Is Odd-Even Grouping Abusable?
jwjbw...@gmail.com
rule) to read as follows:
"You may use crypt cards from a single group, or combine crypt cards
from no more than one odd-numbered group and no more than one even-
numbered group."
Currently, such a rule differs from the current rule only in that it
permits combining groups 1 and 4, as well as groups 2 and 5.
My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
balance? What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> balance? What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
For instance, I just noticed that, by combining groups 1 & 4, you
could have Duck and Foureyes in the same crypt (both Nossie 3-caps
with obf pot), which is arguably the sort of thing the grouping rule
was designed to prevent.
On the other hand, I am not quite shaking in fear at the prospect.
The grouping rule still seems to ensure that one cannot dip into one's
infinite supply of crypt cards and pull out 12 unique vampires with
obf, dom, & capacity 4 or less.
John Flournoy
Well, that'd make it half again as easy to build the crypt of your
choosing, roughly (by adding 2 more grouping pairs available to the
current 4) thus weakening that design point of the game - i.e. that
you can't simply play with everything you want automatically, but have
to make choices when building a deck. (This applies to the library too
in its own way, in part in the form of an upper deck limit.)
It also means that a player newly entering VTES is at a disadvantage
that grouping is trying to prevent. Let's say you and a new player buy
all the vampires from some current sets. He gets to build a crypt
using all the vampires he owns - all of groups 4 and 5. You, on the
other hand, get to use those exact same vampires with not only
themselves, but every out-of-print vampire you own - your older,
deeper collection has an advantage over his only-current collection,
because you can use all of those group 5 vampires in twice as many
ways as he can. And that's -exactly- one of the things grouping rules
is trying to prevent, and it'd only get worse if a new player jumps in
in a few years from now (when his newly bought group 7 vamps can only
be used with his group 6, while you have two other groups to mix with,
and so on.)
I don't think it necessarily sets up abusable combinations, but it
does weight things more in favor of older players over new ones,
unless those new players go out and acquire long-out-of-print crypt
cards through secondary markets.
(Yes, the old players have an advantage already in that they can pick
from more possible grouping pairs than a new player - but they _don't_
get to use the crypt cards they share in common with a new player in
lots of ways that a new player cannot, generally speaking.)
-John Flournoy
XZealot
jwjbw...@gmail.com
John Flournoy wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:05�pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> > balance? �What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
>
> Well, that'd make it half again as easy to build the crypt of your
> choosing, roughly (by adding 2 more grouping pairs available to the
> current 4) thus weakening that design point of the game - i.e. that
> you can't simply play with everything you want automatically, but have
> to make choices when building a deck. (This applies to the library too
> in its own way, in part in the form of an upper deck limit.)
I think your idea of the "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too
broad. More options for the player is not a bad thing. It is the
reason why we buy more cards. It is the reason that the design team
keeps churning out new groups, which always means new grouping pairs,
and more options for the player.
As I understand it, the grouping rule was designed to prevent the
development of highly concentrated crypts.
If it were not for the grouping rule, then, if I wanted to make a
crypt composed of all vampires of 4 capacity or less with obfuscate
and fortitude, I could almost do it. There are 3 vampires in group 1
(Agrippina, Duck, Sammy); 1 vampire in group 2 (Agatha); 3 vampires in
group 3 (Tayshawn, Wolfgang, Tock); 3 vampires in group 4 (Four-Eyes,
Aaron Bathhurst, Blister); 1 vampire in group 5 (Slag) and maybe some
more that I have overlooked. Eventually, when there are 20 groups, I
may be able to make a crypt composed entirely of 3 caps with obf and
pot.
But with the grouping rule, the best I can do is get together 6
vampires (from Groups 3 and 4). Then I have to start compromising to
fill the rest of my crypt.
With the variant grouping rule discussed here, I would still be
limited to 6 vampires meeting the criteria. The group 1 & 4
combination is different, and perhaps marginally preferable in some
respects, to the group 3 + 4 combo, but it is still miles behind the
result of combining all the groups. The grouping rule is still
serving its function, in a very big way.
> It also means that a player newly entering VTES is at a disadvantage
> that grouping is trying to prevent.
Depends on what you think the disadvantage is that the grouping rule
is designed to prevent.
> Let's say you and a new player buy
> all the vampires from some current sets. He gets to build a crypt
> using all the vampires he owns - all of groups 4 and 5. You, on the
> other hand, get to use those exact same vampires with not only
> themselves, but every out-of-print vampire you own - your older,
> deeper collection has an advantage over his only-current collection,
> because you can use all of those group 5 vampires in twice as many
> ways as he can.
This is already true of the Group 4 vampires, if I own group 3 and he
does not.
> And that's -exactly- one of the things grouping rules
> is trying to prevent, [...]
If that were the idea, I would think we'd have grouping rules for
library cards as well.
> [...] and it'd only get worse if a new player jumps in
> in a few years from now (when his newly bought group 7 vamps can only
> be used with his group 6, while you have two other groups to mix with,
> and so on.)
