Just a simple questions for all of your about secrecy. In Exodus there are many new 0 strength skill cards that have effects during the skill check. For instance “Red Tape” says discard all skill cards with 4 or 5 skill strength. (or something very close to that)

So my question is, and I ask and or state BEFORE the skill check that I’m going to drop a “Red Tape” card so don’t play any 4’s or 5’s? In the FAQ it states your allowed to ask if other plays have certain skill check ability cards (i.e. anyone got a strategic planning?)

The problem coming in of using the card and having it screw your self over, or not using the card to well because very one gets it.

Thoughts?

This might be a wonky way to resolve this, but I think you can ask if anyone HAS the card, but not conclusively answer if anyone is PLAYING the card. In other words, you can say "Does anyone have Red Tape ?", a question which address the whole table, and to which a player can answer truthfully, bluff, or abstain from answering. But, you can't say "I am playing Red Tape into this skill check" for the same reason you can't say "I am playing five piloting cards." In the latter case, the results can be conclusively confirmed.

While my group has no problem with "do you have an XO?", "Can you XO me?", "can we use an Investigative Committee?", "Does someone have Strategic Planning?" etc., those are all face-up cards, and there's little reason to deceive. What you're asking about, talking about a card that will be played FACEDOWN into a skillcheck, seems shady to me. While it's arguable that doing that kind of question could lead to all kinds of interesting ways to act mischieviously as an unrevealed Cylon, it further leads everyone down the game toward meta-gaming and displacing the paranoia and mistrust around which the game is based. Maybe you could try it out at your next game and let us know whether it fundamentally changed the game or not?

I think letting people know exactly what card you're playing goes against the secrecy construct of the game, no matter what card it is. If you're going to play a Red Tape, you could say something along the lines of, "I wouldn't play really large cards now." Be vague.

...which even that is probably not vague enough. Basically, if someone can figure out you'll be playing a specific card into a skill check, you're not being vague enough.

I wouldn't allow anyone in a game I'm playing to tell me what skill cards they're playing/going to play into a skillcheck, no.

I agree with the consensus. Whether spoken directly or in code, it violates secrecy to communicate to other players that you're playing a particular card into a skill check.

"Me too"

Since you can not state color or value of your cards, naming a red tape or any other 0 card, or even a 0 card, would seem to be strictly against the rules.

Maybe you could get away with some hints - like "destiny might be extra helpful" (the 0 purple add to destiny)... but even thats more of a house ruling.

We use helping "a little" "A lot" "Medium" "my share" ... "Helping a LITTLE with TWO CARDS" = 2 or 3... and even that is getting a little obvious.

-

As for during play, its touchy. Lately our group has been good about being a little more generic in table talk. "Can anyone do anything useful on my turn?" = who wants an XO. "I can help with a die roll" but that could mean Strategic Planning or Calculations... no specific questions, no quizzing people, and no running down the card lists!

Also made up a rule that if someone is going to Scout/Jump Destination/Roslin some cards, any group input comes BEFORE they look, and they may not comment AFTER they look. We had go way to into "would you guys want to jump a little or a alot? What if it cost a resource..." etc.

Something for your group to work out based on play, preferably looking at it from a cylon player viewpoint.

In my playgroup, we've spontaneously created unwritten rule of "no talks during skill checks" with no other limitations.