Rules Tweak Suggestion: Rewind TIme et al.

Yet my question is the same:
Why should I be prohibited from Waking to cancel a Master but NOT prohibited from Waking to prohibit an action?

If the only answer is going to be "because a reaction is a reaction" then maybe you're missing my point. Why would you be able to wake and cancel at all?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Yet my question is the same:
Why should I be prohibited from Waking to cancel a Master but NOT prohibited from Waking to prohibit an action?

Honestly I don't see your problem here, mate. I mean you can ask that kind of questions about a lot of cards and that leads nowhere IMHO. It is as simple as it is: You cannot play a Wake during the Master phase because you can only do it in response to an action (because it's a reaction card). That is a simple core rule.

Maybe it's an across the board consistency. I don't see why a vampire should be allowed to Wake to the deeds of a non-Methuselah and not be allowed to wake to the deeds of a Methuselah.

If you're going to make "Cancel" cards only playable as another card is played, then there should only be space for the "Cancel" not "Wake + Cancel".

OR

If you're going to make it so that you can "Wake + Cancel" an action, why is there an issue with applying the same reasoning to "Wake + Cancel" a master card? Logically, within the rules, it should the same 'sized' window (e.g. the point where a card is declared but not yet successfully played) both times.

And yes, for this scenario I am ignoring the immediate retort of a bunch of people which is "Reactions can't be played on non-actions"... because IIRC you can still Scalpel Tongue in a Bloodhunt referendum... (which would be playing a reaction during a non-action period of the game). So "reactions can only be played when there is an action" is potentially already not worth the 1s & 0s it is recorded with...

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Maybe it's an across the board consistency. I don't see why a vampire should be allowed to Wake to the deeds of a non-Methuselah and not be allowed to wake to the deeds of a Methuselah.

Methuslahs are considered mere legend by younger vampires (Rulebook 1.). How would they dare wake to one of their legends?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

If you're going to make "Cancel" cards only playable as another card is played, then there should only be space for the "Cancel" not "Wake + Cancel".
OR
If you're going to make it so that you can "Wake + Cancel" an action, why is there an issue with applying the same reasoning to "Wake + Cancel" a master card? Logically, within the rules, it should the same 'sized' window (e.g. the point where a card is declared but not yet successfully played) both times.

(We're not "going to make it so that" things are what they are) It is.
However, we don't have a reaction card (yet) that would read "[This] vampire may play reaction cards as though untapped. [Usable when there is no action]."
We also don't have (yet) a non-minion card that would read "This vampire may play reaction cards as though untapped." (Aye gets close to that).

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And yes, for this scenario I am ignoring the immediate retort of a bunch of people which is "Reactions can't be played on non-actions"... because IIRC you can still Scalpel Tongue in a Bloodhunt referendum... (which would be playing a reaction during a non-action period of the game). So "reactions can only be played when there is an action" is potentially already not worth the 1s & 0s it is recorded with...

I'm interested in the Scalpel's Tongue ruling. All GoogleGroups returned to "Tongue Referendum" was [url=https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups#!searchin/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tongue$20referendum/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/K4r36re5e9g/hT6zzOKcbc4J[1-25][JamesFlournoy 20060421][/url], which is quoting the Rulebook 6.5.6: " This referendum is not an action, so it cannot be blocked, and action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played." .

Pascal wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Maybe it's an across the board consistency. I don't see why a vampire should be allowed to Wake to the deeds of a non-Methuselah and not be allowed to wake to the deeds of a Methuselah.

Methuslahs are considered mere legend by younger vampires (Rulebook 1.). How would they dare wake to one of their legends?

Non-existant user wrote:

Tasty tasty legends... hmmm... legendary vampire blood...

Regarding Rulebook [6.5.6] I remember a heated debate or two about this sort of thing. It may have been because of 'in a referendum' effects being used on vampires in Bloodhunts (e.g. Michael Luther, Arishat VS Quentin). Never said the contents of my head were organised with an efficient index. .


@Joscha
I do see the need to argue why on things. It's about ironing out potential inconsistencies and ensuring that there are simple concepts being applied to the way we play this game. There is enough overly complex stuff going on as it is... we don't need to be developing a collection of rulings any larger than already exists that comes together in an adhoc way. From my own point of view, I would hope that when a ruling seems to excessively complicate the game (or result in the need for a number of other rulings) that they are removed and replaced with a simpler concept which is applied across the board. So, I am just making sure the way this works is going to come down to "because its a reaction" and not "because we ruled it that way". It means new players can rely on the rulebook, and the Princes can spend more time playing than giving ruling after ruling after ruling in every social game.
((Rulebook 1.6.1 which comes before a definition reactions does say "These effects (and effects that grant the ability to play them, like Forced Awakening) are the only effects allowed during the "as played" time period of another card." Hence where you can, without too much effort, read into the rules that "Wake + Cancel" is valid in the Master Phase))