Show me a character with a strong but “selfless” OPG, and I’ll show you someone who can use that OPG to devastate whichever side they’re not on, leading me to argue for the following simplified formula:

STRONG = selfish

WEAK = selfless

I'm almost certain that's not quite what you're arguing for...

Holy Outlaw said:

I don't see how what Jagonaut wrote and what I did conflict. I don't think he's talking about maintaining grudges from game to game, but rather responding to being executed by respawning as Cally and returning the favor, for example. Creating interpersonal conflict within one game session doesn' t have anything to do with basing your behavior on what's happened in previous sessions.

Holy Outlaw said:

Not sure what the secrecy rules have to do with either of those examples. It's perfectly legit to say something like, "This crisis card is better than the one I put on the bottom of the deck," as long as you don't go into any details of what was on the card.

Holy Outlaw said:

I don't think anyone's arguing against this. At least, I know I'm not. What your point here fails to take into consideration, though, is that until the sleeper phase is over, you don't know which team you're on. "Benefit me" abilities are a guaranteed way to also benefit my team, since they'll help my team no matter which one it is. "Benefit team X" are only good for me if I end up on team X.

Holy Outlaw said:

Bill Adama's all-the-time ability. With the exception of the rare crisis cards that can actually hurt the human team if the skillcheck is passed, that ability will always help the humans. And he can't even turn it off if he wants to.

Holy Outlaw said:

(Just as an aside, I like to avoid highly specific hypothetical situations like this one, because anyone can make one up that "proves" their point, but they're worth even less than anecdotal evidence. But I digress.)

Holy Outlaw said:

At which point good human players shrug and say, "Well, I guess it's a good thing we didn't forget that there was still a cylon loose, and so we weren't relying on that Blind Jump." Good human players will pressure other players to use their OPGs to benefit the humans, but they don't plan on other people using them, unless all the hidden cylons have already been revealed.The result of that is that stuff like Blind Jump can only be used to hurt the humans by not being used, which again, would be true of every character other than Cain as well.

Kushiel said:

I agree that Jagonaut’s not talking about carrying grudges over from game to game, and I’ve never talked about that either. But I have advocated for remembering player tendencies (e.g., my opponent is a strategic player, or is risk averse, or routinely half-asses until sleeper) and using those to inform my current interactions with those players. By way of example, I said if I found myself sitting across from Kushiel, who routinely comes up with ass-kicking strategies that destroy the other side 67% of the time, I’d be inclined to send him my extra cylon card so he could develop one of those ass-kicking strategies for my side. However, you called me treating the smart player differently “metagaming” and, inexplicably, “groupthink.” I call it sound strategic play, whether in BSG, poker, chess, or any other game of strategy or skill. So if the bar for “metagame” is so high that I ought not remember you’re the smart guy, I only assumed I ought not remember you’re the guy who orchestrated my last character’s execution. If players getting back at players through characters isn’t “meta” but the other thing is, I’m as confused about your definition of “metagame” as I am about your definition of “groupthink.”

Kushiel said:

My point is that the cylon tactics you’re describing would get you busted at my table fast. And since lax enforcement of secrecy rules is often the big difference between tables where cylon malfeasance gets detected and those where it doesn’t, I wanted to get out in front of that question by saying it in advance. Humans don’t talk about face-down cards or use coded language to say more than they should at my tables. But secrecy rules do not preclude me from pointing out that there is only a 12.5% chance of Roslin pulling two non-jump icons, or a 4% of both crises having a heavy raider, a 3% and 2% respectively of doubling up on the basestar icons. And secrecy rules also don’t preclude me from asking Boomer if the card she left on top was “bad” or “good.” It’s been my experience that spiking the crisis deck or sending treachery “cylon feelers” around with Ellen is risky as hell at a table full of competent and attentive players.

Kushiel said:

If I am a worse player, or a worse-equipped character, than the sitting president who is on the same team, then Saul Tigh's "benefit me" OPG just hurt my team.

Kushiel said:

Good call. Downgraded.

Kushiel said:

I'm afraid we're at an impasse then, because I like to avoid categorical rules that dismiss evidence types I don't like.

Kushiel said:

I'm seriously mystified that you can categorically say “good human players never rely on one player to do something” as if you’re always able to control it. I can't count the number of times t his amazing game of ours has forced me into positions where I was at the mercy of a single character, a single die roll, top-decking a single card. I mean, I know you win *a lot*, but if you’ve seriously never been in a position where you were down to your last straw, you are an even better player than I already gave you credit for. My hat's off to you for that, but speaking on behalf of lesser mortals, let me assure you we sometimes find ourselves falling back to contingency plans.

