Imbued question

John Flournoy wrote:
> adam.hulse.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > No this is not a question about card text, but I feel important
> > nevertheless.
> >
> > Ummm.... why are Imbued Group 4? Why do they have a group number at
> > all?
> >
> > I would like to know the reasoning behind it... thanks.
>
> Some possibly-obvious answers:
>
> Because every crypt card has (or is assumed to have) a group number,
> and there was no compelling reason to change this for imbued.
>
> In case they ever want to release more imbued without also increasing
> the overall number of imbued available to deckbuild for previous
> groupings.
>
> -John Flournoy


Maybe... but I find it unlikely that X time down the line we will see
Imbued Group 2.

Based on Negral Group 5 (small proof, but possible), it seems that in
the future the are going to go for higher group numbers. Group 5? 6?

Imbued cannot share any disciplines with any vampire so it really
should not matter what group you play Imbued with.

Any other thoughts? Answers?
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

perhaps they're leaving the imbued as G4 so that in the future, when/if
they release new imbued, they release them as G6, so the power balance
within imbued crypts is not disturbed. as they did with G3/4 vampires.
that's the reason G rule is in place, isn't it?
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> Assuming grouping is necessary for Imbued (I'm not saying it is, but the
> above is very likely the design team's rationale), then group 4 is the
> logical group for this current batch. That's the group that most of the
> vampires in recent sets have been. Players just getting into the game now
> (if there are such creatures) will be able to buy LoB and NoR and play the
> crypt cards in the same crypts together.
>
> Matt Morgan

Imbued are also a sign of Gehenna, and most of the Gehenna-related
Crypt Cards are 3/4.

--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 adam.hulse.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> Maybe... but I find it unlikely that X time down the line we will see
> Imbued Group 2.

Agreed.

> Based on Negral Group 5 (small proof, but possible), it seems that in
> the future the are going to go for higher group numbers. Group 5? 6?

Of course. I don't think the next logical place for group numbers is
fractions or imaginary or negative numbers. Since we have groups 1-5, 6
is inevitable, should we continue to get new expansions.

> Imbued cannot share any disciplines with any vampire so it really
> should not matter what group you play Imbued with.

True, but by not giving Imbued a group number, that would limit the number
of Imbued that could be printed in the long run. Perhaps we'll eventually
have 20 group 6 Imbued, another 20 in group 8 and so on. I think we'll
never see 60 Imbued that can all play together in the same crypt.

> Any other thoughts? Answers?

Assuming grouping is necessary for Imbued (I'm not saying it is, but the
above is very likely the design team's rationale), then group 4 is the
logical group for this current batch. That's the group that most of the
vampires in recent sets have been. Players just getting into the game now
(if there are such creatures) will be able to buy LoB and NoR and play the
crypt cards in the same crypts together.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

Rehlow wrote:
> Also, when only printing 20 Imbued, why further limit the number you
> have to choose from by splitting them across incompatible groups. I
> guess they could have chosen to make some Group 3 and some Group 4 and
> you would be able to play them in the same spots as the all Group 4
> (with the exception of any Group 3 not playable with Nergal). That
> makes me wonder if Group 5 (or maybe even the rest of Group 4) will
> have vampires with special abilities that specifically mention Imbued
> instead of ally or mortal ally.

Something not yet mentioned is that, since group 3 is now (presumably)
full for all clans (barring advancement), the next expansion will need
to be either entirely group 4 or groups 4-5. Making all imbued group 4
means that they are all playable with the past several expansions of
group 3-4 vampires, and will all be playable in the next several
expansions with group 4-5 vampires, making Nights of Reckoning a sort
of "bridge" set between them. It will give new players coming in on the
upcoming Sabbat base set another expansion they can buy into knowing
that all the crypt cards will be compatible with their group 4-5
vampires from that set. There may also be a set of potential new
players who may be drawn in by the possibility of playing the imbued,
who might be discouraged if some of their favorite imbued ended up
being incompatible with group 5 vampires/imbued to come out in the next
expansion

Alternatively, it could be the first of two or more expansions
containing only group 4 crypt cards, i.e. only the first plank of the
bridge.

