Keystone Kine and Imbued

narpassword wrote:

You're begging the question by asserting the card is supposed to do X, then saying Y isnt affected by X therefore its bad.

A.) While I may have been out of order assuming that the purpose of Kindred segregation was to punish people playing allies, I am pretty sure that neither what I wrote, or what you wrote, is circular reasoning (begging the question) since premise and conclusion are not identical or easily transformable to one another. That Imbued are badly designed does not automatically follow that the purpose of kindred segregation is to hurt players playing allies.

B.) Pay attention that I gave my opinion on "what is counter-intuitive". I did not claim anything.

narpassword wrote:

It sounds like the purpose of Kindred segregation is to hurt players recruiting allies

Since Imbued are the pretty much the only allies that are not recruited (rather, have a recruitment cost), does this interpretation change anything? Imbued are still the exception.

While not the sole exception (there is absimiliards army, spell of life, etc) the discussion surrounding Imbued lately centers around the fact that large number of cards do not interact with Imbued. This is merely another card added to the list. In my opinion, taking into account the capabilities of Imbued , this list is too large.

Bloodartist wrote:

Imbued once again dodge strategies.

I do think that it's weird that Kindred Segregation doesn't force the players of imbued decks to burn pool; seems like a case of an old card getting left behind by new cards because the text of the old card didn't anticipate how the new cards would work.

That said, Kindred Segregation as a strategy? C'mon. I saw that card played, like, twice, in the years before NoR was printed. Arguing that NoR wallpapered Kindred Segregation is like saying that every time crypt cards for a new clan get printed, the clan hosers for older clans get more wallpapery: it's technically true, but it's way more pedantic than it is pragmatic.

Bloodartist wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

What's counter-intuitive?

How about that Kindred segregation is supposed to hurt players playing allies, yet imbued are allies and don't care about it.

But that's not what Kindred Segregation does. Literally, read the card text. It doesn't say "hurt players playing allies", it has a specific, defined effect.

People playing Shambling Hordes are playing allies. Because the pool cost to recruit them is zero, the controlling Methuselah is able to keep the allies for free, if they want. (It's optional, so you can ditch allies if there is some reason to - say, you have a somewhat mangled unique ally in play and want to replace it but can't self-contest.) So the controller isn't hurt.

Players using lots of Arms Dealers (say, a deck like this one by Jay Kristoff from 2007 ) aren't hurt, because Arms Dealers are free. If Kindred Segregation is supposed to hurt people playing with allies, why is this deck not hurt by it? Arms Dealer has been free since the beginning of time. It has always been the case that a player using Arms Dealers could keep them for free. Kindred Segregation could have been written to hurt it - adding text such as a minimum of at least 1 pool would have been easily possible. But it wasn't. So if you're arguing designer intent, we can state that it wasn't intended to hurt all allies. Allies who escaped its effect were around ever since it was created.

Bloodartist wrote:

Its not a question of rules interpretation, but going against the spirit behind the design of a card. Imbued once again dodge strategies.

The spirit of the card is surely to hurt people playing allies with a pool cost to recruit. Because... that's what the card does.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

The spirit of the card is surely to hurt people playing allies with a pool cost to recruit. Because... that's what the card does.

Pool cost is not mentioned on the Jyhad version of the card. So, I think nobody really knows what the actual original intent of the card was. All we do know is that the effect of the card has evolved over time to include "pool cost to recruit." But nobody really knows the reason for this evolution, ie, was it to more closely align with the intent of the Jyhad effect, or a writing screw up on the VTES version of the card that got carried over to later sets, or was it a deliberate change to work around effects introduced in later sets? Who knows?

TwoRazorReign wrote:

was it a deliberate change to work around effects introduced in later sets? Who knows?

This. It was reinterpreted to be less debilitating to Imbued, right at the time of NoR.

You can find LSJ's post on it if you google hard enough.

Once again parts of the game had t be changed because of an expansion that changed the base fundamentals of the game, which had further knock on effects.

Blooded wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

was it a deliberate change to work around effects introduced in later sets? Who knows?

This. It was reinterpreted to be less debilitating to Imbued, right at the time of NoR.

You can find LSJ's post on it if you google hard enough.

Once again parts of the game had t be changed because of an expansion that changed the base fundamentals of the game, which had further knock on effects.

Kindred Segregation was not changed because of anything in NoR. The current card text was introduced in Camarilla edition and was not changed in Third edition. I'm guessing the reason for the current Kindred Segregation/Imbued interaction was to fit in with how Kindred Segregation is worded. I doubt any changes were made as a consequence of how imbued function.