Group 1 and 6 together ?

Dear Igor,

This is the worst part of this players community. I don't think it can change and I've passed by your state of mood many years ago.

Anyway, there are great players in the leagues. Maybe they can be interested in giving a try.

Regards,
Rémi.

If we generaly watch on this idea sabbat clanes dont have group 1,maybe indenpendent too,and laibons?!
Use example Brujah antitribu,they have by groups: G1: 0 vampires, G2: 16 v, G3 : 8v, G4: 15v, G5: 4v, G6: 0v,how we there can watch 1st and last group? can G2 and G5 be together?
How solve this problem? So if we use rule only G1 and last group rule help only camarila vampires.

Group 1 and 6 together is a bad idea because we will get a group 7 at some point (or the game will be dead again before that happens and that's not something we want). When that happens 1+6 decks would become illegal. It's one thing to peruse the TWDA and see decks I cannot build because PTO or Lilith's Blessing is now banned, but it's a completely different thing to not be able to recreate tournament winners because a new grouping came out.

I have said for a long time that if two consecutive groups are balanced, then theoretically any even group and any odd group should be balanced (probably not true), but that's worth testing. That's a situation where the addition of new groups wouldn't require the effective banning of 1+6 decks.

If we had gazillion of VTES players and VTES tournaments, we could simply try out different formats (and rules etc.).
We do not have that, and this is why we need consistancy in the game (where reasonably possible). We witnessed many emotional outbreaks this year where consistancy got touched (either virtually [vampire contestation] or actually [card bans]). (Want more of that? I do not.)
Every now and then, a new set of vampires was released, so new deck building options got available. Of course at some point these options are no longer new, but this would happen as well, if the G61 option were allowed.

Plus, I am quite sure that the new V5 crypts were designed for a high power level. You really want to see more decks with Anson or Anneke, to name just two of the most prominent G1 vampires?

Ashur wrote:

I have been suggesting "group 1 + the latest group" since 2002. It would be a logical and enabling way. But sadly, no one ever listens to me

that would effectively be set rotation, as this would create a pool of vampires that would change over time.

currently it would be 1+6, but then once group 7 hits as the next major grouping, those decks would no longer be legal. On top of that, you'd have the oddity of having two vampires in the same pool that have Justicar titles. If I had a deck that could only work by smooshing groups 1 and 6 together, i would no longer be able to use it once Group 7 comes out. that's set rotation, something that the V:tes community has consistently railed against.

while group 1 vampires certainly have their niche in deckbuilding, i've always found Group 1 as a whole to be kind of lackluster once you get beyond the two handfulls of vampires who are outstandingly good. I mean, I'm all for set rotations and culling the card pool back down to something manageable.

The grouping rule does an amazing job of keeping deckbuilding choices manageable without invalidating the older cards and vampires. Personally I think that it should be expanded to library cards. separating library cards into several groups could boost disciplines that are seen as poor performers or of limited scope, and even pull a few teeth from disciplines seen as overpowered (looking at you, dominate).

at any rate, I wouldn't be a fan of group selection wrapping around to the back end, if only because of the way it would change over time and invalidate certain card pools.