Witness1
-ItE
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

adam.hulse.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> No this is not a question about card text, but I feel important
> nevertheless.
>
> Ummm.... why are Imbued Group 4? Why do they have a group number at
> all?
>
> I would like to know the reasoning behind it... thanks.

I think the Imbued need to be grouped so that more can be created and
we don't end up with super-imbued crypts.

As for why they share the same group as vampires i think that was just
the easiest way to go. LSJ stated that it was simpler to go this way
than create perpendicluar groupings:

"There's nothing hairy or invalidating about conforming to the rules
when they suffice (as opposed to creating needless complications like
perpendicular groupings)."

I personally don't see it as much of a complication. I would have
preferred a perpendicular grouping approach. It's pretty
straightforward and would have allowed us to play Imbued with all of
our favourite group 1/2 vampires.

Chris.
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

Rehlow wrote:
> There is a lot more to this game then just disciplines. Black Cat and
> one of the Imbued have very similiar special abilities. G1/2 already
> have a lot of low capacity vampires to draw upon for a wennie bleed
> deck. There might be some other special abilities on vampires in groups
> 1 or 2 that would have great synergy with Imbued (I haven't really
> looked). Maybe it was decided that Imbued should not be in the same
> crypt as Inner Circle vampires for whatever reason.

I've looked the spoilers. Here's a couple of possibilities:

- There is an Imbued (and a 4-cap only) that can spend a Conviction to
gain 3 votes against a referendum - not to mention she has a Mariel
Lady Thunder-like effect (tap to end combate between two monsters).
Once you play her, you can also play with Rose Foundation, a master
that doesn't require a single creed, costs 1 pool only and can give you
2 votes in a referendum. Sure, not broken, but imagine this Imbued with
Leandro, Arika, Mariel, Ventrue Headquarters, Rose Foundation and
Elysium: tons of votes and three different, permanent effects that end
combat before range.

- There's at least 2 Imbued with +1 bleed - one 3-cap and other 4-cap.
Not good with tons of Dominate or Presence weenies, as groups 1-2
already have. Note that there are Powers that you can tap to gain +1
bleed for that action also.

That does not seem much, but take into account that I've just skimmed
through spoilers. I'm sure once people have the time to get them and
look carefully, they will find ways to take the most advantage out of
other Imbued's specials, or imagine how they could boost tested and
proved strategies based on group 1-2 vampires even more.

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, FC wrote:

> But for the sake of argument lets compare Delilah Easton with Emerson
> Wilkerson III
>
> Obviously the only difference between these two 2-cap toreadors lies in the
> possible crypts they can be a part of. Each have different playmates for
> weenie presence, as support to toreador vote or any other deck concept you
> may think of. You may even find that you prefer one over the other based on
> this. One thing is clear though and that is that the scales favor Emerson
> when it comes to teaming up with Imbued Crypt cards.
>
> It seems obvious to me that this fact reduce the competitiveness of Delilah
> at some level. Even if you only have vampires in your embued deck to recruit
> a Repo Man (or whatever) - Emerson is your guy, not Delilah.

You can make the same argument that Appolonius reduces the competitiveness
of Emerson and that Delilah is clearly a better card. This highly flawed
argument has nothing to do with Imbued.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

Wow, a lot of posts. Lets see if I can elaborate a bit.

The way I understood grouping is to prevent Vampires with similar
abilities all playing in the same crypt. To encourage trying out (and
buying) new cards.

Imbued are a type of Unique Crypt card. They have their own set of
powers, cards, and effects, NONE that could also be played on vampires.
There is no similiarites between the vamp and imbued crypt cards.

With them having grouping that means I can never try and use Group 1-2
vamps with these Imbued. Why? It seems that it was done only for
marketing. In order to get vamps to play with imbued you HAVE to use ie
buy new stuff.

I guess what I am trying to say is that making Imbued non-group does
not seem to affect game-play.