Yes, more cards WILL give the older player more options. And yes, the
variant grouping rule makes this "problem" "worse". But to my mind,
more options is not a problem unless it gives the older player a
significant power advantage -- such as the advantage of a highly
concentrated crypt as illustrated above.
After all, he has been playing for a long time -- why not let him have
some extra variety to keep his interest.
> I don't think it necessarily sets up abusable combinations, [...]
Okay, but that's what I was worried about -- the power advantage.
> [...] but it
> does weight things more in favor of older players over new ones,
> unless those new players go out and acquire long-out-of-print crypt
> cards through secondary markets.
It already does that. The older player already has access to group-
pairings that the new player does not. However, the old pairings are
not inherently stronger than the new pairings, so the new player,
despite access to fewer options, does not face an overwhelming hurdle
before he may compete.
So my question is, to what extent would this remain true under the
variant rule?
> (Yes, the old players have an advantage already in that they can pick
> from more possible grouping pairs than a new player - [...]
Indeed.
> [...] but they _don't_
> get to use the crypt cards they share in common with a new player in
> lots of ways that a new player cannot, generally speaking.)
Yes they can. As indicated above, they can combine the new player's
earliest crypt group with an earlier group in a way the new player
cannot. Also, they can combine these crypt cards with library cards
in a way the new player cannot. No-one regards this as a problem.
echia...@yahoo.com
This suggestion seems to crop up every few years. I wish people would
actually take the time to read the past posts on the topic before
rehashing the same old discussion. At least now, there are more
concrete examples on why it would be a bad idea:
Group 1/4 Ventrue Law Firm would be excessively strong. You give up
Arika by foregoing Group 2. But Group 4 offers you 6-cap Mustafa, 7-
cap Mukhtar, and 8-cap Giangaleazzo to go with Crowley, Nash, and
Bridges. And you still have the option of Johannes, Gustav, and
Hardestadt if you really want.
Toreador Group 1/4 also gives by the lovely Alexandra. But now Anneke
and Anson have so many better Dominate friends. Rafael has DOM
(compared to Alexandra's dom). Epikasta is another Prince, and with
DOM. Ransam has tighter disciplines than Victoria.
Eurobrujah already benefits from New Carthage and most of their key
vampires are just in Group 2 (Constanza, Donal, Theo). With Group 5,
they have Carlak, another Prince with Dominate. More cheap Princes
(like 6-cap Tara and 7-cap Karen to go along with Volker). That's
already 6 strong Brujah, each of capacity 8 or less. Or go with Don
Caravelli and Don Cerro to maintain the Dominate angle.
Even classic Malkavian stealth bleed gets a boost by going Group 1/4.
It doesn't lose anyone too important by dropping Group 2. Florentina
is a decent support vampire. But you really hit paydirt with Black
Lotus (5-cap with aus DOM obf), Preston Varrick (7-cap with aus DOM
OBF and conditional + bleed), and Philippe Riguard (7-cap with aus DOM
OBF). If you're willing to go larger, Paul Cordwood and Orlando are
good fits as well. You could even do well to use the new 11-caps.
Leandro only had inferior Dominate anyway, and now you have Rafael
with AUS DOM OBF. And Fanchon is much stronger than Etrius ever was.
But with Group 1/4, you literally have the four smallest vampires in
the game with DOM OBF (Group 1 has Gilbert and Mariel, Group 4 has
Preston and Philippe). Plus options to use Amaravati and Titus if you
are willing to pay one more pool.
Independent Group 2/5 would have 34 vampires available (35 for the
Assamites), which seems excessive. The Group 2 Giovanni don't really
need the help, nor do the the weenie Ravnos decks.
So no, I don't think it would be a good idea. Furthermore, it would
severely constrain the design of future groupings. "Gangrel DOM/PRO is
already really good in Group 2. So that means no future odd-Grouping
can ever have a lot of Gangrel with Dominate cause that would be too
strong." Etc.
Salem
> So no, I don't think it would be a good idea. Furthermore, it would
> severely constrain the design of future groupings. "Gangrel DOM/PRO is
> already really good in Group 2. So that means no future odd-Grouping
> can ever have a lot of Gangrel with Dominate cause that would be too
> strong." Etc.
related to that is the playtesting nightmare. and design in general.
ok, here's a weird new G8 vamp. see if he's abusable in combo with group
7 vamps.
with the odd-even rule....see if he's abusable with G7, G5, G3 and G1.
You just quadrupled the time needed to playtest thoroughly enough to
adequately minimise the chances of getting some new broken crypt combo.
And people already worry the current playtest time is too short.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
jwjbw...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 3:05 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> > balance? What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
>
> This suggestion seems to crop up every few years. I wish people would
> actually take the time to read the past posts on the topic before
> rehashing the same old discussion.
I missed the 2004 discussion (though not the 2002 discussion). But
things have changed since then.
