On groups and Imbued

Why groups working in tandem with vampires at all? What's the rationale behind grouping Imbued so that they may not be played together with any vampire? Grouping, if I have understood it correctly, was implemented to avoid the dial-a-crypt problem, which I think is a good thing. From the preview the Imbued would seem to work along mechanisms different from vampires so a group 4 imbued should pose exactly the same problem with vampires from groups 3 - 5 as with vampires from groups 1 - 2. Disabling a group 1 Imbued from being in the same crypt as a group 4 Imbued is perfectly understandable, but preventing a group 4 Imbued from being in a crypt together with a group 1 vampire has no rationale. Unless, of course, "it's easier avoiding confusion this way" is the rationale. I personally don't see "making it easier" as a valid rationale here -- especially as NoR introduces even more stuff to remember to begin with :) Why not keep groups within scope of type of crypt- minions? Ie, Vampires, Imbued, future Mages, Garous, Mummies and whatnot don't carry over their group- designations in a mixed crypt. Sten During *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Sten During wrote: > Why not keep groups within scope of type of crypt- > minions? Ie, Vampires, Imbued, future Mages, Garous, > Mummies and whatnot don't carry over their group- > designations in a mixed crypt. > Sten During Probably this (to lift grouping for the Imbued) has not been done because it could be counter-intuitive for new players. Myself, I think there's no reason *not* to put the Imbued into groupings. What if the Design Team decides to release more Imbued in the future? Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Nothing I wrote implied I didn't want groups for Imbued. I wrote that group-designation for Imbued could work only within the scope of Imbued. So, group 1 Imbued don't go together with group 4 Imbued makes perfect sense to me. Group 1 vampire illegal with group 4 Imbued doesn't make sense. As soon as the only available answer to a valid question is: "Cause it says so in the rules." things get hairy -- especially when said rule explicitly is backed by the explanantion that being able to disregard the rule in question unbalances the game. In this case that it's bad for the game if I can put twelve different vampires at capacity three with superior [insert discipline] in the same crypt. This argument immediately becomes invalid when you can't create an (obviously) unbalanced crypt by mixing Imbued from one group with vampires from an (illegal) group. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Nothing I wrote implied I didn't want groups for Imbued. I wrote > that group-designation for Imbued could work only within the > scope of Imbued. So, group 1 Imbued don't go together with group > 4 Imbued makes perfect sense to me. Group 1 vampire illegal with > group 4 Imbued doesn't make sense. > > As soon as the only available answer to a valid question is: "Cause > it says so in the rules." things get hairy -- especially when said > rule explicitly is backed by the explanantion that being able to > disregard the rule in question unbalances the game. In this case > that it's bad for the game if I can put twelve different vampires > at capacity three with superior [insert discipline] in the same > crypt. This argument immediately becomes invalid when you can't > create an (obviously) unbalanced crypt by mixing Imbued from one > group with vampires from an (illegal) group. Why don't Bloodlines have bloodlines-scoped groups? Why don't Abominations have Abomination-scoped groups? Why don't Laibon have Laibon-scoped groups? There's nothing hairy or invalidating about conforming to the rules when they suffice (as opposed to creating needless complications like perpendicular groupings).

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote: > Why groups working in tandem with vampires at all? > What's the rationale behind grouping Imbued so that > they may not be played together with any vampire? One simple answer, I'd think, is to further encourage the use of Group 3-4, and also that it cuts off a whole worrisome list of vampires to test alongside the Imbued, for power-level reasons... Purely logistical stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. If they are *all* group 4, though, you can always use them alongside Group 2 vamps in Limited Format events...

>>Why don't Bloodlines have bloodlines-scoped groups? Bloodlines are vampires >>Why don't Abominations have Abomination-scoped groups? Abominations are Vampires (in game terms) >>Why don't Laibon have Laibon-scoped groups? Laibon are VAMPIRES Imbuied are not Vampires, so there's nothing wrong if there is a Imbuied group scope.

LSJ skrev: > > Why don't Bloodlines have bloodlines-scoped groups? They are vampires with disciplines, sometimes shared with non-bloodlines vampires. > > Why don't Abominations have Abomination-scoped groups? They are vampires with disciplines, sometimes shared with non-abomination vampires. > > Why don't Laibon have Laibon-scoped groups? They are vampires with disciplines, sometimes shared with non-laibon vampires. > > There's nothing hairy or invalidating about conforming to the rules > when they suffice (as opposed to creating needless complications like > perpendicular groupings). Imbued are not vampires. Imbued doesn't have disciplines. Imbued therefore doesn't share disciplines with vampires. Groups where explicitly introduced to avoid "optimal" sharing of disciplines, or to take it to the extreme, to disable the making of a crypt with twelve identical vampires differing in name only. Adding non-vampires to the crypt with special mechanisms forcing a change to already existing cards in the game is far more complicated for players than scoped groupings. I have players here who wonder what the rationale is. The only rationale I can give is "Because it's the lazy way to solve it.", and unsurprisingly enough that is not a valid enough argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > LSJ skrev: > I have players here who wonder what the rationale is. The > only rationale I can give is "Because it's the lazy way to > solve it.", and unsurprisingly enough that is not a valid > enough argument. Of course not. But one has not been addressed yet, and it has been implied by LSJ. Why complicate the rules more by creating "perpendicular" grouping rules? Just to be able to circumvent the grouping rule in a minimal capacity? (i.e., with the Imbued) In a way, this relates to the newbie problem I've mentioned above. On one side, a bunch of people complain that the latest expansions brought up too many new things, quirks and rules for the newbies to cope with. On the other, we see ideas like these. It's hard to be consistent this way. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Linard wrote: > >>Why don't Bloodlines have bloodlines-scoped groups? > Bloodlines are vampires > >>Why don't Abominations have Abomination-scoped groups? > Abominations are Vampires (in game terms) > >>Why don't Laibon have Laibon-scoped groups? > Laibon are VAMPIRES What real difference does it make in the end? In any case, we'd have a bigger part of the crypt cards available working under a grouping rule and a small part working under *other* set of grouping rules (i.e., the standard rule works within that small part but not when you cross-reference both). Does it really matter if that small part is comprised of vampires or whatever else the game has to offer in your crypt? How complicated would it get it someday we'd have some Mummies in there, or whatever? > Imbuied are not Vampires, so there's nothing wrong if there is a > Imbuied group scope. Certainly nothing outright wrong. It doesn't mean it's the most intuitive solution, specially from the point of view of someone who is starting to play now. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Vtes was always a difficult game to play. It's a game with many rules, many options, many phases, etc. It was so hard to begin that it had a basic game and a adv game. I really don't care If tthe imbuied are playable with group 1, 2 3 or 10. The thing that bothers me is the "explanation" for grouping vampires. It is not suitable for the "imbuied" to have sthe same group as vampires. Sten During explained it: "...Imbued are not vampires. Imbued doesn't have disciplines. Imbued therefore doesn't share disciplines with vampires...." so they shouldn't have to "compete" with vampires in group slots.

