Idea (Grouping Rule)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Suggested group rule:
> Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt, which may be
from
> any group or two consecutive groups. Additional groups may be used,
> increasing that player's crypt minimum by an additional 12 cards per
> group.

The probability of drawing a given vampire at a given time (other than
the first drawn vampire) is a dependent event.

As a 12-card crypt with no duplicates is increased to become a 24-card
crypt, composed of exactly 2 copies of each vampire, and on to a
32-card crypt composed of 3 copies of each, etc., the probability of
drawing a given vampire approaches an independent event.

Visually,
17 000 copies Mustafa Rahman
17 000 copies Jing Wei
17 000 copies Sarah Cobbler
etc., your chances of drawing Sarah Cobbler will approach .08333, or
8.333%, as these numbers increase. This means that the benefit of
adding more choices continues to increase, as the drawback of
increasing crypt size ceases to add any practical penalty.

So you used, say, 12 groups, this is still virtually dial-a-crypt, only
you have to buy a LOT of cards.

The solution above should be amended to "One additional group may be
used...". Or perhaps two, but I haven't done the math.

Statisticians? Anyone?

-- Brian
Actually in favor of even-and-odd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
or chnaged to any 2 groups.

Piers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> "Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3WjZd.164$6P4.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > Now, Andy Brown (our Prince here in Cambridge) has suggested to me
that a
> > better idea would be one odd and one even group, which might be a
better
> > alternative to the current system.
>
> See this thread:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/70a4badbe1a67293
>
> (And search "odd even group" on google for even more)
>
It seems like the primary objection to the rule change was that it
didn't go far enough, not that people wouldn't like the small amount of
added flexibility. I'm curious if the idea of fiddling with the
grouping rule has been completely abandoned, or just put aside to see
if there's a better option.

If no better option can be agreed upon, then maybe the even-odd rule is
better than the current consecutive groups rule?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

firstconformist@aol.com wrote:
> The probability of drawing a given vampire at a given time (other than
> the first drawn vampire) is a dependent event.

Yes.

> As a 12-card crypt with no duplicates is increased to become a 24-card
> crypt, composed of exactly 2 copies of each vampire, and on to a
> 32-card crypt composed of 3 copies of each, etc., the probability of
> drawing a given vampire approaches an independent event.

Yes

> Visually,
> 17 000 copies Mustafa Rahman
> 17 000 copies Jing Wei
> 17 000 copies Sarah Cobbler
> etc., your chances of drawing Sarah Cobbler will approach .08333, or
> 8.333%, as these numbers increase. This means that the benefit of
> adding more choices continues to increase, as the drawback of
> increasing crypt size ceases to add any practical penalty.

No.

> So you used, say, 12 groups, this is still virtually dial-a-crypt, only
> you have to buy a LOT of cards.

No.

> The solution above should be amended to "One additional group may be
> used...". Or perhaps two, but I haven't done the math.
>
> Statisticians? Anyone?

Just a computer nerd.

The chance of drawing excactly one copy of a given vampire for the
current uncontrolled "slot" will approach the 8.333% thing, correct, BUT
the chance of "clumping" e.g having 4 times the same vampire increases.
I consider that to be a disadvantage. In the original 12 vamps crypt
there are no duplicates possible, in the 12x 17000 vamp crypt they
become more likely.

--
johannes walch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Piers wrote:
> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
> or chnaged to any 2 groups.
>
> Piers

A heart refreshing approach, really.

The toreador would have a ridiculous number of reasonbly "prized"
princes. Not sure if that can be considered "broken".

--
johannes walch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
> numbered group.

Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
[1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.

Aside from card bans (which are made for specific play-balance reasons),
the current rules have very clearly been made in order to avoid
invalidating any existing decks.

Specifically, when grouping came in, by keeping all previous cards in
the first two groups all previous decks were still legal. Proposed
changes such as "any odd, any even" also avoid invalidating decks in the
future, which "wrap around" doesn't. Except for bans (which are hard,
but somewhat inevitable), the clear precedent is that decks don't become
illegal.


However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:16:25 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

> In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
>> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
>> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
>> numbered group.
>
> Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
> [1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.

