Vampire groupings

Hi all, the vampire groupings introduced with Camarilla Edition...does anybody use them for casual play, or do you reserve it for competitive play? Input would be much appreciated! /Lasse Old timer catching up.

Lasse wrote: > the vampire groupings introduced with Camarilla Edition...does anybody use > them for casual play, or do you reserve it for competitive play? Everyone I am aware of uses them all the time. The general assumption here is that you are using the grouping rules. (i.e. if you post a deck that has an illegal crypt, group wise, 6 people will point it out to you). The grouping rules are hardly a hinderance, work just fine, and without them, crypts tend to be a tad too uber-maximized. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "My health is failing me, so I flip on the television, and watch sad movies and look for sad, sick people like me." -Tegan and Sara

On Wed, 28 May 2003 17:40:30 -0400, Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> scrawled: >Lasse wrote: > >> the vampire groupings introduced with Camarilla Edition...does anybody use >> them for casual play, or do you reserve it for competitive play? > >Everyone I am aware of uses them all the time. The general assumption here >is that you are using the grouping rules. (i.e. if you post a deck that has >an illegal crypt, group wise, 6 people will point it out to you). > >The grouping rules are hardly a hinderance, work just fine, and without >them, crypts tend to be a tad too uber-maximized. agreed. we use the grouping rule all the time here too. social and tournament games. if it's in the rulebook, we use it. except the pull out reference thing. we don't use that. although some people should. how hard is it to get influence and discard the right way around? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > if it's in the rulebook, we use it. except the pull out reference > thing. we don't use that. although some people should. how hard is it > to get influence and discard the right way around? The rulebook also says that the minimum deck size is 40, and that the maximum deck size is 40 + (10*number of players). I'm sure you don't use that. I wonder why it still has this rule in there, when everyone seems to play with the 60-90 tournament rules. (Note that by the rulebook rules, a 90 card deck in a 4 player game is illegal). Speaking of "the way people play",... I think I've mentioned this before, but someone should really update the "how to play" tutorial on the website. There's a direct link to it on the front page of white-wolf.com, yet it's wrong/misleading by the current state of the game. Sure you can put the "old look" of the cards in, but it should at least show cards with their actual current wordings/costs. I think one of the examples of play is even incorrect by latest rules. It shouldn't be too hard to update a few graphics and a little bit of text. It wouldn't even be bad if you kept cards of different looks in the example, to show what an actual game might look like. (or to deliberately mention "make sure to check this website to see what the latest wording on your cards are!" :) )

On Thu, 29 May 2003 12:14:49 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> if it's in the rulebook, we use it. except the pull out reference >> thing. we don't use that. although some people should. how hard is it >> to get influence and discard the right way around? > >The rulebook also says that the minimum deck size is 40, and that the maximum >deck size is 40 + (10*number of players). I'm sure you don't use that. sure i do........alright, no i don't. i play 60-90. i knew there was some rulebook stuff we didn't use, but it's only stuff that is in the tournament rules. unless you can think of something else i don't do, which there probably is... :/ >I wonder why it still has this rule in there, when everyone seems to play >with the 60-90 tournament rules. (Note that by the rulebook rules, a 90 card >deck in a 4 player game is illegal). most people i know don't seem to announce how much stealth their actions are at, or how much their bleeds are for when announcing, etc. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They tell the truth when asked, but you don't usually hear 'Muaziz hunts for 1 blood at +2 stealth. (pause for cards played as action is announced, like car bomb). would you like to block?' it's usually (tap muaziz) 'hunt' (grab a blood from blood bank while looking questioningly around to make sure it's ok) i'd like to play the 40 to 40+10*P deck size. i probably do a lot of the time, subconsciously, anyway. a lot of my decks are around 60-70 cards, and i almost always play 4-6 player games. so i'm good. [ quoted text not captured ]

>the vampire groupings introduced with Camarilla Edition...does anybody use >them for casual play, or do you reserve it for competitive play? > >Input would be much appreciated! The only way I can see playing by something other than tournament rules is when you only play with the same people all of the time and you can agree as to what you don't like about tournament rules. So, if the group plays in tournaments, I would think that they would use the grouping rule all of the time except when there's an acknowledged attempt to see what it would be like if the rule wasn't in place.

