Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
14 Jul 2011 06:34 #6276
by Shockwave
Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Replied by Shockwave on topic Re: 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.
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.



Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
14 Jul 2011 07:09 - 14 Jul 2011 07:12 #6277
by Boris The Blade
Replied by Boris The Blade on topic Re: Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
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.
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.
Last edit: 14 Jul 2011 07:12 by Boris The Blade.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Boris The Blade
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1221
- Thank you received: 256
14 Jul 2011 08:19 #6278
by Shockwave
Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Replied by Shockwave on topic Re: Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
I don't think anyone suggested that, Boris? I think it's just debating the best possible option.




Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
14 Jul 2011 08:56 #6282
by Mephistopheles
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
Replied by Mephistopheles on topic Re: Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
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.
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.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mephistopheles
-
- Offline
- Methuselah
-
Less
More
- Posts: 266
- Thank you received: 38
14 Jul 2011 12:25 #6292
by brandonsantacruz
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!
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Replied by brandonsantacruz on topic Re: Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
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!
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- brandonsantacruz
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1284
- Thank you received: 229
15 Jul 2011 20:46 #6352
by LunaSlave
Replied by LunaSlave on topic Re: Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?
I wouldn't mind this change. I'd really love it if Imbued were changed to group "Any"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.089 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Expansion Sets & Card Ideas
- Grouping rule- wrap around grouping?