Sten During wrote: > I have players here who wonder what the rationale is. The > only rationale I can give is "Because it's the lazy way to > solve it.", and unsurprisingly enough that is not a valid > enough argument. Is it possible that there are Imbued of different groups, such that the *Imbued* are grouped to avoid having them in the same crypt? And in effect, the Imbued are grouped for the exact same reason that vampires are? It is possible that Imbued are all G4 or something, that I am unaware of. But up till now, I have been assuming that there will be G2/3/4 (maybe even G1?) Imbued, just like everyone else. -Peter

Linard wrote: > Vtes was always a difficult game to play. It's a game with many rules, > many options, many phases, etc. It was so hard to begin that it had a > basic game and a adv game. > I really don't care If tthe imbuied are playable with group 1, 2 3 or > 10. The thing that bothers me is the "explanation" for grouping > vampires. It is not suitable for the "imbuied" to have sthe same group > as vampires. Why not? Why invent a new rule to cover them? Eventually, if enough imbued are printed, they're going to need a grouping rule for the same reasons vampires do. Why *not* use the same one? > Sten During explained it: "...Imbued are not vampires. > Imbued doesn't have disciplines. Imbued therefore doesn't share > disciplines with vampires...." so they shouldn't have to "compete" with > vampires in group slots. Is there a competition? Who's winning? As far as I know, each clan is considered separately when determining whether a given group pair is full for that clan. Is there any reason to treat the imbued differently? Is there really a need for another new rule here? The pattern with the rules/rulings given so far is to treat imbued cards as much like vampires as possible, except for the fact that they aren't *actually* vampires. They get the same format, layout, group number, cost-to-influence that equals starting life, starting life treated as "capacity" when necessary to make the cards work, etc. This is presumably to make the introduction of non-vampire crypt cards as smooth as possible. A separate grouping rule for the imbued would run counter to that. John

[ quoted text not captured ] If I understood Sten correctly (and I'm sure he'll chime in if I didn't) his point was more along the lines of, since (assuming this is the case, of course) there is little to no specific synergy between vampires and imbued, limiting a particular crypt to two adjacent groups of vampires and imbued may make sense, but limiting a crypt to two adjacent groups of vampires AND the same adjacent groups of imbued does not seem necessary. Which is a valid point, IMHO, even though I suspect the governing factor here is "for simplicity's sake" (which, by the way, isn't necessarily supported on a general level by the many new game elements introduced for the sake of going into a little more depth with the hunters). -- Bye, Daneel

In message <44280167$0$18319$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Groups where explicitly introduced to avoid "optimal" sharing >of disciplines, or to take it to the extreme, to disable the >making of a crypt with twelve identical vampires differing >in name only. See, this is where you fall down. When rules are changed, it doesn't have to be to satisfy one criterion and one criterion only. Rules being what they are, they very often have a variety of knock-on effects, at least some of which can be intended. So, crypt grouping does achieve the effect of disabling twelve identical vampires in a crypt with exactly the same disciplines - particularly when they're weenie vampires. But it doesn't just do that. Crypt grouping also achieves an interesting way of allowing flexibility with clans, whilst keeping each clan from becoming the same as all the others - Presence Ravnos in 3/4, Fortitude Giovanni in 3/4, but you can't suddenly amass a few dozen of "out of clan" disciplines on a clutch of vampires within a clan so that you get a deck with 12 Ventrue Vicissitude users; both Ventrue and the Vicissitude discipline retain distinct flavours, whilst allowing them both to try out new things. But it doesn't just do that. Crypt grouping achieves a way of improving accessibility for new players. Across two or three expansions / base sets / whatever, they can get all the cards they need for the crypt of their choice. They don't need to go hunting for old, out-of-print vampires on Ebay, and oldbies don't have super-optimized crypts. Note that super-optimized doesn't necessarily mean 12 identical vampires. But it doesn't just improve accessibility for newbies. No-one would deny that it's also a useful sales ploy for White Wolf, without being an egregious cash-cow. It helps keep people buying so that they can exploit all their new toys, whilst not actively causing oldbies to have to buy new cards, except in as far as printing any new cards (library cards in particular) may cause them to want to buy new cards to make an old solid deck slightly more competitive. But it doesn't just do that. Crypt grouping requires you to put in effort to maximise the possibilities for a given deck. Every new vampire printed without groups is a slightly easier choice for deck builders. This way, deck building remains a challenge. But it doesn't just do that. If you think crypt grouping is ONLY about twelve identical vampires in a crypt, you're wrong. And arguments based on it only being about twelve identical vampires are shaky as a result. >I have players here who wonder what the rationale is. The >only rationale I can give is "Because it's the lazy way to >solve it.", and unsurprisingly enough that is not a valid >enough argument. See, the flip-side of laziness is consistency. Why add another rule? Why have to explain to players "Well, all your cards should have the a number there that's 1 or 2, 2 or 3, 3 or 4, or 4 or 5, but never 1 and 4. Oh, except when it's imbued when you can break that." Why make the exception, rather than sticking to the rule? As it stands, it's nice and easy to explain - ALL CRYPT CARDS, TWO CONSECUTIVE GROUPS. Overly delicate rules have been got rid of in the past to streamline areas where the fiddling isn't necessary - paralyse, close quarters, archbishops rushing princes, etc. This could be considered much the same - avoiding unnecessary complication. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Linard wrote: > I really don't care If tthe imbuied are playable with group 1, 2 3 or > 10. The thing that bothers me is the "explanation" for grouping > vampires. Ah, now we've got the real reason behind all this... Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Daneel wrote: > If I understood Sten correctly (and I'm sure he'll chime in if I didn't) > his point was more along the lines of, since (assuming this is the case, > of course) there is little to no specific synergy between vampires and > imbued, limiting a particular crypt to two adjacent groups of vampires > and imbued may make sense, but limiting a crypt to two adjacent groups > of vampires AND the same adjacent groups of imbued does not seem > necessary. Which certainly could be what he is talking about. But then you end up making a complicated rule for no real good reason. Like your fairly simply grouping rule of "Only minions of 2 consecutive group numbers in your crypt" becomes unecessarily confusing to allow two different groups of consecutive numbers of vampires and Imbued. For little in the way of gain. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Chiming in here :) Ie, yes, that was what I was talking about. I'm fully aware that my argumentation, should it become a rule, would add more complications to the game. I'm also fully aware that if it doesn't then we'll have a MAJOR problem further along the line. Let's assume all Imbued (all 20 of them) are group 4. This may very well be an incorrect assumption. As soon as the Green-banana expansion with group 6 vampires enters the game we'll have two sets of vampires unmixable with Imbueds (assuming no more Imbueds in any significicant numbers have been released). Two sets here means "Ye olde vampires" and all the Green-banana vampires. For the first time players coming into the game will encounter a situation when they're able to buy an old expansion and have two mutually exclusive sets of cards -- library cards as well as crypt cards. This is a BAD (tm) situation, and one that the design team currently have avoided. Allowing "crypt minions" of different types to mix no matter groupings but still be limited by groupings within scope of each type would limit the need for adding token "crypt minions" to expansions in order to ensure that "all" (as in the VAST majority) library cards may always be legal to play. If I'm a new player five years in the future who for some reason got my hands upon half a display-box of NoR I'd be extremely disappointed if I was told that each and every card of those 18 boosters were wallpaper and unmixable with the four full display-boxes I bought recently. The reason I bought those 18 booster packs was that I was told that I'll always be able to use library cards even though there may be limitations to which vampires I may have in any one given crypt. Anyone familiar with me knows that I'm normally in favour of the rules in the game. That includes the grouping rule in general. Sure, a few cards have met with my disapproval, but hey, I'm only human. In this case, however, I see problems further along the line rather than when NoR hits the shelves, which I adressed above. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe skrev: > In message <44280167$0$18319$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Sten > During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >> Groups where explicitly introduced to avoid "optimal" sharing >> of disciplines, or to take it to the extreme, to disable the >> making of a crypt with twelve identical vampires differing >> in name only. > > See, this is where you fall down. > > when they're weenie vampires. But it doesn't just do that. < SNIP a long argumentation I fully agree with> Adding argument based on flexibility argument above: NoR adds 60 cards to 2500. NoR needs maximum flexibility to add flavour to the game. NoR doesn't need unrational limitations. NoR could attract "old" players on a hiatus, who, when faced with unrational limitations, decides to give up this game for good. NoR adds mechanisms that we don't currently know for certain is best mixed with G 3 - 5 vamps (assuming all Imbued are G4). >> I have players here who wonder what the rationale is. The >> only rationale I can give is "Because it's the lazy way to >> solve it.", and unsurprisingly enough that is not a valid >> enough argument. > > See, the flip-side of laziness is consistency. This has not been an argument earlier, and it most probably won't be an argument later. > > Why add another rule? Why have to explain to players "Well, all your > cards should have the a number there that's 1 or 2, 2 or 3, 3 or 4, or 4 > or 5, but never 1 and 4. Oh, except when it's imbued when you can break > that." Why make the exception, rather than sticking to the rule? As it > stands, it's nice and easy to explain - ALL CRYPT CARDS, TWO CONSECUTIVE > GROUPS. Why not have a simple rule. All crypt-minions of the same type must belong to maximum two consecutive groups. That's a one sentence rule. Imbued already adds a number of errata explicitly explained on the preview page. Written errata may have to be expanded (How to handle Honor the Elders is still not clarified). > > Overly delicate rules have been got rid of in the past to streamline > areas where the fiddling isn't necessary - paralyse, close quarters, > archbishops rushing princes, etc. This could be considered much the > same - avoiding unnecessary complication. > If NoR is sucessful I assume we'll see more of the kind. New players attracted to the game will eventually want to play WoD:tES rather than V:tES, and I believe this to be good for the game. When a Mage/Werewolf/Mummy expansion hits the shelves with only group 6 crypt-minions then the **** hits the fan. The reason being it's effectively illegal to have a mixed Imbued/whatever crypt unless "whatever" happens to be vampires. The moment a MAJOR change to what the crypt represents is also the moment when a fully thought out strategy for how to handle crypt cards in the future should be implemented. I don't have to be convinced that NoR, with current rules, doesn't represent a major problem now. I now that. I'm putting my finger on the problems I see in the future, and I prefer to have a conversation about it now rather than when really disturbing complaints arise two or three years in the future. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip comparison with Bloodlines, Abominations and Laibon which have been addressed elsewhere] > > There's nothing hairy or invalidating about conforming to the rules > when they suffice (as opposed to creating needless complications like > perpendicular groupings). I don't think it's complicated at all. If someone can grasp the Anarchs rules (not a sect, can take a default action), Black Hand (again not a sect), complex damage dealing rules, labyrinthine timing rules (played vs announced), for some reason personally impossible to memorize Red List rules (how do you choose the target minion? master phase action? cost?), Magaji are titled but Seraph are not, is that blood cost or pool cost? (well it depends on which set it was printed), Mask 1K shenanigans, queued combats (psyche vs illusions of the kindred?) then i think they can handle separate groupings. I don't like needless complications but as Sten has pointed out the benefit of being able to play imbued with any group of vampires outweighs the cost of a slight variation to the grouping rule. Chris.