Holy Outlaw said:

If that works for you, great. It seems oddly metagamey to me to base your decisions on what's happened in past games, rather than what's going on in the current game, is all. I don't really see the point in caring whether Player X played very cautiously last game, if he's not doing so now, etc.

Holy Outlaw said:

Then why would you use it? It seems to me that you're failing to make a distinction between "good character abilities" and "good play" here. In order to for ratings of the former to have any merit, you have to assume that they'll be used well. Yes, if I use Character X's abilities in a way that hurts my team, then those abilities hurt my team. But that's just as true if I'd used Character Y's abilities to hurt my team, or Character Z's, etc. That doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to judging how good those characters' abilities are when used well.

Holy Outlaw said:

You: "In order to prove to you what a badass martial artist I am, allow me to relate the following story. One day, while walking home alone from school, I was ambushed by an entire clan of ninja. Because I'm so amazingly skilled in asskickery, I defeated them all with my open hands."
Me: "Wow! That's incredible. Did it really happen?"
You: "No."
Me: "Um...not really seeing how that proves that you're an amazing martial artist, then."
You: "Well, it could have happened."

Holy Outlaw said:

Well, no, obviously there are elements of the game that are out of your control. But since they're out of your control, worrying about them is pointless and doesn't have any bearing on good or bad play.

It occurs to me that I didn't really answer HO's indirect question of what I mean by metagaming and groupthink.

For a game like Galactica, metagaming is basing your decisions on factors which lie outside the current game. So if you pass me extra loyalty cards because you've seen me win in the past, regardless of what's going on in the current game, that's metagaming. Or if Jane has often/always attempted to gain titles in prior games you've played with her, and you play assuming that she's going to do so again during the current game, that's metagaming.

Groupthink is the set of assumptions that a given group has decided to agreee on, often without realizing that they've done so. "It's always better to discard skillcards rather than lose resources" is a common groupthink that I've seen, for example. Violating groupthink tends to make those who subscribe to it suspicious of those who don't, and in a team-with-traitors game like Galactica, that can often lead to accusations and paranoia

Well, Kushiel, I could probably go back and forth with you a bit longer on a few of these points, particularly the definition of metagame. (Is it really metagame in chess for me to remember that my opponent's sneaky good with knights and to keep an eye out for it? Do I really have to fall for the same trick once each game before I begin to adjust for it?)

But on the other hand, I started this thread to hear how different players rate the relative strength of different characters, and you've answered the OP thoroughly, and then some. I really do appreciate it. I know I've been sort of tongue-in-cheek about your stated win percentage, but I really do believe you're a very good player and I've enjoyed the back-and-forth.

Which is not to say I'm done going back-and-forth with you on some of this that remains unresolved. Feel free to keep it going, by all means. I'm still here.

P.S. Would you, or anyone else, care to try your hand at a Tier ranking list, similar to the OP? Or do you have a sort of fundamental objection to ranking the characters in that manner? Curious to hear another perspective on this ...

Holy Outlaw said:

Metagaming in chess would be very different than metagaming in Galactica, if the former is even possible. Hence why I began my definition with "In a game like Galactica..." Chess is about as unlike Galactica as I can imagine.

But, yes, we can let this go.

Holy Outlaw said:

It's entirely intentional that I've kept my comments to be about the ways in which characters are ranked rather than the specific rankings. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on character rankings, though I doubt I'd use a strict tiered system the way that you've done, but I've only played two games using any of the Exodus components. As you've no doubt realized by now, I'm not so much interested in abstract and theory as I am in concrete and practice, so I didn't want to proffer opinions which weren't backed by experience.

For a game like Galactica, metagaming is basing your decisions on factors which lie outside the current game. So if you pass me extra loyalty cards because you've seen me win in the past, regardless of what's going on in the current game, that's metagaming. Or if Jane has often/always attempted to gain titles in prior games you've played with her, and you play assuming that she's going to do so again during the current game, that's metagaming.

So... what I'm not quite getting here... are you saying metagaming is bad ? Because with a game like this one, I don't believe anyone will completely avoid metagame unless they're playing their first round with total strangers. Knowing a person's tells is metagame. Knowing how much they usually value certain things like jump markers, ressource losses, quorum cards or a cylon-free galactica is metagame. Even knowing how many of their bad decisions can be blamed on ignorance due to being new instead of malice is metagame.