> At least now, there are more
> concrete examples on why it would be a bad idea:
Well, there is more information for analysis, at least.
> Group 1/4 Ventrue Law Firm would be excessively strong. You give up
> Arika by foregoing Group 2. But Group 4 offers you 6-cap Mustafa, 7-
> cap Mukhtar, and 8-cap Giangaleazzo to go with Crowley, Nash, and
> Bridges.
I'll have to spend some time analyzing the rest of your problem areas
later. But, right off the bat, your first example is unconvincing.
How is Group 1/4 Ventrue Law Firm superior to Group 4/5 Ventrue Law
Firm? Is Democritus really better than Mary Ann Blair? Is Emerson
Bridges really better than Lodin? Are Walt Nash & Tim Crowley really
better than Victor D. and Graham G.?
> And you still have the option of Johannes, Gustav, and
> Hardestadt if you really want.
I don't regard "more options", for players with more cards, as a
problem, provided the fewer options available to players with fewer
crypt cards are competitive options.
Blooded Sand
The point of a good playtest holds water though. Tripling the number
of vampire combinations allowed, with the multiplier increasing with
every group released makes playtesting MUCH harder, and will most
likely cause an increase in conservatism of vampire design. Wanna go
back to underpowered and not even powered, slightly strong vamps? a la
dedfera et al?
Peter D Bakija
> My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> balance? What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
Well, I'm unsure of what would be gained by introducing such a rule--
currently, the grouping rules exists to limit crypt building options.
By making the rule you propose, the limits to crypt building would be
loosened, which would be counter to the intent. Would it make the game
explode? Probably not. But it is also likely unecessary.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I don't regard "more options", for players with more cards, as a
> problem, provided the fewer options available to players with fewer
> crypt cards are competitive options.
As it seems the main reason for the grouping rule is specifically to
limit options (which goes hand in hand with "make it so that people
who have all the old G1 and G2 crypt cards don't have a significant
advantage over newer players with only G3+ crypt cards"), making a
rule that reduces the limitation seems counter productive.
-Peter
jwjbw...@gmail.com
I disagree that "limiting options", in this broad sense, is the "main
reason" for the grouping rule. See my response to John Flournoy.
John Flournoy
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 9:05 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> > > balance? What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
You clearly want 'how would this grouping variant be overpowered and
broken', and apparently neither of us thinks it automatically would
be.
My post was in response to the part about "What other negative (or
positive) consequences would result?"; I was trying to present a
potential (minor) negative point (even if it's not a -big- negative,
or even one that would matter much.)
If you don't really care about that part and just want to focus on
'how does this break things', don't bother to read the responses
below.
> > Well, that'd make it half again as easy to build the crypt of your
> > choosing, roughly (by adding 2 more grouping pairs available to the
> > current 4) thus weakening that design point of the game - i.e. that
> > you can't simply play with everything you want automatically, but have
> > to make choices when building a deck. (This applies to the library too
> > in its own way, in part in the form of an upper deck limit.)
>
> I think your idea of the "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too
> broad. More options for the player is not a bad thing. It is the
> reason why we buy more cards. It is the reason that the design team
> keeps churning out new groups, which always means new grouping pairs,
> and more options for the player.
Another reason the design team keeps pumping out new grouping pairs:
because the previous groups have enough vampires to maintain the
difficulty level of assembling the ideal crypt, and more vampires of
an existing group would weaken that difficulty.
> As I understand it, the grouping rule was designed to prevent the
> development of highly concentrated crypts.
That's part of it. It has also been stated that maintaining the 'you
cannot pick a crypt from infinite choices, or even choices beyond a
certain degree of challenge' is also a design point.
Here, I'll quote LSJ:
"It is designed to maintain the crypt construction side of
deckbuilding. Avoiding the ability to dream up your ideal crypt
and then go find the vampires that have been designed that fit
that ideal. Also known as "dial-a-crypt"."
Mind you, that is taken from a thread where LSJ asked for feedback
himself on a potential of changing to even-odd grouping; I'm
definitely not saying the concept is without merit. Just pointing out
a debatably minor drawback.
> With the variant grouping rule discussed here, I would still be
> limited to 6 vampires meeting the criteria. The group 1 & 4
> combination is different, and perhaps marginally preferable in some
> respects, to the group 3 + 4 combo, but it is still miles behind the
> result of combining all the groups. The grouping rule is still
> serving its function, in a very big way.
I agree. Even-odd grouping would still definitely restrict ideal power-
maxxing crypts. No argument there.
> > Let's say you and a new player buy
> > all the vampires from some current sets. He gets to build a crypt
> > using all the vampires he owns - all of groups 4 and 5. You, on the
> > other hand, get to use those exact same vampires with not only
> > themselves, but every out-of-print vampire you own - your older,
> > deeper collection has an advantage over his only-current collection,
> > because you can use all of those group 5 vampires in twice as many
> > ways as he can.
>
> This is already true of the Group 4 vampires, if I own group 3 and he
> does not.
