A debate on diablerie, Angelo-Promo, Revelation of the sire

...and i argued that g1 and 6 should wraparound into each other when they printed g6 and cancelled the game.

But, when i think on it, oh well. G5-6 will be in new sets, release pending. I argued yhat until i wqs blue in the face, too. G1 needs a few adv versions. Then its perfect. Really, g1-2 is still super viable. Sure, justicars suck if you arent nos, torrie, or malk, but who cares when you can fix don, angus, demo, etc with adv versions. And they have an any grouping, he makes anarch secession with lawfirm real neat...

G1 has grrat crypt for malks, torries, ventrue. Add g2 and nossies and brujah are ok too. So, we screw the gangrel still, but thats been going on since forever with this game.

Angelo isnt good enough to be any grouping and matter, as plainly stated. Hermenas make more sense to be "any", but again, not a requirement in my book.

Kiev circle have thier own thing going, not unlike other bloodline archetypes, angelo supports every other bb build, whats the problem here? You want for pot cel in g1? Adv appolonious or others would be a better idea.

Im not seeing support for yoir argument. Anarchs need convert, sure you can build without him, but he made them way more viable. Arguably, him and half a dozen tr cards in ae would have made tr not needed.

You must have some idea of q problem in mind, so im curiius what that is. There is most likely a better solution than the ideas that have been discussed here.

I suggest finding a wodring for an adv angelo making him better if you dig that card. Plenty of less playable promos out there thiugh.

Roccia being any grouping makes more sense than angelo. And that doesnt make sense. Printing better gargoyles does.

Saulot is the manwhore of vampiredom..... he got around. Hes responsible for a metric butload of bloodlines and clans.

Tell me what you believe is an issue and then this thread can address is, imo.

Arthur wrote:

I think it's shortsighted to think that only non-unique vampires should have "ANY" as a group. It's vehicle to prop up and keep relevant, older groupings which are weaker compared to newer vampires.

Printing new fr 1 or 2 vampire, or advanced versions, are way better alternatives than stupid ANY group slapped on random vampires. And that's if you believe some group to be weak.

It's actually a good reason to expand gr5 and 6, you're pretty right on that.

Arthur wrote:

I go back to the older vamps and want to make decks with them, but am continually caught asking myself, "why?". Apart from the select few tried and tested deck concepts from those groups, the power creep of newer vamps VS old is huge. With that said, I don't think it's outlandish to think that "ANY" vamps would destroy balance. Balance is more readily destroyed with library cards that let disastrous combinations occur.

I agree. Alexandra, Anson, Anneke, Arika, Stanislava are know to be awfully weak and unplayable. Not to mention the Beast, Donal, Constanza, Volker, Jost Werner, Ian Forestal, and lmitterally tens of other good vampires in gr1-2

In other words, if you believe the gr1-2 to be obsolete, you're actually deeply mistaken. There is good arguments to say it have the bests vampires in it.

Arthur wrote:

The only reason I mentioned Angelo was because the Blood Brothers only have a few vamps. Sure, they're supposed to have so few vamps, but variety is the spice of life and when it comes to an anomaly like Angelo, being able to use Sanguinius with any circle, plus being a promo, I think he deserves special treatment over other vamps we can manufacture a reason for being "ANY".

No, he don't deserve that, especially when he is actually already playable with nearly all of them.

if anything, it make Kiev Circle less flavorful.

Arthur wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't be against Saulot as "ANY". Group 2 SAL! are exceptionally weak in regards to the vamps they have access and I think that a Saulot strat should be felt across all groups of vampires.

Heretical thoughts, I know.

Not heretical ideas, just bad ideas. Don't try to wrap yourself as someone who think outside the box when you just don't understand the point of a useful rule.

In this case, it allow Saulot decks to choose freely its sidekick. But that's still a Saulot deck. And it's not like !Salubri, especially gr2 were good sidekick for him, both because he is not a very good vampire to use Valeren with and because Saulot tend to be better with auspex sidekick, which is not exactly the thematic of gr1-2 vampire.

And most importantly, Saulot is a very good vampire and that kind of powerful vampire can help doing extremely powerful crypt. People won't use Saulot in ANY group to make !salubri deck, they will test whether he help an AAA deck. Adding ANY vampires open the risk of stupid combos, and that's why it's usually a terribly bad and lazy idea.

Don't forget that grouping actually allow for more variety in decks, not less. Without groups, you only take the most powerfuls one, while grouping force you to take less goods vampires to fill up the gaps, leading both to the use of more vampire, and to having top decks less powerful and thus non optimized deck more pleasant to play.

Touching on some of ohlmanns points, g2 is the strongest group. Its unplayables are balanced by sheer numbers and the mentioned vamps, along with others not mentioned(matthias, lazvernious, and less gernerally useful archetype centered vamps like fatima and anatole come to mind).

Any should probably just be a convert thimg. As mentioned, grouping opens up diversity.