Now someone said something to the effect of "well when the next set of
Imbued comes out you don't want them to group all together". Well, 2
points on that.
1) Imbued is a cool set and all that, but how much more will come out?
And in anytime soon? This is a game of VAMPIRES after all.
2) Someone suggested that a easy answer for that is to have Imbued to
have their own grouping set. That was a excellent idea. It allows
Imbued to be played with any vampires but not with any expansion sets
that will come out (?) in the future.


The sad thing is that this is all too late. The cards are printed, the
ship is sailed, Horatio Ballard has left the building. Anymore on this
(as some people put) is just bitching.

I guess I would a official answer from the Reps from VTES (unless I
missed reading a post) about the reasoning behind it. If it is a money
making plan... then okay, I understand, so be it. Perhaps I should
email this to one of them?

Alright, not the best post I've written but I think you guys get the
idea.
Thanks for reading,
Adam
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

adam.hulse.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, a lot of posts. Lets see if I can elaborate a bit.
>
> The way I understood grouping is to prevent Vampires with similar
> abilities all playing in the same crypt. To encourage trying out (and
> buying) new cards.
>
> Imbued are a type of Unique Crypt card. They have their own set of
> powers, cards, and effects, NONE that could also be played on vampires.
> There is no similiarites between the vamp and imbued crypt cards.

Except that there are plenty of cards playable on or by both imbued and
vampires, simply by virtue of them being minions and influenced from
the crypt. And have you looked at the special abilities on some of the
imbued? There's a fair bit of useful synergy between vampires and some
of the imbued.

> With them having grouping that means I can never try and use Group 1-2
> vamps with these Imbued. Why? It seems that it was done only for
> marketing. In order to get vamps to play with imbued you HAVE to use ie
> buy new stuff.

Or you could not buy new stuff (like the imbued), if you preferred. Or
make all-imbued decks. Or you could put in a request for some promo or
10th-anniversary style fixed-card sets with group 1-3 imbued. I know
I'd buy it.

> I guess what I am trying to say is that making Imbued non-group does
> not seem to affect game-play.

Assuming they never print more imbued, and no one was going to bother
mixing imbued with groups 1 or 2, sure. But if that were true, no one
would be complaining now.

> Now someone said something to the effect of "well when the next set of
> Imbued comes out you don't want them to group all together". Well, 2
> points on that.
> 1) Imbued is a cool set and all that, but how much more will come out?
> And in anytime soon? This is a game of VAMPIRES after all.

How much more equipment is likely to come out? This is a game of
VAMPIRES, after all. How many more allies are likely to see print? This
is a game of VAMPIRES after all.

> 2) Someone suggested that a easy answer for that is to have Imbued to
> have their own grouping set. That was a excellent idea. It allows
> Imbued to be played with any vampires but not with any expansion sets
> that will come out (?) in the future.

Except then every future imbued must have any special ability on them
balanced with every vampire ever printed, and vice versa. Not only does
this mean that playtest time increases, it means that cool specials
that might be unbalanced if they were playable together would never see
print if one is on an imbued and one is on a vampire. This way, they
can be printed.

> The sad thing is that this is all too late. The cards are printed, the
> ship is sailed, Horatio Ballard has left the building. Anymore on this
> (as some people put) is just bitching.

It's not too late at all. In fact, you can house-rule just such a thing
- except that the grouping for imbued started at 4. Pretend it was due
to a printing error if it makes you feel better.

> I guess I would a official answer from the Reps from VTES (unless I
> missed reading a post) about the reasoning behind it. If it is a money
> making plan... then okay, I understand, so be it. Perhaps I should
> email this to one of them?

The money-making plan is likely to continue printing more expansions
until people quit buying them.

Witness1
-ItE
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

FC wrote:
> But for the sake of argument lets compare Delilah Easton with Emerson
> Wilkerson III
> Obviously the only difference between these two 2-cap toreadors lies in
> the possible crypts they can be a part of. Each have different playmates
> for weenie presence, as support to toreador vote or any other deck
> concept you may think of. You may even find that you prefer one over the
> other based on this.

I personally prefer Emerson since Delilah's art is awful
Now seriously, note that your statement needs to include more factors
when wheighting things...


