TomH said:

Dude, what part about "I'm genuinely curious" and "I'm no longer sure I played within the rules" do you not understand?! I'm not looking for exceptions and I am not rules lawyering; I want to know what people think about it. There is nothing within the rules to forbid it, but I can see the concern of the ONE player in my group. The irony is that you mention the theme of 'secrecy' and then talk about being unsecretive about a communication. Forgiving that, your initial point about 'giving one person information' (which seems to be the very definition of being secretive) is still in debate, you'll notice that I have not yet said that I think it is against or within the rules to communicate with 'only one' person in a covert manner. I have only asked questions about how far one has to go about ensuring that everyone is aware of any given person's communications.

For the other two players in the majority, it was fine, but I do care about the enjoyment of others, even if it is one person out of the group. That's why I'm asking here, not because I want someone to tell me I'm right or wrong, I just want to see what other people think about it, and then perhaps change the way I play based on the responses and the reasoning behind them.

I think that it is fair to say that we're not 'revealing' secret information. Firstly, I'm not actually showing the card; I am stating something about my loyalty cards ("I'm human", "I'm Cylon") which should be fine in ordinary game play. If a person couldn't lie about their loyalty cards, the game wouldn't be very interesting. Revealing secret information would be flashing my "you are a cylon" card to someone, which is strictly against the rules. I could be lying to the sympathizer about being a Cylon, after all.

So, the problem (and it seems to some that there is one, I am undecided on the issue) lies with how I communicated it. Is there something wrong with covert communication, where I did not let the others know that I said something to my cylon buddy? Maybe, I don't know. It is not against the letter of the rules, but that does not mean a whole lot; we are (yes, me too) concerned with the spirit of the rules and the enjoyment of the other players.

As I said before, I wouldn't have posted here if I just wanted people to agree with me. I already had a majority consensus in my group, and the one person who thought it unsporting shrugged and said that it didn't feel right, but that it wasn't against the rules. If I was rules lawyering, why would I care what people here thought? Well, the answer is, surprise, that I'm not sure that covert communication between subsets of people is forbidden or allowed by the spirit of the rules, and that I am concerned with whether the odd man out in my last game had fun, and I wonder what the rationale is for other people, rather than just looking for 'proof' that I was right, as though opinions could even provide that.

Frankly, at this point, I find it hard to care what you think (your only assertions are either wrong or backed up by faulty reasoning about the rules), and the only reason I respond to your accusation of 'rules lawyering' is so that others might see that it is still an honest question and provide their unbiased opinion.

i haven't read this thread in detail as it appears to have gotten a bit out of hand from the parts I did read. So i will just go back and answer your question.

The secrecy rules are meant to be more strict than lax (that is typically how it goes in the semi-cooperative games with two teams working against each other). To me, stating you have an Executive Order is practically the same as stating I have a 1. An EO can only be 1 of 2 numbers and both are low. Likewise, saying you are playing the Declare Emergency, while slightly more ambiguous, is still declaring you are playing a higher card. In both cases, you are declaring the color.

The rules do say the "strength" must be kept hidden. Which technically says nothing about the title of the card. However, the rules go on to say statements must be vague . So if you are following the rules, then how can you say "I have an Executive Order" is vague?

I would limit statements to "I can help a little/lot" and players should be able to figure out what type of card that might be based on what Skills I can draw or places I have visited.

EDIT:

Sorry, I skipped too much and answered the OP's question and not yours.

My question is, in this context is my winking equivalent to me 'showing my cards'? Or telling what the value of my loyalty card is?

I would not allow "physical" communication. As someone pointed out here or on BGG, they have come up with 5 unique phrases (all vague) that outsiders wouldn't pick up but their group knows correlates to specific numbers. Technically, they are playing the way the rules are written. But practically, they are violating the spirit of the rules. If winking conveys something specific, then it is going against the rules as well even if not explicitly forbidden.

ColtsFan76 said:

MM, yeah, we're running into the problem where each person in our group knows what a 'little bit' or 'moderate' amount is in our skill checks. The rules of Secrecy forbid naming the exact value of skill cards, revealing the tops of decks (destination or crisis), and super crises. A player's loyalty cards may not be looked at except by an in-game effect, but the secrecy rules do not seem to prohibit one mentioning the value of those loyalty cards (indeed, it'd be odd if people could not say "I'm not a cylon", especially if they have no "you are a cylon" loyalty cards). The rules of secrecy (and the rules around loyalty cards) seem to prohibit tipping hands, etc., but do not forbid declarations of one's loyalty cards (telling the truth or otherwise). Against the spirit of the rules, I can see it being the case. It is certainly being unfair to two of the three other players in some way.

Update: I just spoke again with one of my players about it, and she said that it was unlikely to ever work again, due to the other players watching more closely. Further still, the possibility that I could 'lie' with that wink has come up, and they no longer see it as proof positive of someone communicating their loyalty.

The secrecy rules clearly intend to permit the discussion of loyalty cards. Any player is free to say "I am/am not a Cylon!" whenever he wishes. Likewise, the rules specifically state that if you are allowed to look at another player's loyalty cards you may immediately announce (truthfully or otherwise) what his cards are. This is okay, of course, because you are not permitted to show his cards to anyone else. You can only report about them, with the obvious possibility that you're lying . Thus, even if I say, "I looked at Jim's cards and he's a Cylon," my claim is only as informative as I am trustworthy. If the other players aren't confident of my loyalty (and they can never be entirely confident until all the Cylons have been revealed) then they have to take all my claims about loyalty cards with a grain of salt.

As to the "winking", then, the only issue, as others have said, is with the "secrecy" of it.

