I did a search through this forum for the topic heading but couldn't find anything on this issue so thought I'd post this up though it's probably been errata-ed long ago.

Basically my gaming group finally found enough time to play TI3 and during the game everything ran fine except for one major source of rule contention which was the Political card "Checks And Balances" - which we all voted against causing all players to pass their current strategy card to their left. This left us with a problem with the ever popular Initiative and Imperial Strategy cards so my question is two part.

1) Does the player that receives the Initiative card as a result of this action then gain the Speaker token (and thus first pick next go which was important at that point in the game)? I advocated he would though everyone else seemed to think he wouldn't on the grounds that it says that after "selecting" the Initiative card you receive the Speaker token, but obviously he didn't select the card, it was passed to him at some point. If you look at the spirit of the strategy cards yes you could get passed an already activated one thus making the benefit of it null (though turn order would still change for the remainder of the round) but the benefit of unactivated ones could still be used and seeing as half the benefit of taking Initiative is that you get the Speaker token then I thought the player that was given it should receive the Speaker token.

2) Where a player has passed his go, (having played his Strategy card before the 'against' vote and thus card pass), and thus cannot take further actions until a new turn (exception of course being the Yssaril Tribes) - if they then receive an unused Strategy card are they FORCED to play it even though they are technically can take no further actions having chosen to pass for the remainder of the round? The playing of the Strategy cards is a mandatory action that has to be completed at some point in the round and in the case of the Imperial card (as in our game) I very much wanted to see another public objective revealed. So would they have to play it despite the fact their turns for the rest of that round are technically over?

Thanks for the help guys!

From the FAQ:

Q: If the “Checks and Balances” law is voted against, do inactive
(already resolved) Strategy Cards remain inactive with
their new owner, allowing this owner to possibly pass without
taking a strategic action that Action Phase? Also, in a 3-4
player game, are both Strategy Cards passed to the left in this
case?
A: Yes to all the above. Note that the order of play will now
shift, but that the Speaker token remains with the player who
received it at the beginning of the phase.

Unfortunately the FAQ doesn't address active SCs being given to a player who has already passed, but I would personally be inclined to say he must activate it as his next (and only) action before returning to "having passed" state. That's just a gut reaction, though. It's possible that this is a loophole that can prevent that SC from being activated this turn. Let's see what others have to say.

I would say that a passed active strategy card must be taken, even if the person had already passed.

I would say that is the only thing that person could do and then return to a passed state.

One thing we had happen last time that politics card was in play, one of the people receiving a new card would have been effectively skipped for a round.

His number would have gone from 4 - Production, to 3 - Assembly.

One evil thing that I just thought about.

If you were to pass Assembly to the player to your left, it seems like it would be perfectly legal for you to then execute the secondary and refresh some of your planets.

The primary has just finished and all other players besides the person who has the primary in front of them can execute the secondary.

Or is the playing of Assembly primary the determining factor and not the strategy card being psychically in front of you?

This law can really slow a game down but is very nice is assuring that the leader can't get the strategy card he wants.

DavidG55311 said:

Yeh fortunately the guy who had all the influence in the voting had to get to a poker game later that evening so once it was pointed out that despite being in a clear lead it would probably take me another hour or so to grind out the remainng victory points I needed if he voted for then he voted against. He then handed me Mecatol Rex to help things finish up faster.

That's another question actually - reveal your Secret Objective Card without being able to complete it results in it being taken off you - can you still disclose what's on it to other players? Surely they don't have to trust you? You could be lying? I consistently told everyone I had no way of getting it (at the time I didn't) even though I never said what it was.

Sacred Voice said:

Here's the relevant passge from the rules, for reference:

"A player is not allowed to show other players his Secret Objective Card until he is able to meet its objectives during the first step of the Status Phase. A player who reveals his Secret Objective Card without being able to meet its requirements loses his Secret Objective Card, which is placed back in the box."

Now, depending on how you interpret the word "reveals" it may or may not be okay to lie about what your objective is. At first, the rule says you're not allowed to show other players your objective, so when they later say "reveal" one might reasonably assume they still mean "show the card" and not just "tell people what's on it." I suppose it's up to each group to decide, unless I missed something about this in the FAQ, whether or not verbally disclosing your objective is okay.

Personally, I would say it's not okay. As in, if you tell people your objective, you should lose it. The whole point of this rule is to discourage people from sharing their secret objectives with each other; ie: to keep it a damned secret . Of course, by that ruling, if you chose to say "I have Secret Objective X" and then claimed it was a lie, there would really only be one way to definitively prove you lied... Bottom line, don't tell people **** about your secret objective. Just don't.

Of course, if all you say is "I don't think I'll be able to complete my secret objective" or something similar, I'd say you're fine. That's not revealing the objective in and of itself, that's just table talk, whether it's true or not.

