient to start group 4 IMHO, given the 2-3 "bridging" group 3 vamps per clan in Camarilla and Anarchs. Appolonius.

hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote in message news:<c0922a66.04051...@posting.google.com>... > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. > > Questions: > > - Can anyone find a Gehenna vampire that would have been overbalanced > if it was not Group 4? (please list them) > > - Are there any new disciplines for the clans? (ex: POT for Lasombra) > > - What new mechanics have you noticed? > > - Why was it a good idea to print group 4 vampires? (or why not?) > > - Could it have been done any better?? > > ****** Hi! I haven愒 played with the new cards yet to say anything about the expansion as a whole, but the events seem like a very nice idea. Only time will show their importance in the tournament scene, but in casual play the idea is being very well received here. most people haven愒 even seen them yet and are already thinking up new game strategies and decks for them. Much more than with previous expansions. While Black hand and CE catered mostly to fans of their respective sects, Gehenna draws attention from everyone. I like it how Gehenna expands on previous new mechanics such as the cool anarch 3-ways and the archetypes. More Black Hand vampires was cool too! If they keep releasing 2-3 new Black Hand vamps each expansion enough new options for them should pop up without having to necessarily create new Black Hand cards each expansion. Since apparently only advanced vampires will be inherently anarch, every new card they get is welcome! Now, Group 4..... So apparently it was time for them. I惴 not getting into that discussion. But could they have done better? Yes. They could have released two new group 1 vampires for each independent clan. OR they could have made advanced vampires for them. Any of these solutions would have guaranteed that we could play them in our decks as well as use them in any decks we build with Gehenna vamps. The group 4 Sabbat don愒 cause such a big problem since there are more group 3 Sabbat, meaning we can build crypts with them. If they absolutely HAD to create two new group 4 independents, they could ate least have made one or two other group 4 vampires share each of their clan-specific disciplines. None of them have either Chimerstry or Serpentis. Daniel.

> Prior to Black Hand: > Sabbat clans 2/3: 17-20 vamps (except the !trem who get 16) > Sabbat 1/2: 15-17 vamps (except the !trem who get 13) Uh, your 2/3 counting is in error here, I believe. Perhaps mine is instead. What Sabbat clan had 20 unique vampires _prior_ to Black Hand? Or even 19? Note that Advanced vampires do not get counted towards balancing 'numbers of vamps per clan, and the !Gangrel are deliberately high due to their split nature. Beyond the !Gangrel, did _any_ Sabbat clan have more than 18? Any but the Tzimisce have more than 17? Again, the source I used may have been in error. Largely irrelevant to the below discussion, though. > 489 vamps in group 1/2, 527 in group 2/3. Not perfect, but could be > worse (and indeed after Black Hand, it was). > > I don't care about the numbers of clan X vs clan Y within a single > grouping pair (for the purposes of this discussion anyway). I'm talking > about the balance of vampire numbers between different grouping pairs. > > Well, did there really have to be _any_ group 3 sabbat? Group 3 was > designed as predominantly a Camarilla group, and made incompatible with > group 1 (exclusively Camarilla) to avoid the well documented crypt > saturation problem. There was no reason to deny additional sabbat vamps > to group 1 as well. OK, I'm prepared to wear a few group 3 sabbat to > "spice things up" / "bridge" whatever, until the next major sabbat > release presumably comes in group 4. So your problem is _not_ that a whole bunch more Sabbat vampires got created (coincidentally during group 3) so much as the fact that they were not printed as group 2? That's a much more reasonable point, sure. Although the _only_ strategy harmed by this is one that is trying to make a hybrid group 1(and maybe 2) Camarilla/Group 2 Sabbat crypt. (Since as you note the group 3 Sabbat are denied to Group 1, which are only Camarilla vamps.) I don't think that having 5 or 6 vampires per Sabbat Clan be group 2 instead of 3 makes _that_ big a difference, but sure, it's a difference. > Appolonius. -John Flournoy

Appolonius wrote: > Prior to Black Hand: > Sabbat clans 2/3: 17-20 vamps (except the !trem who get 16) > Sabbat 1/2: 15-17 vamps (except the !trem who get 13) > > ie. Reasonably balanced (allowing for a few "bridging" group 3 sabbat). ? Sabbat has no group 1. Sabbat starts at group 2. The first grouping pair for Sabbat is 2/3. May as well compare group 0/1 Cams to group 1/2 Cams. -- 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/

John Flournoy wrote: >>Prior to Black Hand: >>Sabbat clans 2/3: 17-20 vamps (except the !trem who get 16) >>Sabbat 1/2: 15-17 vamps (except the !trem who get 13) > > Uh, your 2/3 counting is in error here, I believe. Perhaps mine is instead. > What Sabbat clan had 20 unique vampires _prior_ to Black Hand? Or even 19? > Note that Advanced vampires do not get counted towards balancing 'numbers of > vamps per clan, and the !Gangrel are deliberately high due to their split > nature. Beyond the !Gangrel, did _any_ Sabbat clan have more than 18? Any > but the Tzimisce have more than 17? Well, no and no. Most clans had 17, the tzimisce had 18, and the 20 was the !gangrel of course. Hence "17-20" was technically correct :P > So your problem is _not_ that a whole bunch more Sabbat vampires got created > (coincidentally during group 3) so much as the fact that they were not > printed as group 2? That's a much more reasonable point, sure. To quote LSJ: "Correct." Appolonius.

LSJ wrote: > Appolonius wrote: > >> Prior to Black Hand: >> Sabbat clans 2/3: 17-20 vamps (except the !trem who get 16) >> Sabbat 1/2: 15-17 vamps (except the !trem who get 13) > > ? > Sabbat has no group 1. > Sabbat starts at group 2. > > The first grouping pair for Sabbat is 2/3. > > May as well compare group 0/1 Cams to group 1/2 Cams. Except that I might want to do something unorthodox and zany like combine a group 1 camarilla clan and their antitribu... IN THE SAME CRYPT! Muhahahahaha! Hence the number of sabbat vamps available to a group 1/2 crypt is a relevant statistic, and in a balanced world should be similar to the number available to a group 2/3 crypt. Appolonius.

HD wrote: > Now that we have seen the set, I'm curious whether or not you guys > think it was appropriate to print the Group 4 vampires. > > Questions: > > - Can anyone find a Gehenna vampire that would have been overbalanced > if it was not Group 4? (please list them) Well, I was positively drooling over Baldesar Rosselini and how he'd be great in a Ignazio Giovanni deck. Then I realized that'd mean I would have to ditch all the group 2 Gios (Pochtli, the pot weenies etc)... But maybe that's for the best. Baldesar as group 2 or 3 would have been _too_ good. :) Cheers, -- Fredrik