"Lasse" <l...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:<3ed5264b$0$7582$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>... > Hi all, > > the vampire groupings introduced with Camarilla Edition...does anybody use > them for casual play, or do you reserve it for competitive play? > > Input would be much appreciated! > Around here, we play according to tournament rules for our casual games, with sometimes the time limit as an exception. Yesterday, for instance, Jay (the Prince) decided to give me a good workout and had me fight for another 40 minutes or so past the clock for the game win. Thank you, Jay :) Patrick Columbus, OH PS. In dire circumstances we sometimes end up playing a six- or three-man table as well, but especially the latter is usually avoided by someone stepping down for the round.

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote > so i'm good. I'm sure you're very good (even if you do have issues). ;) Anyway... I also don't know anyone who doesn't play with the grouping rule in casual play. I hadn't even considered that people would. Feels too much like cheating to me, just like a 10-card crypt would be. james o'rance http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamr/vampire

"Lasse" <l...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:<3ed5264b$0$7582$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] We normally play according to the rules of the tourneys, except the time limit rule, in casual play. However, if we play a non-sanctioned tourney format then we have been known to change the rules somewhat. Currently we are running a combat challenge league. In this, we have scrapped the grouping system, so that players have the option of going back to group 1 and into group 3 for their vamps, and so can make their 16 man team what they choose. This does rise a question that I haven't seen an answer to yet (although I may have missed it) which is: As there are goup 1, 2 and 3 vamps in the Anarchs set (and possibly future expansions as well) in a sanctioned limited format, will the grouping rules still be enforced, as this could lead to people with having a further limited choice of vamps if they got the advanced Lazarus and Tusk in their vamps. Cheers Andy "Slytherin" Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge "Look, I might not be Camarilla, or Sabbat, but I certainly ain't no Anarch!"

Slytherin wrote: > As there are goup 1, 2 and 3 vamps in the Anarchs set (and possibly > future expansions as well) in a sanctioned limited format, will the > grouping rules still be enforced, as this could lead to people with > having a further limited choice of vamps if they got the advanced > Lazarus and Tusk in their vamps. As there are only, like, what, 2 group 1 vampires in the set, I'd assume that the rules would be enforced, and everyone would avoid Tusk like the plague. But they were doing that already, so nothing really changes... [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<BAFD3997.F327%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > Slytherin wrote: > > > As there are goup 1, 2 and 3 vamps in the Anarchs set (and possibly > > future expansions as well) in a sanctioned limited format, will the > > grouping rules still be enforced, as this could lead to people with > > having a further limited choice of vamps if they got the advanced > > Lazarus and Tusk in their vamps. > > As there are only, like, what, 2 group 1 vampires in the set, I'd assume > that the rules would be enforced, and everyone would avoid Tusk like the > plague. But they were doing that already, so nothing really changes... > > That is as maybe, but the precedent has been set now for further group 1 vampires (and more sets with G+/-2+ spread) This makes no difference for constructed, but for limited, is it fair to stop someone choosing a vampire they have got from a booster/starter just because it is the wrong group. There is the potential if doing something like Elder Draft, where someone couldn't make a legal crypt, having less than 12 of each group 1 and group 3, yet no group 2s. (However unlikely this is.) LSJ, could we have a ruling on this. I think it is important! Unless of course we make all limited formats non-sanctioned, in which case the head judge can rule (I would be ruling in favour of play with what you have access to, regardless of the rules saying the crypt is illegal). Cheers Andy "Slytherin" Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge Million to 1 shots happen 9 times out of 10!

Slytherin <an...@operamail.com> wrote: > That is as maybe, but the precedent has been set now for further group > 1 vampires (and more sets with G+/-2+ spread) This makes no difference > for constructed, but for limited, is it fair to stop someone choosing > a vampire they have got from a booster/starter just because it is the > wrong group. There is the potential if doing something like Elder > Draft, where someone couldn't make a legal crypt, having less than 12 > of each group 1 and group 3, yet no group 2s. (However unlikely this > is.) Are you proposing that Grouping be done away with in *all* limited format tournaments? It could lead to some interesting new variants to exclusively combine Groups 1 and 3. A Classic VTES/Anarchs draft, for instance, where you may be able to draft both versions of Tusk or Lazarus.

