BSG (Leoben)

OK I'm going to pass on interrupts.

BSG(Doctor Zero)

Here's a question, totally unrelated to any cards I might have: Would it help anyone if a 0 card actually counted as 1 positive for this check?

BSG (Toasty Hoshi)

Would negative 0 cards count negative as well?? Oooo. That could be fun!

BSG (Helo)

oooh! That would be fun. I can get behind that plan.

BSG

Here's a question, totally unrelated to any cards I might have: Would it help anyone if a 0 card actually counted as 1 positive for this check?

I don't think that's permissible under secrecy. Player's aren't permitted to identify cards played into skill checks. This question both discusses a card that takes effect by being played into the skill check, and asks people to talk about what they can play into the check.

(By the same token, I don't think the previous question about if anyone could play Blue was kosher. It's ok to ask if other people think it would be a good idea for Blue to be positive; but not to ask if they personally can make use of it.)

BSG(Doctor Quibbler)

OK then, who thinks it would be a good idea if 0 cards were 1 positive?

BSG

OK then, who thinks it would be a good idea if 0 cards were 1 positive?

This still has the problem that the only way it can happen is through a card being added to the skill check. (In this it differs from the SR question, as that's an interrupt played openly before the check.) Generally speaking, I'd be happier avoiding any questions about the advisability of skill check effect cards.

BSG

You're the GM, so what you say goes. I think you're splitting that hair pretty goddamn fine, though.

BSG

I disagree. Skill checks are supposed to be entirely secret. As of now, I know one card you have in your hand. If you talk about the effects of that card, and then you play it, when the cards are revealed, we will know who played it, which removes an element of secrecy.

With the interrupts, as billytea said, the card is played openly. We may have a good idea of one card Leoben holds, but since he's not playing it now, it doesn't affect this check. If it shows up, well, we don't know the numerical value of it, so it's not certain it's his anyway.

There's definitely a difference.

BSG

You're the GM, so what you say goes. I think you're splitting that hair pretty goddamn fine, though.

A lot of the tone I try to set comes from the games at boardgamegeek (where they're now up to game 393). This issue arises because of the FAQ's secrecy rule clarifications. These state that players are forbidden from saying anything about what they play into skill checks, except to say the amount was high/low/medium. They also state that players may state they have a skill card with a desired ability, such as asking for an SP before playing an Inspirational Speech. Cards with skill check effects kind of fall under both categories. You can't say anything about them because they're played into checks, but you can say something about them because they have skill card abilities that can be asked about.

The game would be workable allowing the latter to take precedence, but I follow BGG in being strict about them. There are two reasons for this; to avoid making it too easy to detect or preent Cylon play, and to keep a level of uncertainty in team planning. I think the game is more enjoyable with that element.

tl;dr: I agree that this rules space is ambiguous, but I don't think it's hair-splitting. The official FAQ is quite emphatic about preventing discussion of what cards players put into a skill check. Given a ruling that this takes precedence over skill check effect cards, I think it's pretty clear how it then applies.

Just to muddy things, there is a related ruling I'd make that's closer to hair-splitting. That is where a player is not asking whether they or anyone else should play a given 0-value card, but instead stating that they think it would be a good or a bad idea to play a given 0-value card. For instance, it would be permissible to say "This would be a bad check for anyone to play a TI-0. There are only two positive colours, more Destiny would be more likely to hurt than to help." However, any discussion of the reasoning would have to stay within bounds re skill check secrecy. I'm thinking particularly of cards like RT-0 and EN-0. (e.g. It would be a breach to suggest people shouldn't play an RT-0 if you're planning to play a 5-point card, and it would also be inappropriate to suggest this is a good check for an EN-0 when you're planning to play Blue.)

As a general principle: if the permissibility of a question or comment seems ambiguous under the secrecy rules, best to err on the side of caution.