That's true - and it's always going to be true with the previous
grouping, mainly because there's no good way to avoid that. (That's
why I explicitly said group 5.)
> > And that's -exactly- one of the things grouping rules
> > is trying to prevent, [...]
>
> If that were the idea, I would think we'd have grouping rules for
> library cards as well.
Library cards get periodically reprinted (at least in theory), and are
not designed and intended to be deliberately conflicting in their
ability to be included in a deck.
> > [...] and it'd only get worse if a new player jumps in
> > in a few years from now (when his newly bought group 7 vamps can only
> > be used with his group 6, while you have two other groups to mix with,
> > and so on.)
>
> Yes, more cards WILL give the older player more options. And yes, the
> variant grouping rule makes this "problem" "worse". But to my mind,
> more options is not a problem unless it gives the older player a
> significant power advantage -- such as the advantage of a highly
> concentrated crypt as illustrated above.
I don't think it's a big problem; you asked for 'what are the
negatives', and this is a negative. Whether or not it's an _important_
negative is a different question.
> After all, he has been playing for a long time -- why not let him have
> some extra variety to keep his interest.
He already has the extra variety of getting to keep using all his old
vampires with all the new library cards. Consider how many decks using
new library cards and old crypts you see casually and at tournaments;
older players already have a significant edge in variety over new
players.
> > I don't think it necessarily sets up abusable combinations, [...]
>
> Okay, but that's what I was worried about -- the power advantage.
Fair enough.
> It already does that. The older player already has access to group-
> pairings that the new player does not. However, the old pairings are
> not inherently stronger than the new pairings, so the new player,
> despite access to fewer options, does not face an overwhelming hurdle
> before he may compete.
Again, I agree.
> > [...] but they _don't_
> > get to use the crypt cards they share in common with a new player in
> > lots of ways that a new player cannot, generally speaking.)
>
> Yes they can. As indicated above, they can combine the new player's
> earliest crypt group with an earlier group in a way the new player
> cannot. Also, they can combine these crypt cards with library cards
> in a way the new player cannot. No-one regards this as a problem.
Right; they get to use the older of the currently-available set of
group-pairs in a way the new players' can't. But they don't get to use
the newer of the groups that way, and going forward as soon as each
next group comes out neither side has a crypt-building advantage with
those new cards. There's some advantage at the moment a new players
joins, as you point out.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
> > Arika by foregoing Group 2. But Group 4 offers you 6-cap Mustafa, 7-
> > cap Mukhtar, and 8-cap Giangaleazzo to go with Crowley, Nash, and
> > Bridges.
>
> I'll have to spend some time analyzing the rest of your problem areas
> later. But, right off the bat, your first example is unconvincing.
> How is Group 1/4 Ventrue Law Firm superior to Group 4/5 Ventrue Law
> Firm? Is Democritus really better than Mary Ann Blair? Is Emerson
> Bridges really better than Lodin?
> Are Walt Nash & Tim Crowley really better than Victor D. and Graham G.?
For a Law Firm deck? Absolutely - Nash and Crowley have PRE and can
thus Voter Cap to your pool, and Graham and Victor can't with their
[pre].
Group 1 gets you three Princes with PRE, for/FOR and dom/DOM at
capacities 7, 7 and 8.
Group 5 gets the above for you cheapest at 8, 10, and there isn't a
third one yet.
(Arguably, you could still include Graham and Victor and some Presence
masters to offset this, thus dropping your capacity by 1 total point
for the crypt.)
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
wrote:
> So no, I don't think it would be a good idea. Furthermore, it would
> severely constrain the design of future groupings. "Gangrel DOM/PRO is
> already really good in Group 2. So that means no future odd-Grouping
> can ever have a lot of Gangrel with Dominate cause that would be too
> strong." Etc.
Eric's point about out-of-clan disciplines is a very good one; future
design (for instance) of an even-numbered group would have to back-
check against each odd-numbered group to avoid overstacking each
outside discipline; if group 6 of a clan avoids that overlap with 1, 3
and 5 and 7's commonly-found OOC disciplines, group 8 will be harder
to make in a fashion that also doesn't stack those disciplines with
those same four groupings without feeling like a rehash of group 6,
discipline-wise. And so on down the line through even more future
groupings.
-John Flournoy
Blooded Sand
Positives: I can finally, legally, play Nizzam and Thetmes together!
Or Thetmes and Izzie, for all that bundi pot goodness!!!!!!! YES!
John Flournoy
LSJ has stated in the past that the grouping rule is designed to limit
options to prevent 'dial a crypt'. He has not stated that this is the
'main' or 'only' reason, but it has been clearly stated as one reason
for grouping, worded several different ways in multiple threads.
(He's also stated that it exists to avoid 'Group 2' Magic-style
tournament rules, i.e. banning the use of old crypt cards in
tournaments.)
