In our second game we had question come up when playing riders. When Playing I announced I was playing a rider and predicted an outcome, but gave no other information. My thinking is the action card is not revealed until it is resolved which is not until all votes have been entered and the outcome decided. This is how we did it in our first game. We had one player who thought the entire text of the action card should be read when played, not when it is resolved. So everyone would know what the rider is and what rewards I would get if passed.

The best I could find in the rules reference is as follows starting at paragraph 2.6

Quote

The first paragraph of each action card is presented in bold text and describes the timing of when that card’s ability can be resolved.

To play an action card, a player reads and resolves the card’s ability text. Then, he discards the card, placing it in the action discard pile.

If all of the cards text is considered ability text, would the other player be correct even if the action is not resolved until after the outcome of the vote is known? I also argued that knowing the outcome of the rider would heavily influence the vote, but this may have been intended.

Is that you, Stephen? This exact scenario occurred in our game over the weekend, and as you know, I argued that one must reveal everything about the card they are playing.

First, you have to say what card you're playing. Well, I supposed you could say "well the rules state that I only have to read the card's ability text. Doesn't say anything about the title." An argument liked that would seem a bit rules-lawyery. To which I would reply, ability text is everything that the card does. You can't leave out part of the description just because half of the card resolves at one time (during the vote, and you cannot vote) and the rest of the card resolves later (you get a benefit or not based on the results of the vote).

Assuming you DO have to say the title of the card you're playing, the rider card titles are not just "Rider. Their titles correspond with whatever Strategy Card they're linked to. ("Leadership Rider, Imperial Rider," etc.) Just by saying what card you are playing, you are revealing what the text does to any player who has played the game before.

I'm fairly sure that it is intentional on the part of the authors that playing a rider is open knowledge and meant to heavily influence the vote. ...Especially if the rider is a strong one (Imperial and Politics Riders are a huge deal). I like riders, because they allow creative/skilled play... do you wheel and deal to get the vote to go a certain way without being able to contribute to the vote? Or do you do like the player in our game did and hold one voting outcome hostage with the threat of getting a free victory point? However, I do feel that riders come up a little too often, and I'm not sure about the power disparity between them. I'd be inclined to limit them to 4 cards and make the result that you can select a Strategy Card's primary ability and resolve it if the vote goes the way you predicted. That would make them very strong cards, but more situational for the best cards (only get a vp if you control Mecatol).

Regarding the cards as they are, I would be fine with a house-rule that re-words the card in such a way that you don't HAVE to let on what kind of rider you're playing, but that would have to be a house rule. Rules as written, I firmly believe you have to say which rider you're playing, and what it does, in its entirety.

When an action card is played the complete card has to be revealed. Other players also get the chance to study and analyze it if they are not familiar with the card.

It has been like that in every game with cards since MTG.

Yeah, you have to say what card you're playing, otherwise people don't know whether it's worth Sabotaging.

I like to play cards then hide half the info on the card too, it helps me cheat(i kid, why is this even a question :P)

Apparently it's a question that has definitely come up more than once, because a guy in my game on Sunday was asking the same thing. He confirmed that he didn't post on FFG's forums about it, so there are at least two people out there who want to be able to do it. However, it's pretty clear, at least to me, that everybody at the table is entitled to know what you are playing and what it does.

I believe the full text (and therefore what the card does) would have to be read when you play the card.
As well as the simple "rules" aspects above, that fits with the theme of what a rider is supposed to be. It's supposed to be something tacked onto the end of the bill (or law) and then the whole bill (including the rider) gets debated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)