I believe this has been mentioned before, but maybe not on this forum or at length. What do you folks think about allowing group 6 and group 1 to work together? I don't see anything particularly broken there, especially since group 6 has only 33 vampires, but it might be fun.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
It wouldn't hurt, but won't be very playable.
It would allow to see more group 1 vampires though.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I can't think of anything too game-breaking there. It'd be kinda fun to have Shalmath and Masika in the same deck.
but I don't think it would add much to either group. Most of the bloodlines like to mixed in with independents (mostly Giovanni for NEC) or Sabbat (like Lasombra & Kiasyd, or !Salubri & !Ventrue). They already got the G5 independents, but not a good G5 Sabbat selection unfortunately. mixing them with G1 Camarilla is redundant since there's already a nice G5 Camarilla to choose from.
G1 already has so many great crypt combos with G2. It's still quite popular, despite the wallpaper cards like Dr Jest. and if someone wanted to mix with Bloodlines, they can already use G2! instead of handicapping themselves by going backwards to G6 where there's no IC and no Sabbat weenies.
I don't have a problem with it, but honestly I think it would be about as useful as a waterproof teabag. So if you want, go for gold.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
As several pointed out above, there might not be a lot of use in doing it. And without a clear use, I would say no, as all rule changes are cumbersome.
Our local group considering trying the following instead:
Allow Group 4/5/6 to be played as 'Any two'. So you could play 5-6, 4-5 or 4-6, but not all three. This stops the issue with the 'make them Group 5' proposal, where certain Clans (Hello, Kiasyd) become obscene as a result, but makes the Group 6 more 'support' style Bloodlines (Hello in particular to the Scarce ones) more playable.
I like wraparound as it happens, but the Discipline spread in Group 1, notably the lack of any Sabbat or Bloodline members really makes it probably no more viable than it is now.
Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
So we would like to match them with a group that:
1) contains Sabbat
2) contains Independents
3) does not contains other Bloodlines
There is no solution to that:
Group 1 has no Sabbat
Group 2 has Bloodlines
Group 3 has no Independents
Group 4 has Bloodlines
I feel the we can forget about Independents: Group 5 already has them. This leaves group 3 as the best candidate.
I don't think anyone suggested that, Boris? I think it's just debating the best possible option.
Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Many of the Group 6 vampires could make great use of the weenie aus/AUS or dom/DOM vampires from group 1. Either for Anima Gathering or for bleed bounce. Like Salmath, Byzar, Nahum Enosh, etc.
Also I could see the point in an Group 1/6 Nosferatu + DoC deck (Scout Youngwood + Hillanvale + Selma + Sheldon). I would play that.
I just spent 30 seconds to figure these out. I am sure that people can find other interesting combinations.
I think 1/6 is cool thing.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Cyrus wrote:
> As several pointed out above, there might not be a lot of use in doing it. And without a clear use, I would say no, as all rule changes are cumbersome.
>
I don't think that the rule change would be cumbersome at all. You could just add something like "group six is considered adjacent to group one as well as group five" and bingo!
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
I´ve been suggesting this since the groups first appeared. Group 1 should be playable with the last published group. It´s logical, so that all groups can be paired.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
How about the ability to mix any odd and any even number crypt cards? Does it open some immediately broken possibilities?
Edit : What I mean is, I have vampires from G2 and G5 in this crypt.
Groups 1-4 can make a very nice midcap Ventrue law firm, but not so much above the group 4-5 crypt.
What would scare me most is the adjunction of Epikasta Rigatos to the AAA: recurring Mind Rape?
I'm against. I would just like to see group 5 sabbat, why they released stupid bloodlines instead of sabbat ?
Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.
Assuming that no new tournament legal cards are produced in the future, would you still be against it? I just see it as another thing to do. Since I'm not a real bloodline fan, group 6 is dead to me. If I could combine some DoC with torries/ventrue or whatever from group 1, that would at least be one more option.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
> Assuming that no new tournament legal cards are produced in the future, would you still be against it? I just see it as another thing to do. Since I'm not a real bloodline fan, group 6 is dead to me. If I could combine some DoC with torries/ventrue or whatever from group 1, that would at least be one more option.
>
If the to be designed set fillsin group 6 then it's probably not needed but I see no harm in it.
I don't really care about small issues like recurring Episkas Mind Rape - it's not that likely and it's not likely to be better than AAA already is