Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?

Our local group considering trying the following instead:

Allow Group 4/5/6 to be played as 'Any two'. So you could play 5-6, 4-5 or 4-6, but not all three. This stops the issue with the 'make them Group 5' proposal, where certain Clans (Hello, Kiasyd) become obscene as a result, but makes the Group 6 more 'support' style Bloodlines (Hello in particular to the Scarce ones) more playable.

I like wraparound as it happens, but the Discipline spread in Group 1, notably the lack of any Sabbat or Bloodline members really makes it probably no more viable than it is now.

So we would like to match them with a group that:

1) contains Sabbat
2) contains Independents
3) does not contains other Bloodlines

There is no solution to that:

Group 1 has no Sabbat
Group 2 has Bloodlines
Group 3 has no Independents
Group 4 has Bloodlines

I feel the we can forget about Independents: Group 5 already has them. This leaves group 3 as the best candidate.

I don't think anyone suggested that, Boris? I think it's just debating the best possible option.

Many of the Group 6 vampires could make great use of the weenie aus/AUS or dom/DOM vampires from group 1. Either for Anima Gathering or for bleed bounce. Like Salmath, Byzar, Nahum Enosh, etc.

Also I could see the point in an Group 1/6 Nosferatu + DoC deck (Scout Youngwood + Hillanvale + Selma + Sheldon). I would play that.

I just spent 30 seconds to figure these out. I am sure that people can find other interesting combinations.

I think 1/6 is cool thing.

Cyrus wrote:

As several pointed out above, there might not be a lot of use in doing it. And without a clear use, I would say no, as all rule changes are cumbersome.

I don't think that the rule change would be cumbersome at all. You could just add something like "group six is considered adjacent to group one as well as group five" and bingo!

I wouldn't mind this change. I'd really love it if Imbued were changed to group "Any"