Sten During wrote: > Let's assume all Imbued (all 20 of them) are group 4. Ok. Unlikely (I'm assuming a spread, likely 2/3/4), but I'll go with it. >This may very > well be an incorrect assumption. As soon as the Green-banana expansion > with group 6 vampires enters the game we'll have two sets of vampires > unmixable with Imbueds (assuming no more Imbueds in any significicant > numbers have been released). How is this any different than the Bloodlines vampires from the BL set? It seems likely that when they introduce G6 vampires, they'll likely introduce G5/6 Imbued not that far in the future. If not at the same time. And assuming all the Imbued are group 4 is likely an incorrect assumption (see: New Clan Abomination). So assuming that the Imbued come in 3 groups (2/3/4), then currently, there are zero groups that can't mix with Imbued. When G6 rolls around (in the distant future), then they'll likely introduce G5/6 Imbued to allow everyone to hang with Imbued. > Two sets here means "Ye olde vampires" and > all the Green-banana vampires. For the first time players coming into > the game will encounter a situation when they're able to buy an old > expansion and have two mutually exclusive sets of cards -- library cards > as well as crypt cards. This is a BAD (tm) situation, and one that the > design team currently have avoided. You are assuming a lot and basing your argument on these assumptions: -All Imbued will be G4 (we have no reason to belive this is the case) -They won't introduce G5/6 Imbued at the same time they introduce G6 vampires (all indications we have points at that happening--see LoB and the Bloodlines). > If I'm a new player five years in the future who for some reason got > my hands upon half a display-box of NoR I'd be extremely disappointed > if I was told that each and every card of those 18 boosters were > wallpaper and unmixable with the four full display-boxes I bought > recently. How is that any different from getting your hands on half a box of the Bloodlines expansion or 10th Anniversary Tins (or Sabbat or Sabbat War or Jyhad or Final Nights)? -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com skrev: > Sten During wrote: >> Let's assume all Imbued (all 20 of them) are group 4. > > Ok. Unlikely (I'm assuming a spread, likely 2/3/4), but I'll go with > it. > <SNIP assumptions-arguments for and against a G4 orientated NoR set> Addition to assumption: Each set, no matter what type of crypt-minions, will correspond to whatever G "surrounding" sets are. Once again, assuming my guess is valid and grouping rules stay the way they are, this makes most sense. I personally think this is bad for reasons stated earlier in this thread. >> If I'm a new player five years in the future who for some reason got >> my hands upon half a display-box of NoR I'd be extremely disappointed >> if I was told that each and every card of those 18 boosters were >> wallpaper and unmixable with the four full display-boxes I bought >> recently. > > How is that any different from getting your hands on half a box of the > Bloodlines expansion or 10th Anniversary Tins (or Sabbat or Sabbat War > or Jyhad or Final Nights)? Bloodlines is as close to a valid counter-argument you'll come. However, the tertiary (outferior, or whatever you call it) effect of the library- cards in that expansion made it possible to use those cards with already existing sets. I'm not saying that those tertiary effects are always in reality useful, but some are. Nose of the Hound at aus is one effect that a lot of players are familiar with, and the spi/SPI additions actually come as an unpleasant surprise when used. Bloodlines also introduced a number of library cards usable in whatever deck you happen to prefer, admittedly not very many, but anyway. Apart from Bloodlines all sets are more or less an addition to whatever you happen to have. 10th Anniversary/Jyhad/V:TES - Final Nights makes little difference. You're the new player who started up at Camarilla expansion and bought your way into the game from there. Someone gave/sold/whatever half a box of the "ye olde sets" to you. You're more likely than not to be able to incorporate the library cards from that half a box in your decks. Sure, you'll need to catch up on what the cards ACTUALLY do, but you'll be able to use them. Vamps, well, you're out of luck because of grouping rules, but you knew that. Most important -- you didn't have to buy X supporting (old) sets in order to use your library-cards. Whatever you got your hands on was NOT 95%+ wallpaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <44286951$0$20703$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Let's assume all Imbued (all 20 of them) are group 4. This may very >well be an incorrect assumption. As soon as the Green-banana expansion >with group 6 vampires enters the game we'll have two sets of vampires >unmixable with Imbueds (assuming no more Imbueds in any significicant >numbers have been released). I don't think this is a safe assumption for several reasons. LSJ has indicated in the past that, had grouping been established as a rule earlier in the game's history (without killing it) and he'd been designer, he'd have done things like spread the Dark Sovereigns / Ancient Hearts independent vampires back into group 1, and possibly spread the Bloodlines over groups 2 and 3. That way, a grouping pair, such as group 2/3, can still have access to 6 Bloodlines vampires, but you have 3 in each group, and can then add 3 to group 4 and end up with some interesting cross-overs, and 3 in group 5. And so in groups 2 to 5 you still have the same number you'd get before - roughly 12 - and you get all six at each end, but you also get a cross-over in the middle. Also, the Laibon have been spread over 3 and 4, not just 4. Also also, the size of the expansion is sufficiently small - 20 Hunters - that LSJ may be purposefully not creating so many Hunters so that, if he wants to, he can add more in Group 5 once he has an idea of how players react to them, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1143502701.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: >I don't like needless complications but as Sten has pointed out the >benefit of being able to play imbued with any group of vampires >outweighs the cost of a slight variation to the grouping rule. Given that we've seen three cards out of sixty, could you please explain for those of us without psychic powers how you know what the rest of the expansion contains, what design criteria have been used, what groups the printed Hunters appear in and an in-depth assessment of how they would impact different groups such as might be undertaken by the Design Team when deciding how to integrate a new card set into the game? Do you know, for example, if any imbued have been designed using the grouping rules knowing that they can't, for example, appear in a crypt alongside Arika or Beast (outside of a sealed tournament) because the particular special abilities of that Hunter would interact nastily with those vampires? Do you know if that hasn't happened? Can you confirm whether or not any playtesters raised any issues with a particular combination such that the Design Team decided to move any specific hunters into group 4 so they couldn't mix with, say, the Group 2 Bloodlines? If you can't give authoritative answers to this, how can you know what the costs and benefits are? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <44286ee6$0$32073$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Adding argument based on flexibility argument above: >NoR adds 60 cards to 2500. That's not really either here or there. Black Hand adds quite a lot fewer Black Hand relevant cards, for example, but didn't start creating group 1 Black Hand vampires for maximum flexibility. >NoR needs maximum flexibility to add flavour to the game. No, that's simply not true. It adds flavour to the game whether it can only work with Group 4 or whether it can work with Groups 1 through 4. You are confusing flavour with how many different deck types it can appear in. Perhaps you might mean it would add *more* flavour by appearing more frequently (potentially), but it still adds flavour. The Laibon would add more "flavour" if they could be mixed with all vampire groupings, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to let them do just that. And given that we've seen precisely three cards for the expansion, I'm not sure you're in a position to know or not know what the implications of mixing the Hunters with all groups are - we certainly know that they're intended to mix with vampires in crypts, so it's quite possible that the set will have some interactions you are not presently aware of. >NoR doesn't need unrational limitations. There's nothing irrational with just using the existing rules, like EVERY OTHER crypt card deals with. Why make a special exception for 20 cards? Please note that someone not coming to the same decision as you does not make a limitation "unrational". Issues such as simplicity of design, simplicity of testing, limiting the impact on the game until you have a better feel for them (as both Anarchs and Black Hand were released with a fairly good "softly, softly" approach) and so on are not "unrational" criteria to base a decision on. >NoR could attract "old" players on a hiatus, who, when faced >with unrational limitations, decides to give up this game for >good. It's no more irrational than old players who get attracted by a group 4 set now, and then give up for good. Also, you have no concrete evidence that it won't work with earlier groups. You don't know if there are any group 3 imbued, who would work with group 2 cards, for example. >NoR adds mechanisms that we don't currently know for certain >is best mixed with G 3 - 5 vamps (assuming all Imbued are G4). That's what we have a design team and playtesters for. No, we don't know for certain anything about the set that hasn't been released, and we don't know for certain how players will use or explore the possibilities. But this is no more an argument to be made about Hunter than to be made about any other expansion where we haven't known for certain if the new vampires would best mix with groups X through X. Why is this specific to Hunters? Because the Design Team have been pretty good so far, but are suddenly