BSG is largely about psychology, about assessing other people's talk and decisions and deducing something from those. I don't think many people can shut out what they know about others well enough to not let that influence their conclusions.

This. I made a comparison to chess because I consider BSG a strategy game, and chess is sort of the hallmark strategy game. But maybe a better comparison would be to poker, where I have to use my opponents' behavior to guess their hole card while they do the same back and whoever does it better sooner wins. I'd argue it's a universal phenomenon and critical game component to remember player tendencies in such games. The common definition of metagaming is bringing considerations outside of the game into the game. I'm not sure analyzing player tendencies is outside of the game; I'd argue it's baked into the cake.

To me, there's a significant difference between basing your decisions on someone else's personality and on how they've played the game in the past. The former makes sense, the latter doesn't. If you want to conflate the two, I don't see any need to argue with you. Neither point of view is right or wrong; I just don't see any advantage in making decisions based on data that might not be applicable to the current situation.

EDIT: Oh, FFG forums. One missed endtag, and what's done can never be undone. I'll never stop coming back to you, no matter how badly you treat me, but a little consideration now and then would go a long way.

Kushiel said:

Try using Cain's jump, just prior to the cylon fleet arriving. That resets the human jump prep to zero, just at the point when they needed to jump.

I have seen Galactica explode within one round when Cain does that.

Of course smart human opponents will consider that jump as proof your a Cylon. But since galactica is not likly to survive. Whatever the humans think is now moot. This action by Cain can leave the humans in a position so desperate, that that can't even afford the action to brig/shoot Cain.

First of all, hello to everyone. Though I see, that this is a bit older topic, I still wanted to add some of my perspective. Not only about the characters abilities but also about the way the game is played with my groups here.

First of all, I agree with ronsen_04.

...In my opinion, part of what makes BSG such a great game, is that you can tackle the same overall theme of problems with a different "cast" each time. It's not just about picking a dream team and hoping the right characters flip at the right time. I personally enjoy to see what different players with different attitudes do with different characters and their strengths and weaknesses. It makes each game truly unique.

Yes, I also have my favorite characters...one of them being Apollo because he's so versatile. Nonetheless, I also enjoy playing "lower tier characters" as per your definition... A character's weaknesses as well as his not so super strengths make each and every character unique...and it calls for a unique approach to each character by each player. That's part of the game!

Why I do agree is because you can choose a character from such a big variety. In the group I play (3-4 people play almost always and the other 1-3 vary) we choose the characters randomly on almost 99% of the games we play. Why? Because it gives you a bigger challenge. Challenge for yourself to find a way to win with maybe not the best character. We all do have our favourite characters (I like Helo, a friend likes Roslin), but if we would play only with the same characters, the way we play would almost always be the same. Yeah, luck with Crisis Cards or Loyalty Cards will change it, but there would be only two differences on how you play a character: human or cylon way. Yes, you can try different ways, but still, the character and the way you play him/he will stay the same.

For us, it isn't about the characters abilities or handy caps, as we call them, its about how you play them. Almost every character has something that is good for a human team or a cylon team. In certain situations, Tighs once per game can come really handy, when he and the President are cylons, or he is a human, and the President is a cylon. Thou it is true, that William Adamas Inspirational Leader only helps humans, but at the same time, he can't send anyone to the Brig location. Good and bad for everyone. The discussed Helena Cain Once-per-game ability can also come in handy for cylons, when population is low and she decides to jump. We did lose a game because Cain was a cylon and population was at 3 and we could have easily overcome the last 1-2 Crisis cards.

As I have understood, most of you want that the humans win. Why? Does it make the game more interesting? Me and my group go out to see, which team will win. Most in our group don't even want to be humans (thanks to Exodus, the human part has become a bit more challenging and therefore more fun), because you can't be sneaky and play a really good deceiving tactical game. As a human, you discuss everything openly. As a cylon, you mostly rely only on yourself, because revealing yourself too early can make it hard. To explain why we think so: most of our cylon tactics go to the point that one is revealed and one is not. One works from the inside and one from the outside (sometimes humans knows who the insider is, but it's no tactical use to execute him or send to the brig, since there are other more important problems). Not always, but I'd say most of the games are like that. One of the most epic games we had was about over a half a year ago, when a really even game was won by the cylons. We had 3 humans and 2 cylons. On cylon was revealed, the other not. And nobody knew who the other cylon was, until the game ended. Not even the revealed cylon. A cylon working from the inside can do a lot of harm in raising suspicion and paranoia. The paranoia and deceiving part is, what makes this game so interesting, not the humas winning. If it is good or bad probably depends on how you think of it. So for us it is more of a psychological tactics game then just tactics. You trust and don't trust at the same time. Whom will you believe?