-John Flournoy
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Jan 6, 9:55 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 10:51 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:39 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I don't regard "more options", for players with more cards, as a
> > > > problem, provided the fewer options available to players with fewer
> > > > crypt cards are competitive options.
>
> > > As it seems the main reason for the grouping rule is specifically to
> > > limit options (which goes hand in hand with "make it so that people
> > > who have all the old G1 and G2 crypt cards don't have a significant
> > > advantage over newer players with only G3+ crypt cards"), making a
> > > rule that reduces the limitation seems counter productive.
>
> > I disagree that "limiting options", in this broad sense, is the "main
> > reason" for the grouping rule. See my response to John Flournoy.
>
> LSJ has stated in the past that the grouping rule is designed to limit
> options to prevent 'dial a crypt'. He has not stated that this is the
> 'main' or 'only' reason, but it has been clearly stated as one reason
> for grouping, worded several different ways in multiple threads.
I'm not going to get into a debate as to what LSJ meant by this. I
have my own opinion, and my own opinion is this: to the extent thise
means preventing highly concentrated crypts, or preventing card-lords
from becoming too competitive, so that newer players cannot compete, I
approve of this goal. To the extent it seeks to limit player design
options in some broader sense, limiting the VARIETY of competitive
options available to them, I disaprove.
Peter D Bakija
> I disagree that "limiting options", in this broad sense, is the "main
> reason" for the grouping rule. See my response to John Flournoy.
Limiting options certainly is one of the main reasons for the grouping
rule. By "limiting options", I'm talking about keeping people from
being able to make a super crypt, and forcing people to have to make
decisions when building crypts. By having a grouping rule, you can
introduce new vampires endlessly without demolishing crypt building
decision making.
Making the current grouping rule into a "any odd/even group pair"
increases the pool of combinable vampires. Which makes the limiting
options less limited. Which is counter productive.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> to the extent this
> means preventing highly concentrated crypts, or preventing card-lords
> from becoming too competitive, so that newer players cannot compete, I
> approve of this goal.
Ok,
> To the extent it seeks to limit player design
> options in some broader sense, limiting the VARIETY of competitive
> options available to them, I disaprove
Preventing highly concentrated crypts is exactly the limit of player
design options that the group rule accomplishes.
-Peter
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Jan 6, 10:55 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I disagree that "limiting options", in this broad sense, is the "main
> > reason" for the grouping rule. See my response to John Flournoy.
>
> Limiting options certainly is one of the main reasons for the grouping
> rule. By "limiting options", I'm talking about keeping people from
> being able to make a super crypt, and forcing people to have to make
> decisions when building crypts. By having a grouping rule, you can
> introduce new vampires endlessly without demolishing crypt building
> decision making.
To the extent that is the goal, I approve, as I keep saying.
> Making the current grouping rule into a "any odd/even group pair"
> increases the pool of combinable vampires.
This is bad only to the extent that it allows highly concentrated
crypts, not to the extent that it permits an increased variety of
competitive options.
> Which makes the limiting
> options less limited. Which is counter productive.
It depends on what you mean by "making the limiting options less
limited." If it merely means that 5 groups will give me the deck-
building variety that I will ultimately get by selling me 12 groups,
then I see no benefit in that.
John Flournoy
> > options to prevent 'dial a crypt'. He has not stated that this is the
> > 'main' or 'only' reason, but it has been clearly stated as one reason
> > for grouping, worded several different ways in multiple threads.
>
> I'm not going to get into a debate as to what LSJ meant by this. I
> have my own opinion, and my own opinion is this: to the extent thise
> means preventing highly concentrated crypts, or preventing card-lords
> from becoming too competitive, so that newer players cannot compete, I
> approve of this goal. To the extent it seeks to limit player design
> options in some broader sense, limiting the VARIETY of competitive
> options available to them, I disaprove.
Point made, I think on both sides here.
And again, LSJ has in the past tossed out the idea of making the same
change to grouping that you're suggesting, so clearly your idea isn't
completely unreasonable and certainly prompted lots of discussion at
the time.
I'm happy to stick to discussing possible ways that this would create
broken/overpowered combos from here on out.
-John Flournoy
Blooded Sand
As far as i am concerned, unless this allows a deck worse than AAA or
Obf Ven, it is not so bad, no? And the greatest gains will be amongst
the Indie vamps, as they have lots in 2, less so in 4 and 3, but loads
in 5 again. Even ifit only allowed Indie pairing for 2 & %, it would
be awesome
James Coupe
>I think your idea of the "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too
>broad. More options for the player is not a bad thing. It is the
>reason why we buy more cards. It is the reason that the design team
>keeps churning out new groups, which always means new grouping pairs,
>and more options for the player.
>
>As I understand it, the grouping rule was designed to prevent the
>development of highly concentrated crypts.