Slytherin wrote: > LSJ, could we have a ruling on this. All normal rules are followed in V:EKN-sanctioned format except where otherwise noted. -- 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/

On 2 Jun 2003 08:40:14 -0700, an...@operamail.com (Slytherin) scrawled: > >That is as maybe, but the precedent has been set now for further group >1 vampires (and more sets with G+/-2+ spread) This makes no difference >for constructed, but for limited, is it fair to stop someone choosing >a vampire they have got from a booster/starter just because it is the >wrong group. There is the potential if doing something like Elder >Draft, where someone couldn't make a legal crypt, having less than 12 >of each group 1 and group 3, yet no group 2s. (However unlikely this >is.) > >LSJ, could we have a ruling on this. I think it is important! Unless >of course we make all limited formats non-sanctioned, in which case >the head judge can rule (I would be ruling in favour of play with what >you have access to, regardless of the rules saying the crypt is >illegal). let's say i'm playing limited...hey, i got a hunting ground! academic! cool, hunting grounds are handy in limited... oh wait, i got no tremere vampires! LSJ, can we do away with the clan requirement symbol rules for limited? because i think it's unfair to me that i can't play this hunting ground i got in my booster! :/ [ quoted text not captured ]

>let's say i'm playing limited...hey, i got a hunting ground! academic! >cool, hunting grounds are handy in limited... >oh wait, i got no tremere vampires! > >LSJ, can we do away with the clan requirement symbol rules for >limited? because i think it's unfair to me that i can't play this >hunting ground i got in my booster! I agree that Limited tournaments shouldn't have a blanket rule that simply does away with the Grouping rule. Nonetheless, I think Andy raises a good point on what to do if someone is unable to make a legal crypt. Kind of sucks if he isn't allowed to participate (or is immediatley DQ'ed each game) through no fault of his own. Halcyan 2

On 03 Jun 2003 00:13:12 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] as it stands with card sets currently on offer, it would be very difficult to organise a limited event where it was impossible to build a legal crypt. For it to be likely you'd need to maybe have a few jyhad and a few cam/anarchs boosters in the same event. and who does that? if, in an anarchs draft, for some kooky reason some guy drafts 3 Tusk and 3 Lazarus and less than 12 Group 2/3's, of which less than 6 are group 2, then, well, i'd be amazed. and i'd personally post the guy 6 jyhad vampires after the fact, just in case those were the only cards he owned, so at least he could play after the event with a legal crypt. i just can't see it as ever actually happeneing, unless your event only gives you exactly 12 vampires, and you get a G1. (or 13 vamps and you get 2 G1's, etc..). ..and if your event organiser is aware of this, then maybe he/she should have a few spare vamps on hand to ensure a legal crypt. you'd advertise the method of limiting for you limited event to be, say: "6 boosters plus as many vampires from the provided back-up crypt pool to ensure you have a legal crypt", or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EDCC4A...@white-wolf.com>... > Slytherin wrote: > > LSJ, could we have a ruling on this. > > All normal rules are followed in V:EKN-sanctioned format except where > otherwise noted. Thanks Scott. I only raised the question to try and ask something before it potentially comes up in a tournament (although as unlikely as this is). Of course if you draft an Academic HG and no Tremere, you are stuck with that, and you can't play it, but you should still be able to produce a legal library. The issue is that there are specific rulings on the crypt, and there is the potential for someone to have a non-legal crypt. In sanctioned limited format (of which my group want to play more), I will have to DQ anyone who can't produce a legal crypt (as this is the only way I can make the current sanctioned rules fit the situation). If this is the case, and no changes will be made to the sanctioning rules, then can I strongly suggest that in future expansions, no vampires are produced that are more than G+/-1 from any other vampire (sorry if this conflicts current playtesting, etc. but if we move onto G4, then I can see that it is v. possible it could start to happen). [ quoted text not captured ]