About our win ratio, it's about 50/50 I'd say. Maybe 40/60 to the cylon side, but for us it mostly depends on who is playing against whom. We have some really strong players and some who have played only 3-4 times before or not at all. This brings me to the meta part of the discussion. I would say that the previous games do have a role in later games. Because you already know, who the really strong players are and what tactics they normally use. You know, whom you have to keep a special eye on.

Long story short: it is more challenging to try to win the game with not that strong characters, since then you have to try harder. That makes it fun. It's not that important if the humans or cylons win, it's about winning itself.

As for rating the characters...

Since almost from the start, we draw random characters, picking out the ones our group plays the most, is a bit difficult. But I'll give my best on describing why we like some characters (in no particular order):

• Laura Roslin: Although she has to discard Skill cards, she can choose between two Crisis Cards. That gives a good tactical position as a human and as a unrevealed cylon.
• Louanne "Kat" Katraine. She can use Skill cards instead of rolling. Also her Sacrifice has come in handy. Mostly used in pre-Exodus games.
• Karl "Helo" Agathon. The player can re-roll and change a choice made with a Crisis card. He will miss the first round from the board, but that isn't really a problem.
• "Chief" Galen Tyrol. After the repair, he can make another action. Which means, that after a repair, he can give someone else an Executive Order. So on one turn, you can have 3 actions.
• Lee "Apollo" Adama. Really important in the Exodus, since pilots are the only way on getting the Civilian ships off the board. Also he gets a variety of different Skill card, although he has to discard randomly.
• Callandra "Cally" Tyrol. Now she has some really great abilities. Especially the once-per-turn one. She also gets the biggest variety of Skill cards.
• Sharon "Boomer" Valerii. She does have a bad handy cap, but at the same time, her positive abilities are balancing it. Like Roslin, she has somewhat of a good tactical point with the Crisis cards.
• So... a bit different favourites as for most of players here.

Well Genky, I remember this thread dying. I was there. Now here it is back alive, which makes it a cylon. And I hate cylons.

Seriously though, I'm perplexed by your argument. You seem to on the one hand be arguing for playing thematically, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. But at the same time you inquire why players would play full human until revealing. You even say that most humans in your group want to be cylon. Your stated reasons for that are all mechanical; none of them are thematic. I trust you watched the show, so maybe you can understand the contradiction I'm pointing out. It seems to me that rule 1a for any group that claims to play thematically is that the humans sell out for their species, from character selection all the way up until they start hearing the strange music. "Do what we always do: fight 'em 'til we can't." Doesn't that ring bells? I swear, I get all tingly thinking about it.

genky said:

I think its interesting that you pick a lot of pilots and support characters and only one political leader and one military leader (who is a pilot). I personally prefer characters who have a lot of individual power, are difficult to out as Cylons when played properly, and are not really "team players" - like Adama (OPG is amazing, OPT cannot be stopped, only forgotten by everyone not me and I wont have someone point out all of a sudden "hey, Cally hasn't used her OPT this whole game" and he has no real weakness) or Apollo (again, OPT is amazing, the only playerwho can get an action on another player's turn without being given that action, and has color variety). And of course, Ellen Tigh, who looks like she is helping the team by passing out skill cards but really is only helping herself.

I have like, NO idea if this is according to the rules or not, but I think it is, it's the way we do it.. Roll the dice, highest score goes first then clockwise. First person get to pick whatever class he likes, when he decides to pick let's say military leader the next 3 may not pick military leader as there has to be a political a pilot and a supporter before the 5'th may restart the picking. And thus may pick miltiary leader as well

Andreas,

Yes, that's very close to how the rulebook says to do it. The only difference between what you're suggesting and the official method is that Support is not a proper class in the rulebook. In other words, you can only draw from the smallest stack of Political, Military or Pilot, but you can always choose Support if you don't like your options.

@HolyOutlaw

It seems to me that rule 1a for any group that claims to play thematically is that the humans sell out for their species, from character selection all the way up until they start hearing the strange music. "Do what we always do: fight 'em 'til we can't." Doesn't that ring bells? I swear, I get all tingly thinking about it.