I think your "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too narrow. While
there may have been one or two more major motivating factors to find
something like grouping, there appear to be a variety of fringe benefits
that LSJ has taken advantage of.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
echia...@yahoo.com
Yeah, I was sooooooo sad when KMW came out and I realized that I
couldn't combine Ian Forestal (Group 2) with Mata Hari (Group 4). But
with jwjbwhelan's suggestion, I could have almost as much fun with Ian
and Vidal Jarbeaux (Group 5). Ian and Vidal FTW!
jwjbw...@gmail.com
This is a fair point. But it may mean we are applying different
standards to the question. You seem to assume, for instance, that PRE
is more critical than FOR or DOM. Which it may well be. But looked
at more broadly, the 4/5 group, compared to the 1/4 group, gets you 1
extra point of DOM, equal FOR, and 2 less PRE, for 1 less cost. Seems
balanced at least in theory. And I think the 4/5 crowd may have
better specials.
But if I want to play the Voter Cap game, I might prefer hi-caps
anyway, so I can draw more off, fill more up, and benefit more from
Ancient Influence, Political Stranglehold, Reins of Power, and Zillahs
Valley / Parety Shift Combos. In short, I might prefer the 2/3
grouping to the 1/4 grouping.
It is worth mentioning Group 5 also gives you Dmitra Ilyanova, a 9 cap
Brujah with PRE FOR. If Voter Cap is your thing, Dmitra is a voter
cap monster, due to her special.
In short, Group 1/4 looks to me like just another option.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Even classic Malkavian stealth bleed gets a boost by going Group 1/4.
> It doesn't lose anyone too important by dropping Group 2. Florentina
> is a decent support vampire. But you really hit paydirt with Black
> Lotus (5-cap with aus DOM obf), Preston Varrick (7-cap with aus DOM
> OBF and conditional + bleed), and Philippe Riguard (7-cap with aus DOM
> OBF). If you're willing to go larger, Paul Cordwood and Orlando are
> good fits as well. You could even do well to use the new 11-caps.
> Leandro only had inferior Dominate anyway, and now you have Rafael
> with AUS DOM OBF. And Fanchon is much stronger than Etrius ever was.
> But with Group 1/4, you literally have the four smallest vampires in
> the game with DOM OBF (Group 1 has Gilbert and Mariel, Group 4 has
> Preston and Philippe). Plus options to use Amaravati and Titus if you
> are willing to pay one more pool.
You gave me alot to think about, so I've been taking my time. I have
done some analysis of the "Malkavian Stealth Bleed" issue, which I
would like to share. I focussed my analysis on OBF DOM and largely
ignored AUS, except as a tie breaker (I'm not sure you will consider
this appropriate).
This is an issue where you are ultimately likely to be correct. Group
1 was the last time that OBF and DOM went together as in-clan
disciplines. Group 2 deliberately pulled back from this. Therefore,
if ever an even-numbered group is printed that has better OBF DOM than
group 2 (and this would be certain to happen someday, even if it had
not happened already), this will benefit obf dom decks under the odd/
even rule. But the main factor benefiting older players is not the
odd/even rule -- but the simple fact that they have access to old-clan
Malkavian. Similarly, you will have much more ease combining POT &
DOM if you buy Giovanni and Lasombra sets, than if you stick to the
Camarilla clans.
I am going to start my analysis with one capacity vamps, and work my
way up:
-------------------
1-CAPS: A 1 cap with one of your key disciplines is hard to turn
down.
Group 2:
Basil [obf]
Royce [dom]
Group 4:
Cesar [obf]
Afifa [dom]
Seems like a tie, except that when you read the special debilities of
the Group 4 pair, you realize you won't want to put them together in a
deck. The 1-cap advantage goes to Group 2.
---------------------------------
2-CAPS: Harder to justify; they cost twice as much.
Group 2:
Ohanna [dom] malk
4 other vamps [dom]
Group 4
Jackson Asher [dom]
Three vamps [obf]
Group 1 already has 2 caps with obf, so we have little need for most
of the group 4 bunch; except Jackson Asher. Of the Group 2 bunch,
Ohanna stands out because she's a Malkavian, which might matter if you
hope to use clan traits. For what its worth (probably not much - we
might not want to use these guys at all) the 2 cap advantage also goes
to Group 2.
------------------------------------
3-CAPS: They really need obf dom, but none do.
Group 2
No-one worth considering.
Group 4
Keith Moody [DOM] + disability.
The 3-Cap advantage (for what it's worth) goes to Group 4. Note that
Keith's disability can cause him to run out of blood fast.
-------------------------------------
4-CAPS: The real obf-dom vamps start here.
Group 2
Laurent de Valois [obf dom]
Group 4
Robin Withers [obf dom]
The 4-caps are a tie.
---------------------------------------
5-CAPS:
Group 2
Count Ormonde [OBF dom]
Badr al Badr [OBF dom]
1 vamp with [obf dom]
Group 4:
Black Lotus [obf DOM]
3 vamps with [obf dom]
I'm not sure the [obf dom] are worth considering (none are malks, nor
do I recall any useful specials). So its really a contest between the
2 OBF-dom vamps and the 1 obf-DOM vamp. I would give dominate the
edge here, if it was not outnumbered. Advantage to Group 2, or (at
worst) a tie.