going to start smoking crack for this expansion for no reason? >Why not have a simple rule. > >All crypt-minions of the same type must belong to maximum two >consecutive groups. Why change the existing rule? Change without cause is not sensible. You can tinker with lots of things. Why tinker with this? >That's a one sentence rule. >Imbued already adds a number of errata explicitly explained on the >preview page. Written errata may have to be expanded (How to handle >Honor the Elders is still not clarified). No, you're confusing errata with clarifications. The cards on the preview page have been clarified in the light of the new rule, not errata-ed. >When a Mage/Werewolf/Mummy expansion hits the shelves with only group >6 crypt-minions then the **** hits the fan. The reason being it's >effectively illegal to have a mixed Imbued/whatever crypt unless >"whatever" happens to be vampires. You know, I'm quite certain the Design Team are capable of designing expansions and considering the implications of what they want to mix with what. And they're quite possibly going to look at group pairs of clans and disciplines and abilities, and give each group pair different themes and flavours. And they've created Group 3 and Group 4 Laibon, so why are you assuming that things can't be done in group 5, for example? And why is it so much worse to print a handful of imbued (or whatever) and mix them with Group 5/6/7 but it isn't the End of the World when you print, you know, vampires that only mix with group 5/6/7? >The moment a MAJOR change to what the crypt represents is also the >moment when a fully thought out strategy for how to handle crypt cards >in the future should be implemented. You're assuming that the Design Team *didn't* stop and have a think about this, and decide to stick with what they'd got. On what basis are you making that assumption? >I don't have to be convinced that NoR, with current rules, doesn't >represent a major problem now. I now that. I'm putting my finger on the >problems I see in the future, and I prefer to have a conversation about >it now rather than when really disturbing complaints arise two or three >years in the future. It may well be worth remembering that in depth discussions have been had at various points about altering the basic grouping rule full-stop (to, perhaps, odd and even) and that White Wolf and LSJ have sought out and considered opinions on such issues before. And may still be considering them now, who knows? "Fixes" to (read: relaxations of) the grouping rule in a controlled fashion would impact the Imbued just the same as everyone else. Assuming White Wolf decide to change it in any way. As things stand, all odd-and-even allows additionally is Group 1 and Group 4 (and technically 2 and 5 (Nergal)). (Since Group 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 are allowed anyway.) So it's entirely possible that White Wolf want to see how design, playtesting and player demand fill out Group 4 before deciding to relax the rule. Or not. You appear to be assuming that the Design Team aren't thinking about the future themselves. Certainly, they don't conduct their discussions in full view of the public, but I have zero reason from discussions with LSJ to think that they aren't thinking about such issues. Indeed, given LSJ's previous posts on how Ancient Hearts, Bloodlines and so on were handled and how he'd liked to have changed things - but didn't want to make the grouping rule too complicated by setting up "Well, if it's Independent and with an expansion symbol from DS and AH and no number, it's Group 1" - I have every reason to think that LSJ is actively considering the future impact of his expansions and rules changes on V:TES. I also think, however, that he knows a lot more about the Hunter expansion than those of us who have seen three preview cards do. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe skrev: >> NoR doesn't need unrational limitations. > > There's nothing irrational with just using the existing rules, like > EVERY OTHER crypt card deals with. Why make a special exception for 20 > cards? Because they are not vampires. As simple as that. They don't have disciplines. They don't "fit" into the form as vampires -- they fit into the form of Imbued. They should be handled as Imbued, not vampires. >> The moment a MAJOR change to what the crypt represents is also the >> moment when a fully thought out strategy for how to handle crypt cards >> in the future should be implemented. > > You're assuming that the Design Team *didn't* stop and have a think > about this, and decide to stick with what they'd got. Yes, it's exactly what I'm doing. > > On what basis are you making that assumption? On the basis that I've seen the preview, seen the group number and didn't think about it. I corrected a player wanting to buy into NoR and mixing it with his G 1 - 2 vamps -- and I still thought nothing about it. Then I was asked why, and explained the grouping rule, and was asked why again and realized there was no good answer. On the basis that the people in this thread who seems to agree with me haven't voiced any complaints earlier. I assume they did't see it neither. On the basis that all crypt-cards should have a group number, and as we're currently watching G 4 vamps entering the game in majority it makes sense to take the easy way out and just dump these 20 cards into this group as well. Still, all assumptions, because I'm not in the Design Team, so I simply don't know. I just assume I'm right here. Am I? Did you people in the Design Team actually give this any major thought? >> I don't have to be convinced that NoR, with current rules, doesn't >> represent a major problem now. I now that. I'm putting my finger on the >> problems I see in the future, and I prefer to have a conversation about >> it now rather than when really disturbing complaints arise two or three >> years in the future. > > It may well be worth remembering that in depth discussions have been had > at various points about altering the basic grouping rule full-stop (to, > > As things stand, all odd-and-even allows additionally is Group 1 and > Group 4 (and technically 2 and 5 (Nergal)). (Since Group 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 > are allowed anyway.) So it's entirely possible that White Wolf want to > see how design, playtesting and player demand fill out Group 4 before > deciding to relax the rule. Or not. I know, I saw it. Even saw a "circular" suggestion (last group counts as consecutive with G 1). I'm not after the grouping rule as such. It works fine for vamps (well, at least when any one given group has a sufficient number of vampires). The suggestions arrived when it turned out that the Indies G 4 vamps released were a "bit lonely". So lonely in fact that there wasn't much idea incorporating them into the game until more G 4 independents were printed, and the suggestions for how to handle groups definitely most definitely indicated a feeling of "oops, didn't think this one through". I clearly remember the even/odd suggestion. I also remember questions on HOW ON EARTH IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP G 2 VAMPIRES!!!! The Camarilla would have a christmas party, so, no, not a thought out suggestion, and it was, reasonably enough, never applied. > > > You appear to be assuming that the Design Team aren't thinking about the > future themselves. Certainly, they don't conduct their discussions in > full view of the public, but I have zero reason from discussions with > LSJ to think that they aren't thinking about such issues. No. I don't. I'm assuming they didn't think this specific thing through. I'm assuming they didn't see the potential problems this specific thing may carry in the future. I'm assuming pretty much no-one would see it unless having it rubbed into their faces as I was. I'm suggesting a simple and elegant solution fully consistent with how VTES works toady and at least more resilient to changes (as in more additions to how VTES will handle crypts in the future) compared to a stance based on "So, maybe a potential problem, but no-one not part of the Inner Circle is going to tell us anything." People make mistakes. The Design Team makes mistakes, like releasing a large base-set where information is hidden by the silver-logo on card- sleeves. It was pointed out. AFTER the set was released. It was also fixed in later sets. I strongly believe that rigid adherence to the current grouping rule would be a major mistake, and I'm advocating my arguments here. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe skrev: > In message <44286951$0$20703$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Sten > During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >> Let's assume all Imbued (all 20 of them) are group 4. This may very >> well be an incorrect assumption. As soon as the Green-banana expansion >> with group 6 vampires enters the game we'll have two sets of vampires >> unmixable with Imbueds (assuming no more Imbueds in any significicant >> numbers have been released). > > I don't think this is a safe assumption for several reasons. > Ok, do you really believe that out of a small set of 20, already in certain ways incompatible minions, (different creeds and virtues) we'll see Imbueds who can't be placed in the same crypt because of grouping rules? Translation of question: We know for certain that at least one Imbued is G 4. Do you believe we'll see a single Imbued outside the scope of G 3 - 5? I don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Translation of question: We know for certain that at least one Imbued > is G 4. Do you believe we'll see a single Imbued outside the scope of > G 3 - 5? > I don't. That's probably true yes. Hopefully more Imbued will be added later if the new mechanisms are well liked and enjoyed by the playing community. In general I would prefer them to restrict it to 20 Imbued all in Group 4 initially on the basis that no matter how good the designers and testers are, some creative / weird / crazy people will find ways to use the cards they didn't consider. The smaller the possible crypts they're dealing with the less likely we are to get 'broken' combos. Anyway in my opinion the design & testing team are doing a great job, I'm confident they'll come out with an interesting and balanced set.