Yeah, I know, I just pointed out the misunderstanding. The point was
there, no doubt about that.

> However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
> fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.

Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
little need for the basic version?

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dcf8be2.0503151512.38c462bf@posting.google.com...
> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
> or chnaged to any 2 groups.

Weenie Ventrue becomes pretty horrific if you can use groups 1 and 3
together.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:18:23 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:16:25 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <opsnogxiylo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>> writes:
>>> Every second group. The point is to allow one base set type of group
>>> with one filler type of group. Specifically, as long as there is no
>>> Group 0 or something, Group 1 could be used with the highest even
>>> numbered group.
>>
>> Which is still a questionable idea. That [1/4] becomes invalid when
>> [1/6] becomes legal isn't a spectacularly great move.
>
>Yeah, I know, I just pointed out the misunderstanding. The point was
> there, no doubt about that.
>
>> However, I would, as I have said elsewhere, like to see more Group 1
>> fiddling - specifically with regards advanced vampires.
>
>Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
> little need for the basic version?

By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,

Appolonius
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.
[MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.

It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
putting in a basic is worthwhile.

Morgan Vening

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:12:13 +1100, Morgan Vening <morgan@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
>> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
>> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
>> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
>> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
>> little need for the basic version?
>
> By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,

Cool Idea.

> Appolonius
> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
> bleed.

Yeah, he's the one I'm most concerned about. 9 DP's worth of abilities
on a 10-cap.

> Appolonius (ADV)
> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
> Capacity: 10
> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
> each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.

Okay, this is roughly like the basic version in power. No big difference,
but the +1 bleed already shows some synergy with the stealth on bleeds.

> [MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.

Now, this gives him 4 points of abilities. Merge, the way I see it, mostly
gives either no special text (when the two versions have a synergy in
abilities), or about 1 DP's worth of abilities (as merging still costs a
pool and 4 transfers, you might as well get your worth for that pool).

I'm not saying it shouldn't or couldn't, it just doesn't usually.

> It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
> either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
> is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
> putting in a basic is worthwhile.

Okay, I don't think Kemintiri [merged] is über. She's a 10-cap with about
an 11-cap's abilities, but given how she is merged, it is kind of right.
Her power seems high because of tricks like Fall of the Camarilla +
Wormwood + PTO, which are brutal but border on being unplayable.

As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):

Appolonius
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
[MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
after the first round of combat.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:05:38 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>>> Actually, I wouldn't exactly mind somehow extending the options for
>>> Group 1 either. Advancement seems like a good idea - but then again,
>>> how do you advance a vampire that is 10-cap and has 9 design points
>>> worth of abilities (instead of the 12 it should have according to
>>> the new formula) without creating an über advancemet vamp that has
>>> little need for the basic version?
>>
>> By adding disciplines to the [MERGE] ability? Example,
>
>Cool Idea.
>
>> Appolonius
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>> bleed.
>
>Yeah, he's the one I'm most concerned about. 9 DP's worth of abilities
> on a 10-cap.

I figured. he's the one who comes up most often when the "formula" is
brought up.

>> Appolonius (ADV)
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius can pay 1 blood for a press or maneuver
>> each combat. +1 stealth on bleeds.
>
>Okay, this is roughly like the basic version in power. No big difference,
> but the +1 bleed already shows some synergy with the stealth on bleeds.
>
>> [MERGE] Prince of San Francisco. Appolonius has FOR, POT, DOM.
>
>Now, this gives him 4 points of abilities. Merge, the way I see it, mostly
> gives either no special text (when the two versions have a synergy in
> abilities), or about 1 DP's worth of abilities (as merging still costs a
> pool and 4 transfers, you might as well get your worth for that pool).
>
>I'm not saying it shouldn't or couldn't, it just doesn't usually.

But that's because most 'advanced' vampires have been those that have
been fairly usable from the start. Like Tariq. Count Germaine. Theo
Bell. To make a vampire that is typically considered VERY weak in the
modern format, usable, the payoff of the total needs to be
significantly greater than either component.