...unless they're busy staging a mutiny (2). Or bedding possibly hostile Cylons (2). Or advocating/conspiring in/ordering the murder of fleet officers (7). Or cheating on their partners (2). Or getting addicted to Stims (1). Or not stopping at the stims and just taking everything nice in life's path (1). Or shooting the old man in the guts (1). Or being an amoral ***** (1).

Which would kinda leave Dualla as the only player character - and we all know how well Dee copes with bad news.

@genky

As I have understood, most of you want that the humans win.

I'd say most of us want to win, period. This can either happen on the human team (in which case the character abilities are a major ressource) or on the Cylon team (in which case character abilities are useful, but you can always take your combination close shave/bath). Since you're going to be human more often than Cylon, it makes sense to weigh the human side more heavily, though of course characters that can advance both sides are even better.

Cifer said:

Cifer!

If you're accusing the human race of being largely dysfunctional for most of the four seasons, you won't get an argument from me. But when I try to count all the humans I saw hedging their bets by, for example, stashing explosives in their locker just in case they turned cylon and needed to blow up some human ships post-haste, I don't get very far.

(Is that an fair analogy for keeping a handful of cards to potentially use against the fleet later? It's the best I could think of .,.)

The only example I can call to mind of a human who hedged bets, or who did anything but dread turning cylon, is Gaius Baltar circa 3.5. And that was really an issue of self-loathing. Guilt. He didn't want to be a cylon, he just wanted to be redeemed. The closest thing to that would be screwing up so royally at the table during loyalty that you want to turn cylon at sleeper just so you can fake like you had it all along to save face.

I remember the show. I watched it all the way through twice, and I've watched some episodes half a dozen times. I can state with confidence that humans didn't want to be cylons. Most *cylons* didn't want to be cylons. A case can be made for straddling the fence until sleeper, but purely a mechanical one. It's decidedly un-thematic.

(On another note, I like your second point. It strikes me as well-put and it pretty closely mirrors my own attitudes on individualism, winning, and leaning human.)

@Holy Outlaw

I think you took my attempt at a little humor more seriously than it was meant.

That said, the "play selfish" adage sounds quite appropriate at least for Ellen Tigh - there were a few times where she directly traded things that would benefit humanity for things that would benefit her, starting with Colonial Day and a certain assassin. Her motivation might have been different, but the action was quite the same.

Oh Cifer, you're reminding me how much I hate Ellen Tigh. My least favorite thing about season 4 was

*SPOILER ALERT*

Ellen Tigh.

*equally spoileriffic*

I think it was mainly the combination of Saul and Ellen. Both were just fine when they were alone (and Ellen definitely got a massive sympathy boost for her understanding attitude post-bath), but just when they reunite, things go right back to what they were before, though Saul pretty much held on to the character strength he developed when listening to the pretty music.

Hi, I'd like to know whay , in the very first post in this thread it was said of Tori; " But she's a *monster*." And with Asterisks involved?

Just curious...

LynchMob,

I just meant to say that she's really powerful. If you read ahead in the thread I think I argue that she's the second strongest character in the game behind Helena Cain. As for the asterisks, they're a throwback to old days with plain text scripts like DOS. You couldn't actually do boldfaced type or underscore, so you'd frame a work with asterisks for emphasis.

OHhhh…
Well, just two days ago, I started playing my very first game, with two friends. This was to be a “experiment” game, since at first it looks like an intimidating game with all the cards and different steps (but, this is coming from someone who plays Advanced Squad Leader, so…What the Heck?). It’s real easy to play once one turn has a “go ‘round”.
Getting back to my point…I picked Tori based on just your one comment there…not knowing even really what you meant. I’m enjoying her as a character. Sadly, we only had about 2 hours to play and didn’t even get one “FTL Jump” yet (we had a card that gave us a set back one step, but then we recovered). I was really getting into it and then we had to stop! Crud! We left the game set up and sealed our Loyalty cards and skill cards in envelops for when we pick it up again.
I’m going to look forward to how this plays out, and comparing her to other characters in the game.

You know who I think has a lot of bitchin’ power? And that’s lowly little “Cally”. Like she can draw from 4 different skill groups, but her “Quick Fix” ability is pretty cool. And it’s not “once per game” she can do it every single skill check (on her turn). Plus, she outright kill another character in her area (once per game).
Huh. I don’t know, but I think she’s kind of powerful. Am I dumb here, or wot?