Shade skrev: > Sten During wrote: > >> Translation of question: We know for certain that at least one Imbued >> is G 4. Do you believe we'll see a single Imbued outside the scope of >> G 3 - 5? >> I don't. > > That's probably true yes. Hopefully more Imbued will be added later if > the new mechanisms are well liked and enjoyed by the playing community. > > In general I would prefer them to restrict it to 20 Imbued all in Group > 4 initially on the basis that no matter how good the designers and > testers are, some creative / weird / crazy people will find ways to use > the cards they didn't consider. The smaller the possible crypts > they're dealing with the less likely we are to get 'broken' combos. If any possible broken combos I'd personally prefer to see those crop up from a set of sixty cards rather than finding it out later along the line. This, however, only mirrors my very personal view of game-design. Both solutions have their credits, one of which you have voiced above in favour of why card-interaction should be limited to a minimum whenever something new is introduced. Strangely enough your argument in favour happens to be mine against :) > > Anyway in my opinion the design & testing team are doing a great job, > I'm confident they'll come out with an interesting and balanced set. > So am I. My entire argumentation would imply that the team is indeed doing a job good enough concerning balance that extending grouping rules should not have a negative impact on game-balance. I'm personally looking forward to this new expansion. It will add spice to the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > Bloodlines is as close to a valid counter-argument you'll come. However, > the tertiary (outferior, or whatever you call it) effect of the library- > cards in that expansion made it possible to use those cards with already > existing sets. I'm not saying that those tertiary effects are always in > reality useful, but some are. Nose of the Hound at aus is one effect > that a lot of players are familiar with, and the spi/SPI additions > actually come as an unpleasant surprise when used.>> Fair enough. Now I see where you are coming from. You are envisioning that at some point in the future, when all vampires in print are, say, G6/7, someone might come upon a box of NoR, open it up, and discover that the cards are completely unplayable, as all of their vampires are G6/7 and all of their Imbued are G2/3/4 and all the minion cards in the set are only playable by the Imbued in the set. Check. Yeah, I'll give you that this might be a problem in the distant future, assuming that: A) That player's collection of G6/7 vampires does not also include G6/7 Imbued that he got at the same time without trying. B) We get to G6/7 anyway. Currently, there is exactly 1 G5 vampire (and it is only a promo). And G4 is still quite thin. I suspect it will be a long time before a shift to G6/7 (which is what is required to freeze out G4 Imbued). And there will probably be G6/7 Imbued at the same time as G6/7 vampires. -Peter