>> It's like what I feel they did with Kemintiri, moderate vampire in
>> either incarnation, uber only when merged. Or even if the ADV version
>> is reasonable, but making the Merge bonus significant enough that
>> putting in a basic is worthwhile.
>
>Okay, I don't think Kemintiri [merged] is über. She's a 10-cap with about
> an 11-cap's abilities, but given how she is merged, it is kind of right.
> Her power seems high because of tricks like Fall of the Camarilla +
> Wormwood + PTO, which are brutal but border on being unplayable.

I meant in comparison to her 'parts'. Nefertiti is a better 10cap Set
vamp for 'regular' Set deck (Obf/Pre/Ser). Neferu is arguably a better
vamp for THA Set, or Vote Set. The Merged ability is likely what will
make Kemintiri usable, trick deck or not (3 votes +
Cam/Justicar/Ventrue Access is good without the gimmick).

>As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
> lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):
>
>Appolonius
>Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>Capacity: 10
>Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>bleed.
>
>Appolonius (ADV)
>Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>Capacity: 10
>Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
>Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
> [MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
> after the first round of combat.

Problem here is, you'd be a fool to take the first one unless you
planned to merge. See the first paragraph (yours) of this post.

But the concept is sound, given that the Merge ability makes him
exponentially more useful.

Morgan Vening

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:54:53 +1100, Morgan Vening <morgan@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> As for good 'ole Appolonius, I have been pondering something along the
>> lines of (freely incorporating some of your ideas):
>>
>> Appolonius
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL PRE for pot
>> Camarilla primogen: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. +1
>> bleed.
>>
>> Appolonius (ADV)
>> Clan: Brujah (group 1)
>> Capacity: 10
>> Disciplines: CEL FOR POT PRE
>> Advanced, Camarilla: Appolonius gets an optional Press each combat.
>> [MERGE] Camarilla Prince of San Francisco: Appolonius gets +2 Strength
>> after the first round of combat.
>
> Problem here is, you'd be a fool to take the first one unless you
> planned to merge. See the first paragraph (yours) of this post.

I tried to make the advanced version be at par with the basic. I
also tried to give him everything disciplines-wise, because even
though I see the merit and originality of your proposal to give
merged vampires extra disciplines, the point of the status bar and
all is to provide a convenient comparison at a glance. Meaning, if
possible, the Advancement card should have the goodies when it
comes to disciplines.

Common:
Clan: Brujah (group 1)
Capacity: 10
Disciplines: CEL PRE
Camarilla: Appolonius gets one optional press each combat. (works both
times if merged)

Appolonius:
Disciplines: for pot
Primogen: +1 bleed.

Appolonius (ADV)
Disciplines: FOR POT
[...]

Of course, I used the DP worth as the basis. In actual use, having
FOR POT may indeed be better than having a vote and +1 bleed.

> But the concept is sound, given that the Merge ability makes him
> exponentially more useful.

Yeah, that was the idea. 😉

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <d19te1$hgc$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, XZealot
<x_zealot@brucefoodsla.com> writes:
>"Piers" <MonsterGuy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8dcf8be2.0503151512.38c462bf@posting.google.com...
>> Could someone give an example of why any perticular crypt of vampires
>> would be broken or overly powerfull, if the grouping rule was removed
>> or chnaged to any 2 groups.
>
>Weenie Ventrue becomes pretty horrific if you can use groups 1 and 3
>together.

Additionally to specific "horror" decks, it's not just about spectacular
broken-ness but about power-creep.

Imagine a finely honed deck across all four groups from an oldbie player
who has access to many copies of lots of vampires. This is going to
allow him to make a much more finely tuned deck than the newbie who just
picked up a few Camarilla Edition starters and a clutch of boosters from
some set.

Now, maybe that's not a big issue right now. (Maybe - your opinion may
vary.) But if the game continues, imagine that across five sets. Six
sets. How many sets does it need before the barrier for newbies wanting
to enter the game becomes too high?

Grouping provides a significant "levelling" mechanism, which counters
that a lot. Perfectly? No, but then very little would be other than
giving everyone completely free access to any cards they want.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/