Hey, so as an upfront statement, I will say I don't have a copy of the game yet. FLGS didn't have it last Friday, but they ordered some copies and I'm looking to pick it up around Thursday. Reading through the PDFs of the Quick Start and Rules Reference guide, and thought I would make a thread with my general questions on the rules.

1.) With Action Cards, there is a rule (2.6) stating

Players cannot tell each other which cards they have in their hands.

Obviously at the very least this means I can't show someone a card in my hand without it being in play, but can I lie and say I have a certain card, or that I have a card that does some specific action? I assume the intent of this rule is to force players to doubt the statements of other players; that someone can't say "I have card XYZ, so let me counter-offer with that card we actually need played right now" and other players legitimately know the player has XYZ. But surely it falls within the spirit of the game to claim you have a certain Action Card and to advise (or threaten) others. If I just don't say the name of the card, could I describe its affects when attempting to sway a Counter-Offer my way (and thus prevent having to pay extra cards to override an existing Counter-Offer)?

2.) Can players communicate secretly from other players? Could I text someone at the table, pass secret notes, meet in private away from the board, or otherwise plot and plan with others?

3.) If a Main Offer is not opposed by a Counteroffer (I assume this is unlikely due to the quality of Assets, but arguably couldn't a player bribe others with an exchange of Capital during each step pass of Step 3?), what happens during Step 4 - Support? I would assume with no Counteroffer on the table, players can only support the Main Offer, and since ties go to the Main Offer, there would be no need to expend Action Cards in support. Or could a Supporting Player "support" a non-existent Counteroffer, and just leverage Action Cards against the current Main Offer? Clearly that isn't meant to be possible, as it would result in a situation where nobody wins a Deal, but the rules speak of putting cards in boxes on the board.

4) Does 33.1 really mean a player can't double check or otherwise look at their Investment Card during the turn? Seems a bit strict of a rule for what seems to just be for keeping that info secret.

5.) Trading - with regards to promises. To be certain, is it possible to, in a binding way, offer a promise of resolving some immediate action one way, and in return, get an asset/capital that some other player is willing to agree to trade (e.g. I promise someone to trade an asset to them if they target me with a currently-in-the-process-of-being-resolved Action Card). I get that future results are non-binding, and I get that trading more tangible things like Assets or Capital is clearly binding. I just want to make sure that a player could offer Capital or an Asset for a less tangible result such as an Asset for supporting an Offer to a certain degree or not.

All in all, I'm actually pretty impressed with the rules. For a while I actually had more questions, but as I worked through the Rules Reference booklet (as well as looking at some of the spoiled cards on the FFG news articles), a lot of those went away. Can't wait to actually play the game.

Let me see what I can answer without the rules in front of me.

1) There are only 4 action card variants per type (biotech, labor, media, etc...). 5 each, for a total of 20. Unlike BSG, these don't have numerical values associated with them. So I would think you can claim whatever you want, and lie during it.

2) I think that would be against the spirit of the game. Other secret information games outright prohibit it. But if it's not in the rules... I guess pick your players wisely.

3) This was my interpretation. There is wiggle room for everyone to pass on a counteroffer, then the main offer succeeds without support as needed.

4) I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I've never played an FFG game where you can't double-check your own secret information (decks excluded). In fact, the only secret info game I know of like that is One Night Ultimate Werewolf, where it is baked into the rules.

5) That would fall under non-binding. The binding deals are for things that can be done on the spot and are tangible, like trading credits for assets or support. Saying "I'll do this for you now if you do that for me later" is non-binding and frankly impossible to enforce, as the game has no way to track "memory" of the action.

On 5. I mean more like, "I'll pay you 3 capital if you support my Offer," and that statement is made at the exact moment the player is about to choose to support or abstain the offers on the table. Supporting an offer seems like a somewhat intangible benefit, but timing wise it could be immediately enforced.

Or saying (during the Resolve Action step), "Please target me with that affect, and if you do I'll give you this Asset." I get that during the Support phase, I can't bind the player with the Offer to actually make a decision one way or another, I'm talking about at the moment of resolving the action, making a trade with the player to resolve the card a certain way, and in exchange offering capital or an asset (obviously, timing wise, it doesn't seem possible to trade a promise for a promise).

I'm a little confused about your part 5 question. Doesn't Rule 65 specifically permit trading a promise of action in its first sentence?

It does, I was just asking more to make sure if others felt it was that explicit. I think 65.1 kind of threw me, in that it doesn't list promise there, but obviously thats just a matter of playing the game and wouldn't require a rule to clarify.

65.2 also doesn't explicitly clarify that a promise that can be resolved immediately is binding. Certainly 65.3 is far more helpful.

Still, just it just would be good to cement an example that a player could trade capital for another player to offer support on an offer, or to trade capital to specify the target of an offer (at the moment it is being resolved).

Gotcha.

It may just be me, but the examples would be like this.

B is about to commit his support; it's his turn to do so. A says, "I will give you two capital if you vote to support."

Binding, if B agrees.

Different example: A is just laying down his Main Offer. At that very point he looks at B and makes the same offer.

At that very point it is not binding because it is not yet B's turn to support (they haven't gone through counter-offers yet).

Non-binding.

3.) "If there is no Counteroffer, the players skip directly to the Resolution step." Learning the Rules pg10

4.) "Each player draws one investment card from the investment deck and places it facedown next to his corp sheet. He may look at his investment at any time. " Learning the Rules pg5

5.) "All promises made by players concerning the future are non-binding -- players can make promises and not fulfill them. However, if both players can immediately and completely fulfill the terms of the trade, they must do so.

Example: Globalsec agrees to give Jinteki two capital if Jinteki supports Globalsec's offer with two cards. If they agreed to these terms when it is Jinteki's turn to abstain or support, the terms are binding and must be fulfilled. If Jinteki promises to support Globalsec but it is not Jinteki's turn to play support, the terms are not binding; Jinteki receives the capital but is not required to play cards in support. " Learning the Rules pg14