Sten During wrote: > On the basis that I've seen the preview, seen the group number and > didn't think about it. I corrected a player wanting to buy into NoR > and mixing it with his G 1 - 2 vamps -- and I still thought > nothing about it. Then I was asked why, and explained the grouping > rule, and was asked why again and realized there was no good answer. Sten, do you absolutely know, that there will be no Imbued that can play disciplines? There are allies that can. Do you know, there will be no Imbued that have specials that help some vampires of groups? (Your answer suggests that you think that is so, because if imbued would only be playable without vampires, your idea would be pointless.) An imbued with the special "Tap that imbued to give a vampire with capacity above 9 +1 stealth." would be different if playable with G2 than with G4. And at last. There are possibilities to mix vampires from different groups, that dont min/max. (Lets say, i want to play one of the G4 Truejahs in a G1 Ventrue deck to include some Rewind times. Really no min/maxing.) That is not allowed under the existing rules. Because it is a rule, no individual judgement, what combination of crypt cards will break the game. Why should Imbued be an exception? Your argument of the symbols at the wrong place reminds me, that i crisized that CE had to bright colours in the preview. The cards were different. What about waiting till we see the set. Frank

x5m...@gmx.de skrev: > Sten During wrote: >> On the basis that I've seen the preview, seen the group number and >> didn't think about it. I corrected a player wanting to buy into NoR >> and mixing it with his G 1 - 2 vamps -- and I still thought >> nothing about it. Then I was asked why, and explained the grouping >> rule, and was asked why again and realized there was no good answer. > > Sten, > > do you absolutely know, that there will be no Imbued that can play > disciplines? There are allies that can. No, I don't know this. Do you know of any allies that may play cards requiring disciplines who are illegal to play with vampiers from any given group? > > Do you know, there will be no Imbued that have specials that help some > vampires of groups? (Your answer suggests that you think that is so, > because if imbued would only be playable without vampires, your idea > would be pointless.) An imbued with the special "Tap that imbued to > give a vampire with capacity above 9 +1 stealth." would be different if > playable with G2 than with G4. No, I don't know this. Since when are Rom Gypsies limited for use with Ravnos belonging to certain groups only? Even though I don't know, I'm almost absolutely certain that there is not a single Imbued in this expansion with a built in brokenness that only works with vampires from, let's say group 1. I simply can't see how the design team would sit and say: "Ooops, this is really, really bad, but hey, let's have it that way anyway, because it only works with vampires from group 1." > > And at last. There are possibilities to mix vampires from different > groups, that dont min/max. (Lets say, i want to play one of the G4 > Truejahs in a G1 Ventrue deck to include some Rewind times. Really no > min/maxing.) That is not allowed under the existing rules. Because it > is a rule, no individual judgement, what combination of crypt cards > will break the game. Why should Imbued be an exception? Hmm, think I've been here earlier :) Ok, here goes again. Because Imbued are not vampires. If a future set would include G 7 Imbueds they should not be allowed to go into a crypt with G 4 Imbueds. The grouping rule is implemented because of min/maxing. The argument for the grouping rule centers around the obvious problem with min/ maxing. That problem is obvious because vampires share a large number of traits. I can't see how that would be an obvious problem with Imbued versus vampires as the preview this far points out differences rather than shared traits. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > If a future set would include G 7 Imbueds they should not be allowed > to go into a crypt with G 4 Imbueds. > The grouping rule is implemented because of min/maxing. The argument > for the grouping rule centers around the obvious problem with min/ > maxing. Min/maxing is certainly the most compelling reason for the grouping rule. It is not the only reason. >That problem is obvious because vampires share a large number > of traits. I can't see how that would be an obvious problem with > Imbued versus vampires as the preview this far points out differences > rather than shared traits. Because we'd love to add more weenies to group 1/2 Computer Hacking decks? Sometimes being a crypt minion is enough of a shared trait. John

Sten During wrote: > If a future set would include G 7 Imbueds they should not be allowed > to go into a crypt with G 4 Imbueds. > The grouping rule is implemented because of min/maxing. The argument > for the grouping rule centers around the obvious problem with min/ > maxing. That problem is obvious because vampires share a large number > of traits. I can't see how that would be an obvious problem with > Imbued versus vampires as the preview this far points out differences > rather than shared traits. Which essentialy means that we can't quite judge yet if there is a problem or not with mixing Imbued with vampires from older groups. But that side of the argument has grown out of proportion, I think. The question that remains is: why revoke the usual grouping rule just for a small subset of the game? (i.e., mixing Imbued with vampires) "Just because they are not vampires" is not a good enough reason - they're still crypt cards that interact with the rest of the cards in the game, and this should be taken into account. No matter how simple it is to reinvent the wheel - as you did, summarizing this proposed change in a single phrase - it is still reinventing the wheel. I see that one could use Imbued with more vampires, and I see how good this could be; but there are still a number of reasons to avoid messing with the grouping rules... - consistency; - once you open that avenue, any other subgroup of crypt cards - be it vampires from a certain sect or other "creatures" - to be released in the future would be elligible for the same benefit. Design and playtesting then becomes a mess; - once you open that avenue, you'll just be giving ammunition for those twinkers who think the grouping rule has no reason to exist; - it's one more thing to complicate even further a game that's already complicated (and no, the argument "but it's complicated already" is not good enough; by that broken logic, murder should be allowed by law because it's commited everywhere, and so on) All this just to allow more combinations, when all the rest of the crypt cards combinations are restricted in some way. Too much trouble for little gain, I'd say. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

lactamaeon skrev: > >> That problem is obvious because vampires share a large number >> of traits. I can't see how that would be an obvious problem with >> Imbued versus vampires as the preview this far points out differences >> rather than shared traits. > > Because we'd love to add more weenies to group 1/2 Computer Hacking > decks? Sometimes being a crypt minion is enough of a shared trait. > Heh :) Ok, I'll buy into that when I see any measurable amounts of Imbued costing less than 3 pool to influence. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > lactamaeon skrev: > > > > >> That problem is obvious because vampires share a large number > >> of traits. I can't see how that would be an obvious problem with > >> Imbued versus vampires as the preview this far points out differences > >> rather than shared traits. > > > > Because we'd love to add more weenies to group 1/2 Computer Hacking > > decks? Sometimes being a crypt minion is enough of a shared trait. > > > > Heh :) > > Ok, I'll buy into that when I see any measurable amounts of Imbued > costing less than 3 pool to influence. Even one would be enough reason to not go there, and we've already seen a 4-cost with +1 bleed built in. John

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo skrev: > > The question that remains is: why revoke the usual grouping rule just > for a small subset of the game? (i.e., mixing Imbued with vampires) > "Just because they are not vampires" is not a good enough reason - > they're still crypt cards that interact with the rest of the cards in > the game, and this should be taken into account. Which is also the point I'm aiming at. From the preview this far I see less of an interaction between an Imbued and any vampire than between, let's say, Arika and Smudge, the Ignored. Imbued: Are mortal allies. Have starting-life and not blood. Use virtues. Have access to Conviction-cards. Have access to Power-cards. Vampires: Are vampires. Have capacity and blood. Use disciplines. Belong to a sect Can have titles (ok we don't know if Imbued will be allowed to partake in the political aspect of the game or not, but we do know that allies normally are excluded) > > No matter how simple it is to reinvent the wheel - as you did, > summarizing this proposed change in a single phrase - it is still > reinventing the wheel. > I see that one could use Imbued with more vampires, and I see how good > this could be; but there are still a number of reasons to avoid messing > with the grouping rules... > > - consistency; Buy this one. > - once you open that avenue, any other subgroup of crypt cards - be it > vampires from a certain sect or other "creatures" - to be released in > the future would be elligible for the same benefit. Design and > playtesting then becomes a mess; Is one of my arguments why scoped groups would be a good thing. If we don't have scoped groups players will likely be unable to mix Imbued and "creatures" in the same crypt. Each and every set of Imbued (with internally groupwise illegal crypt- minions handled) should be playable together with each and every set of vampires (also with internally illegal groups handled). Anything else is just plain bad game-design. Good design should not have to rely on absolute groups. Good design is good design when scoped groups work. I care little if playtesting becomes a mess. That's what playtesting is there to handle. Being able to mix Imbued with other non-vampire crypt minions is, I believe, good for the game. There may be corporate reasons for WW to avoid this at all costs, in which case what's good for the game is moot anyway. > - once you open that avenue, you'll just be giving ammunition for those > twinkers who think the grouping rule has no reason to exist; Don't see that. Scoped groups is not in any way the absence of groups. As stated earlier, I'm a firm believer in the need for groups. > - it's one more thing to complicate even further a game that's already > complicated (and no, the argument "but it's complicated already" is not > good enough; by that broken logic, murder should be allowed by law > because it's commited everywhere, and so on) The added complication introduced with scoped groups is as I see it both a minor one and a VERY minor one compared to the benefits. > > All this just to allow more combinations, when all the rest of the > crypt cards combinations are restricted in some way. Too much trouble > for little gain, I'd say. > The main gain is focus. This is from a game-constructing point of view. Scoped groups removes the need for splashing in "creatures" in each and every expansion in order to keep up access to "creatures" for each group of "other creatures", in which I include vampires. Just make a set with whatever theme you had in mind and be sure that the main actors will be mixable with everything already out there, provided of course there's no illegal scoped group mixing. The second gain is flexibility for the future of the game. You don't want to buy all cards, and for some reason prefer avoiding vampires. Mages are cool, and mixable with the minions from this old set NoR. Assuming that this game will continue to focus on vampires it's a lot easier making the odd set of "creatures" now and then and more or less leave them out of set-design when you make a new vampire-based expansion. The third, admittedly short term, gain is renewal of player-base. I agree that this is a weak one, but anyway. Old players on hiatus since Final Nights or older who are curious with this VERY new addition to the game can just buy a box and get going with their existing stock of cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

lactamaeon skrev: > Even one would be enough reason to not go there, and we've already seen > a 4-cost with +1 bleed built in. > Hmm slightly off-topic. Isn't cap 4 a bit pricey in a caitiff/pander computer hacking deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