--------------------------------------
6-CAPS:
Group 2:
Reverend Blackwood [obf DOM] + bishop
Raful al Zaqua [obf dom] + stealth special
Group 4:
Halim Bey [obf DOM]
3 non-infernal vamps with [obf dom]
1 infernal vamp with [obf dom]
The Reverend has the edge, because of his title. Raful al Zarqa is
the best of the [obf dom] bunch, due to her special, but I'm not sure
we want any of them. Advantage to Group 2, despite being slightly
outnumbered in the lesser options department.
----------------------------------------
7-CAPS: This is where Group 4 finally starts to win.
Group 2
Greger Anderssen [OBF dom] + malk + prince + AUS
Group 4
Phillippe R [OBF DOM] + aus + black hand
Preston V [OBF DOM] + aus + special
Echo [OBF dom]
Amenophobis [OBF dom]
Greger is outnumbered, but not outclassed. Individually, he is a
competitor, as his prince title makes up for his lack of superior
dominate. I must, however, concede the overall advantage to Group 4.
-------------------------------------
8-CAPS: .
Group 2:
Gratiano: [obf DOM] +1 bleed, + super-priscus
Anatole: [OBF dom] +1 intercept + malk
Group 4:
Titus Camille [OBF DOM] + AUS + +1str
Amaravatti [OBF DOM]
I really think I prefer Gratiano. He has +1 bleed, and excellent
chances of controlling the Prisci vote.
There is probably no point to continuing the analysis higher, because
our crypt is complete. You should check out Typhosa's special,
however.
Now, in Group 1/2 we can construct a crypt from the following options:
1. Basil, 1-cap [obf]
2. Royce, 1-cap [dom]
3. Normal, 2 cap [obf], malk
4. Ohanna, 2 cap [dom], malk
5. Roland B., 4-cap [obf dom aus], malk
6. Laurent de V., 4-cap [obf dom]
7. Didi M. 5-cap [obf DOM AUS]
8. Zebulon, 5-cap [OBF dom AUS]
9. Badr al B., 5-cap [OBF dom]
10. Count Ormonde, 5-cap [OBF dom]
11. Ozmo, 6-cap [obf dom AUS], +1 bleed, malk
12. Rev. Blackwood, 6-cap [obf DOM], bishop
13. Raful al Z., 6-cap, [obf dom AUS], can burn blood for stealth
14. Gilbert D, 7-cap, [OBF DOM AUS], malk, prince
15. Mariel, 7-cap, [OBF DOM aus], malk, defensive special
16. Greger Andersen, 7-cap, [OBF dom AUS, malk prince.
17. Gratiano, 8-cap, [obf DOM], +1 bleed, Priscus w extra vote
In the end, even if we start with Roland, and leave out the weenies,
we can still finish off our crypt before we are done with the 7-caps.
In the end, the fact that Group 4 has a few extra good 7-caps (mainly
because it has more vampires overall) is not incredibly important.
The equivalent 1/4 group options would be:
1. Cesar, 1-cap [obf]
2. Normal, 2 cap [obf], malk
3. Jackson Asher, 2 cap [dom]
4. Keith M., 3 cap [DOM]
5. Roland B., 4-cap [obf dom aus], malk
6. Robin W., 4-cap [obf dom]
7. Didi M. 5-cap [obf DOM aus]
8. Zebulon, 5-cap [OBF dom aus]
9. Black Lotus, 5-cap [obf DOM]
10. Ozmo, 6-cap [obf dom AUS], +1 bleed, malk
11. Halim Bey, 6-cap [obf DOM]
12. Gilbert D, 7-cap, [OBF DOM AUS], malk, prince
13. Mariel, 7-cap, [OBF DOM aus], malk, defensive special
14. Philippe R, 7-cap, [OBF DOM aus]
15. Preston V, 7-cap, [OBF DOM aus]
16. Echo, 7-cap, [OBF dom]
17. Amenophobis, 7-cap [OBF dom]
A bit different from the group 1/2 options, but not clearly better.
Heavier on dom, lighter in obfuscate and votes. If you go into higher
cap vampires, there are more options in group 1/4, but there is no
particular reason to do so (except, perhaps, Tryphosa). The group 1/2
options are competitive options.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Independent Group 2/5 would have 34 vampires available (35 for the
> Assamites), which seems excessive.
Maybe I miscounted, but there seem to be only 32 settites in group 2/5
- not counting the advancement version of Kemintiri.
Is 32-35 vampires really too much? One factor that distinguishes the
4 independent clans from the 7 original clans is that they are not
divided into main clan and anti-tribu clan. For instance, between the
Nos and the anti-Nos there are (I think) 54 vampires in group 3/4.
Being divided into 2 clans does not exactly hurt the Nossies. They
get to play 2 hunting grounds (which any vamp can benefit from).