>In sanctioned limited format (of which my group want to play more), I >will have to DQ anyone who can't produce a legal crypt (as this is the >only way I can make the current sanctioned rules fit the situation). >If this is the case, and no changes will be made to the sanctioning >rules, then can I strongly suggest that in future expansions, no >vampires are produced that are more than G+/-1 from any other vampire >(sorry if this conflicts current playtesting, etc. but if we move onto >G4, then I can see that it is v. possible it could start to happen). How about something like: if someone can't make a legal crypt, then just let him choose a Grouping to play with and use a 12-card crypt, but he can only effectively use the cards of the Grouping he chose. Say he has 2 Group 1, 7 Group 2, and 3 Group 3 vampires. He could say he's playing Group 2/3 and just use all of those cards for his crypt but could only actually "use" (transfer, play cards on, use effects like Art Museum on) those of the correct Grouping number. They are effectively "dummy" slots. Yeah, they might put him at a slight disadvantage but at least he gets to play and it prevents someone from taking advantage of the situation (and trying to get away with a 10 or 11-card crypt). It would be up to you to decide if those unusable crypt cards could be targeted by other player's effects (Gisela's special, Memory's Fading Glimpse, etc.) but it shouldn't be a real big issue in Limited. Just an idea. Halcyan 2

Slytherin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EDCC4A...@white-wolf.com>... >>Slytherin wrote: >>>LSJ, could we have a ruling on this. >>All normal rules are followed in V:EKN-sanctioned format except where >>otherwise noted. > Thanks Scott. > > I only raised the question to try and ask something before it > potentially comes up in a tournament (although as unlikely as this > is). Of course if you draft an Academic HG and no Tremere, you are > stuck with that, and you can't play it, but you should still be able > to produce a legal library. The issue is that there are specific > rulings on the crypt, and there is the potential for someone to have a > non-legal crypt. > In sanctioned limited format (of which my group want to play more), I > will have to DQ anyone who can't produce a legal crypt (as this is the > only way I can make the current sanctioned rules fit the situation). If the player was "forced" into a position where she could not make a legal crypt, then the organizer is free to invoke [VEKN 7.2.3]. (Actually, the organizer is free to invoke that rule even when the player is not "forced" into that position). VEKN 7.2.3: Players may use only the actual cards they receive or draft at a Limited tournament, and any additional cards specifically provided by the tournament organizer. And provide additional crypt cards. The organizer might bring along a stack of Gwendolyns for just that purpose. :-) Be sure to let me know when it happens, too, and what format you were using (sealed or draft, how many boosters, etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EDC7178...@white-wolf.com>... > > If the player was "forced" into a position where she could not make a > legal crypt, then the organizer is free to invoke [VEKN 7.2.3]. > (Actually, the organizer is free to invoke that rule even when the > player is not "forced" into that position). > > VEKN 7.2.3: > Players may use only the actual cards they receive or draft at a > Limited tournament, and any additional cards specifically provided > by the tournament organizer. Cheers Scott, I wasn't really sure if that would be applicable, but as it is then should the "unlikely" situation occur, I will have some G2 vamps on hand. > > And provide additional crypt cards. The organizer might bring along > a stack of Gwendolyns for just that purpose. :-) I suppose she has to be useful for something. Although I think I've probably got more Marcus Vitels or Sylvia Giovanni :-D > > Be sure to let me know when it happens, too, and what format you > were using (sealed or draft, how many boosters, etc.) I will! [ quoted text not captured ]

>> VEKN 7.2.3: >> Players may use only the actual cards they receive or draft at a >> Limited tournament, and any additional cards specifically provided >> by the tournament organizer. > > Cheers Scott, I wasn't really sure if that would be applicable, but as > it is then should the "unlikely" situation occur, I will have some G2 > vamps on hand. Minor point but it seems to me that you should offer them to everyone equally -before anyone gets any cards.

>> Cheers Scott, I wasn't really sure if that would be applicable, but as >> it is then should the "unlikely" situation occur, I will have some G2 >> vamps on hand. >Minor point but it seems to me that you should offer them to everyone >equally -before anyone gets any cards. I don't think that's a good idea. Then it may be too big of an issue which vamps he brings. If he brings Gwendolyn, those playing Brujah might have an advantage, etc. I think the best situation is if you don't say anything about it. If someone gets stuck in such a situation or purposefully drafts this way, they have to take a risk and will think that they might be able to play. And then you can step in. If people don't know about the easy fix, then they won't be as likely to try and take advantage of it IMO. Halcyan 2