lactamaeon skrev: >> >> Ok, I'll buy into that when I see any measurable amounts of Imbued >> costing less than 3 pool to influence. > > Even one would be enough reason to not go there, and we've already seen > a 4-cost with +1 bleed built in. > The number of max cap 2 vamps in any given pair of groups (not counting G 4 - 5) is huge. Actually the numbers were so large any player would start to get picky no matter what groups he/she chose. Leaves us with cap 1. G 1 - 2: 14 G 2 - 3: 14 (Tupdog removed) G 3 - 4: 8 (Tupdog removed) We're still moving into group 4. Will we see another 6 vamps at cap 1 in G 4? I don't know. Will we see an Imbued with 1 starting life? I don't know. It seems, er, somewhat fragile as they become incapacitated should they go down to 0 life instead of merely having to hunt as a vampire with 0 blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > lactamaeon skrev: > > > Even one would be enough reason to not go there, and we've already seen > > a 4-cost with +1 bleed built in. > > > > Hmm slightly off-topic. Isn't cap 4 a bit pricey in a caitiff/pander > computer hacking deck? Normally, yes, but with +1 bleed built-in? It's almost as good as two 2-caps, in some cases maybe better. Even if it is too pricey, why take the risk? Why make a rule that basically excludes you from EVER printing a 1- or 2-cost imbued? The fact of the matter is that groups 1 and 2 are f***ed up in a lot of ways that 3-5 aren't, and almost certainly never will be, because the designers at the time didn't realize a lot of things that are apparent now - they were designed entirely without grouping in mind. There's plenty of time to go back and print group 1-2 imbued, maybe in a tenth-anniversary style tin that also includes a bunch of advanced vampires or something, that are well-designed and playtested for use with that grouping pair. It doesn't need to happen in this set. John

lactamaeon skrev: > The fact of the matter is that groups 1 and 2 are f***ed up in a lot of > ways that 3-5 aren't, and almost certainly never will be, because the > designers at the time didn't realize a lot of things that are apparent > now - they were designed entirely without grouping in mind. > Provide me with one, or preferably more than one, example of this f**ed upness, apart from large-cap vampires in group 1 generally being understrength in comparision with later vampires. Actually, provide me with several examples as you state that there are "lot of ways that 3 - 5 aren't". Don't take examples from library cards. Library cards aren't affected by groups in any way as of Jyhad - LoB. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > lactamaeon skrev: > > > The fact of the matter is that groups 1 and 2 are f***ed up in a lot of > > ways that 3-5 aren't, and almost certainly never will be, because the > > designers at the time didn't realize a lot of things that are apparent > > now - they were designed entirely without grouping in mind. > > > > Provide me with one, or preferably more than one, example of this > f**ed upness, apart from large-cap vampires in group 1 generally > being understrength in comparision with later vampires. > > Actually, provide me with several examples as you state that > there are "lot of ways that 3 - 5 aren't". Check out the text on the 1-caps in groups 3-4. They have actual, honest-to-god drawbacks, with the exception of the disciplineless Sandra White, and possibly Nedal the Careless. Compare them to the 1-caps in groups 1-2. Compare the number of 2-caps with presence, dominate, or potence in groups 1-2 with those printed since. Oh, and that thing about larger vamps being (mostly) understrengthed that you already mentioned. The only vampires currently printed with superior Dominate below 5 capacity are in group 2. Half of those below 6-cap are in group 2. Sure, there's still plenty of time to return to the mold in group 4. Seems unlikely. It's likely the composition of group 2 has had a pretty severe impact on group 3 - something the design team probably doesn't want to repeat. > Don't take examples from library cards. Library cards aren't affected > by groups in any way as of Jyhad - LoB. Not directly, no. Indirectly, perhaps. How many Legal Manipulations would you put in the average 2-3 Ravnos crypt? John

lactamaeon skrev: > Sten During wrote: >> lactamaeon skrev: >> > > Check out the text on the 1-caps in groups 3-4. They have actual, > honest-to-god drawbacks, with the exception of the disciplineless > Sandra White, and possibly Nedal the Careless. Compare them to the > 1-caps in groups 1-2. There are admittedly more cap 1 without major drawbacks among the 14 ones in G 1 - 2 compared to the 8 in G 3 - 4. I'd add Olga Triminov to your list making it 3 out of 8. > > Compare the number of 2-caps with presence, dominate, or potence in > groups 1-2 with those printed since. pre G 1 - 2: 3 pre G 3 - 4: 3 dom G 1 - 2: 5 (one with a nasty penalty) dom G 3 - 4: 0 Agreed here. pot G 1 - 2: 4 pot G 3 - 4: 3 And we're still getting into G 4. > > Oh, and that thing about larger vamps being (mostly) understrengthed > that you already mentioned. Yep, but this hardly makes G 1 more "broken". The inflated ability came with Sabbat, and that ability has been retained ever since. > > The only vampires currently printed with superior Dominate below 5 > capacity are in group 2. Half of those below 6-cap are in group 2. Vamps or dominate you consider broken? Still, point taken. 5 of 12 DOM below 6 is G 3 - 4. I expect to see more if there is indeed a Sabbat base expansion around the corner. !Ventrue and !Tremere. > > Sure, there's still plenty of time to return to the mold in group 4. > Seems unlikely. It's likely the composition of group 2 has had a pretty > severe impact on group 3 - something the design team probably doesn't > want to repeat. The main problem with G 2, in as much as there is a problem, is the sheer volume of vampires stuffed into it. DS - BL. The powerup of very large vampires continue though. Now I happen to like even more powerful vamps cap 10+, but the inflation is ongoing. I'm not as certain as you. A lot of players expect G 3 - 4 to contain aproximately as many vampires per clan as G 1 - 2 or G 2 - 3, but yes, we simply don't know. > >> Don't take examples from library cards. Library cards aren't affected >> by groups in any way as of Jyhad - LoB. > > Not directly, no. Indirectly, perhaps. How many Legal Manipulations > would you put in the average 2-3 Ravnos crypt? Doesn't compile. What do you mean? Less than in a G 3 - 4 crypt anyway. Of 7 Ravnos with pre 4 belongs to G 4. If I have a large selection of Jyhad - Bloodlines cards and not much after that then I can buy half a box of Legacies of Blood and make use of most of the library cards found there. If I have a large selection, etc, etc....and buy half a box of NoR. Will I feel screwed? I think so. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > lactamaeon skrev: > > Sten During wrote: > >> lactamaeon skrev: > >> > > > > > Check out the text on the 1-caps in groups 3-4. They have actual, > > honest-to-god drawbacks, with the exception of the disciplineless > > Sandra White, and possibly Nedal the Careless. Compare them to the > > 1-caps in groups 1-2. > > There are admittedly more cap 1 without major drawbacks among the > 14 ones in G 1 - 2 compared to the 8 in G 3 - 4. > > I'd add Olga Triminov to your list making it 3 out of 8. > > > > > Compare the number of 2-caps with presence, dominate, or potence in > > groups 1-2 with those printed since. > > pre G 1 - 2: 3 > pre G 3 - 4: 3 > > dom G 1 - 2: 5 (one with a nasty penalty) > dom G 3 - 4: 0 > Agreed here. > > pot G 1 - 2: 4 > pot G 3 - 4: 3 Sorry, I meant 1-2 caps, not just the 2-caps. That was my bad. This would make the numbers: pre G 1 - 2: 6 pre G 3 - 4: 3 dom G 1 - 2: 6 dom G 3 - 4: 1 pot G 1 - 2: 6 - Probably shouldn't count Uriah Winter. Hasina's also got a drawback. pot G 3 - 4: 5 - Tupdog's in a category of it's own; Eddie Gaines and Hermana Menor have fairly heavy drawbacks for a rush/bleed deck. > And we're still getting into G 4. Fair enough. As I mentioned, there's plenty of time to return to the mold. I just don't see it happening. Even if they just step most of the 1-caps up to 2-caps or more, it'll be an improvement. > > Oh, and that thing about larger vamps being (mostly) understrengthed > > that you already mentioned. > > Yep, but this hardly makes G 1 more "broken". The inflated ability > came with Sabbat, and that ability has been retained ever since. I didn't say broken. I said f***ed up. > > The only vampires currently printed with superior Dominate below 5 > > capacity are in group 2. Half of those below 6-cap are in group 2. > > Vamps or dominate you consider broken? Still, point taken. 5 of > 12 DOM below 6 is G 3 - 4. I expect to see more if there is indeed > a Sabbat base expansion around the corner. !Ventrue and !Tremere. It's not that it's broken, it's that it's out of whack. Out of balance. F***ed up, if you will. At least, from the perspective of having a grouping rule at all. Because, y'know, they weren't designed with any kind of grouping rule in mind. It's not meant to be as much of a criticism as it comes off as; it's just what happens when design criteria change. Previous design decisions often look f***ed up. > > Sure, there's still plenty of time to return to the mold in group 4. > > Seems unlikely. It's likely the composition of group 2 has had a pretty > > severe impact on group 3 - something the design team probably doesn't > > want to repeat. > > The main problem with G 2, in as much as there is a problem, is the > sheer volume of vampires stuffed into it. DS - BL. Right. It's f***ed up. Because it wasn't designed with grouping in mind at all. > The powerup of very large vampires continue though. Now I happen to > like even more powerful vamps cap 10+, but the inflation is ongoing. > > I'm not as certain as you. A lot of players expect G 3 - 4 to contain > aproximately as many vampires per clan as G 1 - 2 or G 2 - 3, but > yes, we simply don't know. Sure. I'm not certain either, I just understand that there's a difference between designing a set when there's no grouping rule, and designing a set when there is one. Obviously, group 1-2 vampires haven't busted the game open, so maybe they'll keep pumping out the vampires and it won't hurt anything. But they'll at least be thinking about how many of what kind go into a given group. > If I have a large selection of Jyhad - Bloodlines cards and not much > after that then I can buy half a box of Legacies of Blood and make use > of most of the library cards found there. > > If I have a large selection, etc, etc....and buy half a box of NoR. > Will I feel screwed? I think so. Maybe. Wait for the spoiler list. Or think of it another way: with half a box, you've got 18 * 3 = 54 imbued crypt cards and twice that many commons for them to play; heck, you've even got nearly all the rares in the set! Just think of how many of those old Millicent Smith, Vampiric Disease, Left For Dead, etc. you can put to great use in your new hunter deck. :) John

