In truth, it’s not so much being out of town for a while but not having enough inspiration on any one topic for not posting in almost three weeks.
So, vekn.net has a thread about choosing the best clan for a single group. I posted my thoughts on most defining clans for each (single) group and don’t know that that really qualifies as being a classic post. Instead, I wanted to take a look at what I haven’t played from a group perspective.
First, it’s easy to eliminate groups 1 and 2 because they’ve been around so long that I must have done enough permutations not to worry about missing out. Then, group 6 is something that I started into for a while to the point where I covered a significant amount of ground in what’s a not very deep group, even got me a tournament win, somehow. Oh, right, Kiasyd with Animalism is the most powerful thing ever.
Rather than go overboard, I thought I’d just take a look at only group 4/5 and what clans I may have underplayed and why.
I had a Lorrie deck I played in a tournament, and I just find Zubeida boring, so not caring.
Just not a star vampire dude, yet I’ve played a decent amount with Nergal. Just not that compelled to play this grouping when I could play The Hordes, instead.
No clan is harder to work with than BB. However, I really need to do more with the idea of ignoring Sanguinus and/or more ideas for Kiev. The reality is that I have decks written up, I just don’t bother playing them because BB are so antifun.
Played some but just the P/J decks really. I so keep meaning to do something with Jack Drake, but that isn’t necessarily a Brujah deck. I’ll have to look through some of the unbuilt decklists.
Not a clan in the Caitiff case, but part of my reluctance is a sense that the drawbacks on new 1 caps are much worse than on old. Plus Scourge of the Enochians. Having seen people use some of the Newtiff and Newder, maybe it’s not as bad as I think.
Daughters of Cacophony
Group 4/5 is just so unappealing vis-a-vis group 2/3 or 5/6.
More than any other clan, Gangrel have lost ground. The main point with exercises like this one is to take a look at situations like the Gangrel in group 4/5. For instance, I didn’t realize how many weefolk there are in 4/5. Only one is missing Protean, so it’s not like they suck. Then, I find some of the big caps interesting, I just have a hard time using them as they lack close substitutes to avoid my reluctance to go superstar.
Unique, slave Gargoyles don’t interest me. I just can’t get interested, and that some slaves are slaves to one clan and some to another is just awful. Plus, Tupdogs make a joke of anything else involving Gargoyles.
I feel like I’ve played a decent amount with group 4/5 Giovanni, even before Experiment #2, but I don’t feel like, outside of the experiment, that I’ve made any effort to play a “group 4/5” deck – a deck that just generally uses the grouping.
Here, it’s more a reluctance to play with Malks than anything else. So much “been there, done that” involved. I have a bunch of decks written up that use them, but antifun … for like the opposite reasons that BB are antifun (not exactly, but you know).
For the person who very likely built more Nagaraja decks than anyone else in existence, probably more than 99% of the playerbase combined, I just can’t get that excited by this collection. Asguresh is interesting but not much of a Nagaraja. Yavu is nothing but disciplines. Prejudice is discipline impaired. Still more cohesive than group 5/6.
I’ve played with group 4’s on occasion. Group 5 only has the one representative. This grouping just doesn’t feel that coherent, maybe because group 3/4 makes so much more sense.
I rarely use Salubri as support. If I’m going to do a Salubri deck, it’s going to be 2/3 or 5/6 in most cases, these days.
It’s amazing anyone defends group 4 Samedi. Sure, Morlock is good stuff. But, group 4 Samedi was about as atrociously bad a group of vampires for a clan possible when they were printed. I’ve increasingly used individuals and the expanded options of groups 4 and 5 make this collection less pathetic, but there are so many better things to do with group 2/3, and group 5/6 is just a funny restriction on deckbuilding.
Only reason I’ve played these guys so much is Laecanus. “He who makes me fail.” There are a lot more things to do than try to make Laecanus worth including in one’s crypt. Dull and hardly new, but Toreador w/ Dominate is one way to go with this grouping. Andre LeRoux goes in every deck. Still not feeling a great sense of identity with 4/5, though.
Group 5 isn’t offering enough to not play 3/4 instead. And, really, I quite like group 2, so I’d rather do some nostalgia decks and get more play in with the likes of Greta Kircher.
Group 4/5 is so much “some of these are not like the others”, having some of the worst possible Tremere (Andrew Stuart, Miguel Cordovera), while having some I’d actually build around (Windham) and some that are totally forgettable.
Contender for Gangrel’s title of “clan that lost the most” over time. This is just such a sorry group that, once you get past Tzimisce w/ Obfuscate, which group 5 doesn’t even help with and which just sucks, has nothing to pull you away from group 2/3. As an aside, Tzimisce really deserve a lot more, in general, like new clan cards. Aside, the second, if Laibonism was (sensibly) expanded to the other major African clans, Tzimisce would have a boatload of new vampires and might gain some interesting fourth discipline action, which neither Obfuscate nor Protean provides.
I don’t hate Ventrue. I just have disdain for how often original gangsta clans get played. This grouping is a perfectly good opportunity for me to do some new Ventrue action, even if it may end up looking like old Ventrue action. Well, I do like Hardestadt, just need to find him some buddies since I hate superstar decks.
Suffers from lack of group 5 adding much that matters disease. Admittedly, I’m not sure how much I want to play with !Ventrue, anyway, given how boringly effective they have become*.
* This is the sort of things V:TES should have done much more of. !Ventrue used to get tons of grief, with people wondering why they shouldn’t just play Ventrue (legit argument) or for dumber reasons. Having what is good and what isn’t evolve over time is crucial to keeping a CCG compelling. I may still enjoy the game, but there are many times I get discouraged by the lack of change.