The vanillla definition of reveal is simply "to make known". I'd say that telling someone what is on your secret objective card would ultimately result in you losing your ability to collect the points. Even if no one could verify that you were lying at that point once you did in fact flip the card face up, it would be immediately apparent that you verbally revealed what was on the card before you could meet its requirements. If this came down to a dispute, I'd say that your opponents would have the stronger arguement against you claiming the secret objective points.

Reading the rules I get that the intent is to say that your secret objective must remain a secret until you can claim it. If the secrecy is complromised then you lose it. This also matches the game's themes of each race having their own secret agendas that would ultimately be ruined if they were known by the other races.

Unfortunately the rules do leave the opportunity for speculation by not explicitly forbidding table talk so the above would be how I would reason the interpretation of the rules.

Nargnarfer said:

I don't know if I agree with using that definition. Follow that logic further, and if you start moving into all the Wormhole systems, and someone notices and says "Hey, he has keeper of gates", and you start to blush because you aren't good at a poker face, it could be argued that you "revealed" your objective card via your actions.

In the context of TI3, I think the only hard-and-fast way to handle "revealing" your objective is that unless you physically turn it over so others can see it, you aren't revealing it. Even if you announce "I have XXX objective", I don't think that counts as revealing it (whether you have it or not), because without verification, you aren't truly revealing anything. Whether it's true or not, the other players don't "know" what you have - from their perspective, you haven't revealed anything, just added speculation.

sigmazero13 said:

That's fair. I agree that a player shouldn't lose his SO just because someone else managed to guess what it was. I'm not particularly interested in punishing players for lying about their SO, either. I'm just of the opinion that it's supposed to be a secret, so keep your **** trap shut about it.

If someone at my table was going around claiming to have a different SO every turn, mainly because he was amusing himself by telling bald-faced lies, I would be inclined to slap him across the face. The purpose of having a secret objective is not to play poker or to prove how good or bad you and your friends are at lying to each other. It's to have an objective unique to yourself which the other players don't immediately know about.

Figuring out your opponents' secret objectives has obvious tactical value, since you can then prevent them from earning VP, but verbally announcing your SO (true or false) is something else entirely. It's like getting all dressed up and going to a fancy restaurant and then pretending to be a snooty aristocrat and treating the waiters like scum. Maybe you can do it, but that doesn't mean you should.

sigmazero13 said:

I'd say that over half the secret objectives I've seen claimed were discovered in this way a full turn before the player could complete them. Plus such a ruling would give a nasty advantage to anyone with superior knowlege of secret objectives or to people playing guessing games.

Steve-O said:

What kind of TI games do you play? Ours are always filled with poker plays, lying, jedi truths, and down right treachery. The game gives you hand of powerful action cards that no one else can see, how is that not designed for explotation through bluffs and half truths?

I have become very good at deciphering secret objectives.

I of course don't tell that person or anyone else.

At least not until I can stop them or need a little assistance since I am unable to at the time.

If a person were to lose the secret after someone excuses them of having it, nobody could ever complete one.

Most of them are fairly obvious the way some people play.

The trick is to get yourself in a position were you could have any objective from a list of about 5 or 6.

The Fist of Ferrum said:

I'm glad I don't sit at your table, then. That sounds wearisome. The idea of spending 6+ hours in that kind of environment is definitely not my idea of fun.

Some people consider it the height of sport to bash together pads in cold pouring rain with mud undermining your everystep. We seek to test the limits of game theory and psychology. To each his own.

Our games also contain bluffs and half-truths, and we definitely play by the "you can say what you want" rule. Unless you turn the card over, your SO is protected.

sigmazero13 said:

Sorry for getting back to the conversation late.

You have a valid point, however there is a difference between revealing the card yourself (which is what the rules are particularly talking about), and having your goals discovered without you intending them to be. I was posting the definition of "reveal" to be used in conjuction with the rules. Since the rules are talking specificly about "you" reveailing the nature SO card, the logic of the "reveal" definition does not extend to others figuring it out by guessing or social engineering irregardless of a person's poker face skills. Staing within the structure of the rules, it only extends as far as your own actions regarding your own SO card.

In your example of saying "I have XXX objective", if you were telling the truth, the evidence of the verbal reveal comes when you claim your SO. That's when it's obvious that your SO was revealed before you could claim it. The fact that you verbally revealed your card remains a fact regardless of other people's ability to call you on it. Lying about the card would create no issues because you don't risk the controversy, and telling the truth but not ever achieving the SO would also result in a non-issue.

In my opinion the goal is to keep the game fun in relation to the rules. Telling everyone whats on the SO card, then claiming the points (confirming that they did in fact have the disclosed card); or accusing someone of indirectly revealing their objective because they weren't sneaky about achieving it, roughly produce the same result: the game gets less fun because these actions are easily percieved as someone operating outside what was intended by the rules for their own benifit.

Sorry for creating a ruckuss by not clarifying myself. Thanks for your comments.