lactamaeon skrev: >> The main problem with G 2, in as much as there is a problem, is the >> sheer volume of vampires stuffed into it. DS - BL. > > Right. It's f***ed up. Because it wasn't designed with grouping in mind > at all. > >> The powerup of very large vampires continue though. Now I happen to >> like even more powerful vamps cap 10+, but the inflation is ongoing. >> >> I'm not as certain as you. A lot of players expect G 3 - 4 to contain >> aproximately as many vampires per clan as G 1 - 2 or G 2 - 3, but >> yes, we simply don't know. > > Sure. I'm not certain either, I just understand that there's a > difference between designing a set when there's no grouping rule, and > designing a set when there is one. Obviously, group 1-2 vampires > haven't busted the game open, so maybe they'll keep pumping out the > vampires and it won't hurt anything. But they'll at least be thinking > about how many of what kind go into a given group. Well, if we end up with a corresponding number of vamps G 3 - 4 then the f**upedness becomes invalid, but yep, we don't know. > >> If I have a large selection of Jyhad - Bloodlines cards and not much >> after that then I can buy half a box of Legacies of Blood and make use >> of most of the library cards found there. >> >> If I have a large selection, etc, etc....and buy half a box of NoR. >> Will I feel screwed? I think so. > > Maybe. Wait for the spoiler list. Or think of it another way: with half > a box, you've got 18 * 3 = 54 imbued crypt cards and twice that many > commons for them to play; heck, you've even got nearly all the rares in > the set! Just think of how many of those old Millicent Smith, Vampiric > Disease, Left For Dead, etc. you can put to great use in your new > hunter deck. :) > That does leave me with a Hunter only deck. With only half a box I don't think it'll be playable to any greater extent. Ok, so I cheated. One box is probably needed to build hunter-only decks. The half a box (or a third of a box) investment seems comparatively common when a player want to try out a new expansion. Said player will be aware of some limitations, but in this case those limitations could be outright crippling, but as you wrote, we don't know the contents of that box yet. Anyway, you think there may be a possibility of added brokenness should the NoR be allowed to be used with the old vamps. I don't. We'll simply have to respectfully disagree with each other on that point :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Half a box gives you roughly 5 of each common. Combined with some Computer Hackings, Lucky Blows, etc. I think you could make a deck; maybe not a great one. Your biggest problem may be not having enough conviction cards for all the imbued you pull out, which could hamper you quite a bit. > The half a box (or a third of a box) investment seems comparatively > common when a player want to try out a new expansion. Said player will > be aware of some limitations, but in this case those limitations could > be outright crippling, but as you wrote, we don't know the contents > of that box yet. Could be. But then again, it's pretty clear that the set introduces a bunch of new stuff. And a single box gets nearly two of every rare, and ten of each common. > Anyway, you think there may be a possibility of added brokenness should > the NoR be allowed to be used with the old vamps. Not necessarily. I don't think there's a compelling reason to change the grouping _rule_ for imbued. Group 1 or 2 or 3 imbued would be fine if playtested well. I think that insisting that no imbued now _or in the future_ ever become problematic when mixed with group 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, etc. vampires is incredibly unwise and exponentially increases the amount of options playtesters have to consider. I also don't think that problematic and broken are the same things. There are a lot of deck archetypes that I'd consider problematic for various reasons, but I can't think of any I'd consider broken. I don't even think the 'problem' decks are all that bad, in moderation. Taken to excess, though, they're not healthy for the game. > I don't. We'll simply > have to respectfully disagree with each other on that point :) Sure. John

Jozxyqk wrote: > Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote: > > Why groups working in tandem with vampires at all? > > > What's the rationale behind grouping Imbued so that > > they may not be played together with any vampire? > > One simple answer, I'd think, is to further encourage the use of Group > 3-4, and also that it cuts off a whole worrisome list of vampires to > test alongside the Imbued, for power-level reasons... > Purely logistical stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. > > If they are *all* group 4, though, you can always use them alongside > Group 2 vamps in Limited Format events... Is having Black Cat and Jennifer "Flame61" Vidisania in the same crypt unbalanced? I'm not sure. Even without any discipline overlap, Weapons cost Jennifer 1 less pool or blood looks like it has good synergy with Equipping Black Cat costs 1 less pool (but never less than 0 pool). Later, ~Rehlow

lactamaeon wrote: > It's not that it's broken, it's that it's out of whack. Out of balance. > F***ed up, if you will. At least, from the perspective of having a > grouping rule at all. Because, y'know, they weren't designed with any > kind of grouping rule in mind. It's not meant to be as much of a > criticism as it comes off as; it's just what happens when design > criteria change. Previous design decisions often look f***ed up. > Right. It's f***ed up. Because it wasn't designed with grouping in mind > at all. Fuck. Just checking. Is it somehow more acceptable to censor a word and still use it than to just type it out properly?

Robert Scythe wrote: > lactamaeon wrote: > > > Right. It's f***ed up. Because it wasn't designed with grouping in mind > > at all. > > Fuck. Just checking. Is it somehow more acceptable to censor a word > and still use it than to just type it out properly? Only to the people that do it. The rest of us find it pretty offensive, either because we believe in free speech, or because we believe in actual censorship, depending. -- - Gregory "fuck the fucking fuckers" Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] F*** no. It is more fun, though. John

On 2 Apr 2006 14:48:19 -0700, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Guess it depends on any possible content filters folks may or may not have set up. At least that is one possible explanation. The other may be, little kids watching over daddies/mommies shoulder? -- Bye, Daneel