Abolish Grouping Rule

one of the purposes of new expansion (Danse Macabre) is to fill group 5 (maybe 6 as well) with more vampires, so the problem of groups 5-6 will be non existing.

Also, if we're talking about allowing first group being played with last group, how would that affect the current setup of groups? Camarilla has most of its vamps in odd groups with several bridge vamps in even groups, Sabbat has it reversed, while Blood lines have usually only 1 bridge vampire in odd group each.

So, with this proposed rule, for example Camarilla, now doesn't have one 'main' group backed up by one splash group, but is now played with two main groups (1 and 5). Also, aside from game mechanic point, how is that affected by a fluff standpoint, being theoretically able to have more than one Inner circle/Justicar of the same clan in your deck?

Non-existant user wrote:

mirddes wrote:

then surely 1/4 2/5 1/6 and 3/6 wont break anything1/

2-5 would break the Independent clans: for historical reasons (Final Nights was printed before the grouping rule), Gr2 has more than 20 of each clan but group 3 is empty. So while gr 2-3 and 4-5 are on par, a gr 2-5 would have a crazily large crypt choice. If the game gets reprinted, one might consider making Final Nights vampires group 3 instead of 2 to balance the group sizes. That would enable a gr 3-4 crypt.

2-4 is kinda broken also. 819 different vampires to choose from instead of the biggest combination today (group 3-4 = 664 vamps).

I think mirddes was talking of odd/even groups only.

I was kinda thinking of the "any two groups" suggestion.

The big issue is that group 2+4 is insanely unbalanced.
Group 2+5 as you said is also unbalanced just for independents.
Group 2+6 is also a slight improvement for independents.

As far as I can see, all other combinations are fairly balanced.

mirddes wrote:

the1andonlime wrote:

mirddes wrote:

then surely 1/4 2/5 1/6 and 3/6 wont break anything1/

Two problems here.

1) Arbitrarily ruling that certain groupings wrap around for certain clans but not certain other clans will give rise to much confusion, not only to the existing player base (I shudder at the thought of having to check crypt legality under such a ruling) but also to new players.

2) If you simply say that any two groups will do, then certain clans becomes quite broken (Kiasyd comes to mind) and weenie monodicipline decks will get a much undeserved boost.

so if any 2 groups is broken, then maye just get rid of the rule all together.

group 7 any time soon?

Gr. 7? Maybe 5 years, or never? Gr. 5 is also quite leaky and Gr. 6 is not just leaky; it needs at least 1 big expansion from each side (sabbat, indie, cammy at least) and that is basically 3 years after the DM expansion which is most likely another year at least. Don't expect it to see it any time soon...