One thing is clear though and that is that the
> scales favor Emerson when it comes to teaming up with Imbued Crypt cards.

.... and other thing is clear enough - that the scales favor Delilah
when it comes to teaming her up with presence weenies.
Group pair 1-2 has 5 more vampires available (total 14) within 1-3 cap
range and at least inferior Presence than group pair 3-4 (total 9).

I really don't see the point here. It's not like "you can't mix this
with that" had never happened before since grouping was introduced. You
can't use either Delilah or Gideon Fontaine with the group 3-4
Daughters, even if one has a vote-related special and the other is a
two-cap with [pre][for] and a drawback you can ignore in a vote deck.
On the other hand, group pair 1-2 has the Inner Circles available.
Similarly, you can team the Imbued and their vote master (2 extra
votes) with a group pair that has no Inner Circles. Then, the group
pair with the Inner Circles can't team up with the Imbued.

That's game balance in my eyes.


> It seems obvious to me that this fact reduce the competitiveness of
> Delilah at some level.

Only if the Imbued prove to be more competitive overall than weenie
presence.


Even if you only have vampires in your embued
> deck to recruit a Repo Man (or whatever) - Emerson is your guy, not Delilah.

Didn't get it - the Imbued can recruit the Repo Man just fine. Delilah
can, too. You just can't put Delilah in an Imbued-based deck. What's
the real difference?

Oh, I see - "I don't want to get or buy Emerson because I have Delilah
already, so she's 'less competitive'". A little logic leap that doesn't
really holds true. A player's decision not to spend more money to get
new cards has nothing to do with game balance. Game balance assumes a
player can get all cards in any quantities, even if this isn't easy
anymore (since some sets are OOP and what else).


> It doesn't bother me at all they are group 4. Wouldn't have bothered me
> either if they had been spread out like the Abominations. But then again
> I have all the old cards.
> Frede

I don't see the point then. The Imbued don't make the old cards less
useful. Those players who have all the old cards can still play them
and be competitive, as much as they used to be. Heck, they still can
use all the copies of Far Mastery in a dominate deck and steal Imbued
like mad.

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

adam.hulse.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> Imbued are a type of Unique Crypt card. They have their own set of
> powers, cards, and effects, NONE that could also be played on vampires.

This is true.

> There is no similiarites between the vamp and imbued crypt cards.

This is not true. A bunch of Imbued have specials that any other type
of crypt card could have (built-in bleed, maneuver, stealth etc.)
That alone is to be accounted for. A gun deck could use any minion with
a built-in maneuver, be it an Imbued or a vampire. Since Imbued can
grab convictions right ouf of the library that hampers block attempts
somewhat, they're better at getting a gun than, say, a Renegade Garou.
And some Imbued can do that for less pool.

Even if the Imbued cards can't be played by vampires, a playtester
should take into account how they mix and match with other cards that
require clans or even have no requirement whatsoever. Nothing prevents
you from mixing Ventrue with the Imbued, so a master card that grants
vote should take into account that there is Ventrue Headquarters
around.

So there are many considerations to take where grouping for the Imbued
is concerned. Don't assume that there is none just because they're a
different type of creature down in the uncontrolled region.

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question 

chrisa.RemoveThis@comcen.com.au wrote:
>
> I personally don't see it as much of a complication. I would have
> preferred a perpendicular grouping approach. It's pretty
> straightforward and would have allowed us to play Imbued with all of
> our favourite group 1/2 vampires.
>
> Chris.

If a perpendicular groups approach was chosen, then I don't think they
should have printed the Imbued that pays one less for weapons. In my
opinion, playing this Imbued with Black Cat is too strong. It doesn't
equal win all games, but I think the two of them in a crypt together is
unbalanced. Maybe this situation came up in playtest. Maybe even half
of the playtesters said it was too good in the same crypt and half said
it was not. Groups allow you to be less conservative in your design
(make stronger cards/abilities), because you can playtest the possible
combinations in a reasonable amount of time. Without Groups you have to
playtest many more combinations, even if the Groupings are only
perpendicular groups.

Later,
~Rehlow
 >> Stay informed about: Imbued question