Likewise, any minion can reap the benefit of Storm Sewers or Spawning
Pool -- and the latter works best in combination with Church of St.
Blaise. You need to be the right clan to benefit from Labyrinth,
Warsaw Station, Information Network, but these only benefit one minion
per turn anyway. Other resources (Steam Tunnels, Nosferatu bestial,
Using the Advantage) simply enter play without further clan-based
restrictions on their use. Mixing the clans hurts you only if you
plan to play Con Boon or same-clan cards (Grooming the Protege) or
Sect-based politics.
Currently, the odd/even variant creates an imbalance -- at least in
terms of numbers -- between 2/5 and other pairings. This could easily
be fixed by printing about 8 vamps for Group 3 and 6 for Group 4. But
complete symmetry is unnecessary, provided each group pairing -- and
particularly the latest one, provides reasonably competitive options.
Just looking at Group 2/5 settites, I see nothing imbalancing.
Celine gets a twin brother in Ahmose (both 3-caps with obf-ser), but
it does not otherwise appear that superfocussed decks, including obf
ser decks, will result from the combination.
Note that the odd/even rule permits greater flexibility in expanding.
If, for instance, there is a greater demand for Camarilla expansions
than for Laibon expansions, you can go up to Group 10 Ventrue before
you finally get around to adding Group 5 Guruhi, but without selling
the newbie player a vampire he feels he cannot use. Nor will the
newbie feel cheated if you throw in an advanced version of Appolonius.
> The Group 2 Giovanni don't really
> need the help, nor do the the weenie Ravnos decks.
Well, regardless of whether they *need* the help, do you feel that the
help would unbalance them?
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I think your idea of the "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too
> >broad. More options for the player is not a bad thing. It is the
> >reason why we buy more cards. It is the reason that the design team
> >keeps churning out new groups, which always means new grouping pairs,
> >and more options for the player.
> >
> >As I understand it, the grouping rule was designed to prevent the
> >development of highly concentrated crypts.
>
> I think your "point" of the grouping rule is a bit too narrow. While
> there may have been one or two more major motivating factors to find
> something like grouping, there appear to be a variety of fringe benefits
> that LSJ has taken advantage of.
What sort of fringe benefits do you have in mind?
jwjbw...@gmail.com
XZealot wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:05�pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Imagine that the grouping rule were revised (officially or as a house
> > rule) to read as follows:
> >
> > "You may use crypt cards from a single group, or combine crypt cards
> > from no more than one odd-numbered group and no more than one even-
> > numbered group."
> >
> > Currently, such a rule differs from the current rule only in that it
> > permits combining groups 1 and 4, as well as groups 2 and 5.
> >
> > My question is, what problems, if any, would this create for game
> > balance? �What other negative (or positive) consequences would result?
>
> Fergus-Pariah pot-pro rushless rush deck?
Sounds like fun. But you give up Wynn and Ebenezer Roush.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Toreador Group 1/4 also gives by the lovely Alexandra. But now Anneke
> and Anson have so many better Dominate friends. Rafael has DOM
> (compared to Alexandra's dom). Epikasta is another Prince, and with
> DOM. Ransam has tighter disciplines than Victoria.
>
> Eurobrujah already benefits from New Carthage and most of their key
> vampires are just in Group 2 (Constanza, Donal, Theo). With Group 5,
> they have Carlak, another Prince with Dominate. More cheap Princes
> (like 6-cap Tara and 7-cap Karen to go along with Volker). That's
> already 6 strong Brujah, each of capacity 8 or less. Or go with Don
> Caravelli and Don Cerro to maintain the Dominate angle.
> So no, I don't think it would be a good idea. Furthermore, it would
> severely constrain the design of future groupings. "Gangrel DOM/PRO is
> already really good in Group 2. So that means no future odd-Grouping
> can ever have a lot of Gangrel with Dominate cause that would be too
> strong." Etc.
All of your examples, above, involve out of clan discipine combos:
"Euro-Brujah" pot+cel+dom; Gangrel dom+pro; Toreador with dom.
The new player does not need this sort of protection. A new player
investing in the latest Camarilla base set needs to be able to build
reasonably competitive Brujah decks using Pot-Cel-Pre, reasonably
competitive Toreador decks using Aus-Cel-Pre, and reasonably
competitive Gangrel decks using Pro-Ani-For.
The grouping rule ensures that he can do this. In making a Gangrel
deck, for instance, he need not compete against a veteran player using
a crypt full of 12 different unique Camille Devereau clones, or 12
different unique Violette Prentiss clones.
He need not have access, however, to all the veteran player's
options. If he has not invested in a Laibon set, it is no tragedy
that his experimental pot ani pre deck, using Nosferatu, is not as
effective as a deck build by someone who has a bunch of Guruhi. Nor
is it tragic if this deck concept would be more effective with a
different group of Nosferatu.
More cards means more options. That's what is *should* mean. As long
as a new player has at least some competitive options, the purpose of
the grouping rule is served.