Simply winking to another player at any time and for any reason is certainly permissible. In your case, you meant to communicate that you were a Cyclon - and if it would have been permissible to say "I am a Cylon" (which it would), then it certainly seems permissible to point to yourself instead or to perform any other similar gesture. Likewise, just as if you had said you were a Cylon, how is the other Cylon player to be certain that you're telling the truth? In general, it's almost always to a human player's advantage for a Cyclon player to believe the human is a Cylon. That way he will be less likely to disrupt your play, possibly even help you, etcetera. So your lying to a Cylon about being a Cylon is certainly a possibility.

Again, the only difference with "winking" is that you did so to deliberately prevent the other players from seeing the gesture. Whether this is acceptable or not is, I suppose, a matter of each group's own preference. I, personally, would have no problem with it (because the intent, honesty, and meaning of the wink are uncertain). Likewise, if players wished to pass secret notes to one another, I would probably consider that acceptable - provided , of course, that nobody uses notes to discuss forbidden subjects such as the strength of skill cards. But if someone wanted a pass a secret note to another player claiming (without proof) that "I am a Cylon", I think that would be fine. And if such a secret note is fine, then winking is certainly okay.

One consequence of allowing this type of action (winking et al) is that you are adding a type of information to the game. As is there is information that:

1) Everybody knows and is true. What cards were put into a skill check, who put cards in, what the crisis and destination cards are.

2) Everybody knows and might be true. "I'm not a Cylon!"

3) One person knows and is true. You have a Cylon card, the Crisis card you buried under the deck. The Admiral's Loyalty card.

By allowing secret communication you add information that:

4) One person knows and might be true.

This isn't a game of secret negotiations, being able to tell one person one thing, and explaining it to another another way. You have to speak to everybody and get your story straight. You're supposed to cooperate, so why wouldn't you trust the other humans? And now there's a part of the game that not everybody gets to play. You're excluding people at the table. You can add this if you want, but it's going to change the nature of the game. Moreover, you should be prepared for someone at the table to become really upset about it. It's like card counting; it's perfectly legal, but if you get caught they'll kick you out fast and maybe beat you up first.

Sinis said:

Frankly mate, I don't give a frak at all what you do in the game- I just like pointing out things that you obviously don't like being pointed out. It's only a boardgame after all and of little importance to anything, I was more interested in your continued reactions.

Brian - is this going to be your next speciality after Memoir '44 and Arkham Horror , if so you better get busy and get a few more hames under your belt .

TomH said:

That remains to be seen! But I certainly like the game. Working my way through the DVDs now (Just started Season 2) and my wife is hooked. The other 2 guys in our typical gaming group of 6 players are huge fans of the show. So I see this getting a lot of play time.

TomH said:

If you were actually pointing out something that was there, your comments might be legitimate, but instead it seems like trolling.

My continued reaction is to wonder about your reading comprehension.

Hey guys, moderators don't play a very active role in the forums. I'd like to humbly suggest you all back off from the personal shots. You have different opinions, please just agree to disagree, and stay on topic.

Agreed. Please concentrate on the game, not taking shots at each other.

- Jeremy @ FFG

We've found that the best policy is the blanket statement at the beginning of the game that "anyone is allowed to say anything". Actually revealing things is, of course, against the rules. We try to avoid stating specific numbers on skill cards (though as was pointed out earlier in the thread, a group who plays together regularly begins to understand just what numbers "a little" "a bit" "a lot" and "a ton" mean). The climate of paranoia in the game is usually strong enough that that's enough. Even if someone says they're going to help "a lot", that often means very little.

Hi,

This question came up during our first game of BSG.

The "open accusations" rule states that player who is able to watch Loyalty card can reveal card's information to the group, if wanted. In the case of seeing a Cylon card, does this mean that the player seeing the card can declare the Cylon's special ability to the group as well?

Also, if Balthar sees two Cylon cards, can he declare that the player has exactly two Cylon cards?

Thanks for any info.

Great game by the way!

The answers to your questions are simple. Yes and yes. As far as we can figure out, and this is how we play, you can say whatever the heck you want about other peoples loyalties, true or false.

You may not identify, in any way, any hidden card you have seen. Except for loyalty cards.

Ok, I also think this is very much the rule as written. But this interpretation leads to an awkward situation in some occasions.

For example if you have a new player that (presumably) doesn't know the cylon abilities, and he checks the cylon card and claims that the card seen was indeed a cylon card with a certain special ability. Doesn't this reveal that the new player is speaking truth since "everyone knows" that he hasn't memorized cylon card abilities before the game?

Technically, yes i would agree you have a problem there. Maybe in the case of new players enforce a more stringent secrecy rule for the first couple games?

The person who owns the game has suggested a rule modification to avoid this:

After looking at someone's Loyalty card, you are only allowed to accuse the person to be a cylon or not, nothing more should be said about the card's information.

That seems like a wonderful suggestion for new players. Agreed

Basically, it comes down to something along the lines of "I can help" or "I can't help" for us. The people I play with have really good memories for numbers and cards - if we said anything more than that then working out who the Cylon(s) is(are) would be too easy.

Pertaining to loyalty cards something came up in our group, it occured to us that while accusing someone of being a cylon after seeing their loyalty cards, if your being truthful or you have an incredible memory you can just recite off details of the card, like the shirt the cylon is wearing or the angle the arrow is pointing, until you convince everyone. Since we didn't think this was in the spirit of the game, either being too easy to identify cylons or too easy to accuse a human if you memorize cards, we have a new house rule that you can only reveal that he is a cylon and his ability, not any other minutea of the card. THis way you can still be convincing without needed silly card details.