Enunciating each individual card goes well beyond giving information in polar opposites. It gives multiple items of information on a single play. It also gets you very close to listing the cards you're playing, which is not permitted. The example given, you'll note, applies one description ("low") to the entire play of five cards.

Finally, it doesn't pass the smell test. Being able to provide that kind of detail would make it far too diffeicult for hidden Cylons to sabotage skill checks, which is kind of the point of the secrecy rules. In short, it's not supposed to be that easy for humans to plan out skill checks.

The example given, you'll note, applies one description ("low") to the entire play of five cards.

I get your point, but I don't agree with your interpretation. It is not a description of the entire play, it is a description of each card.

It says 5 low cards. If you can say that, then you could say 5 high cards, or 2 low cards, or 2 high cards. How does that not mean that you could say 1 low and 1 high card?

It says 5 low cards. If you can say that, then you could say 5 high cards, or 2 low cards, or 2 high cards. How does that not mean that you could say 1 low and 1 high card?

Because:

You can only speak in polar opposites
You can't list the cards you played
It doesn't pass the smell test

My point about the example given is simply why it doesn't contradict the rest of the secrecy rules.

BSG

You know a game is getting tight when the rule book is dissected so finely.

I seem to recall from previous forum games the rule was vague, by how much you could contribute to the check. NOT vague per card that you can contribute to the check.

If the check is 7 and you can contribute 9, then you could say "I can contribute a high amount into this check". If you can contribute 3, then you would say a medium. If one or two, then low. But due to secrecy rules, you can not say "I can contribute a high orange, and a low black, and a medium indigo". And quite frankly, I would think it dangerous to do so. Then you are giving away your hand to the enemy while you plan it for this hand. Let's say you announce the vague specifics of your hand. And one of the cylons tracks the beejeebees out of the game. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what you have. And then you determine you don't have enough to pass the check. Now the cylon knows what you have for the next check. And can determine that it's not in his best interest to play that indigo 5 he has to tank it. And he saves it for the following check, which causes it to not pass by one. Had you not telegraphed your hand so much, you would have changed the course of the game.

So, as the GM for this game, I say, you can NOT give vague specifics. You can say polar opposites. "I can help a lot with this check" or "I can help a little with this check", or "I can't help with this check".

So say we all.

BSG
Now, let's keep this ball rolling. Helo? What do you wish to play?
7 PB
Destiny Deck: Y1, G2
Apollo: R2
Boomer: Y3
Zarek: No Cards
Helo:
Tigh: CO's in hand
Chief:
Running Total: -8 out of 7
FAIL

Helo? What do you wish to play?

I'm waiting to hear from Tigh.

BSG

You guys know I have two cards in my hand and what my colors are.

I can contribute in one way with a small-medium amount to the check, and in another way to make this easier for us. And I'd just as soon that if I play one, I play both cards since I'd discard it otherwise. I would prefer to try to pass but I understand we are cutting things close, and two cards can only go so far.

BSG

As much as it kills me, I don't think we can pass this.

BSG

I don't think we can either. I had been hoping destiny would be kinder, because we're not working with that many cards.

I play no cards into this check.

Look, as GM, I hate to do this. I've been trying to be loosey-goosey to keep things rolling and fun, but phrases like:

I can contribute in one way with a small-medium amount to the check

So, as the GM for this game, I say, you can NOT give vague specifics. You can say polar opposites. "I can help a lot with this check" or "I can help a little with this check", or "I can't help with this check".

I say this not to be an asshole, but because it has come up repeatedly with this game. So PLEASE, for the love of dog, lets follow this rule. POLAR OPPOSITES or I CAN'T HELP. Those are the options. The oven is on warm, broil or off. The foot got a little wet from the puddle, the foot got soaked, or you avoided the puddle. You have a flashlight, you have a floodlight, you are blind. OK?

I'm not harping on anyone. Like I said, I am just as much at fault for letting this go on. But given this weekends final round of "according to the rules..." bs, and since it seems to rub people one way or another, it's my job as GM to step up and play Azdak. (only advantage is, he was bribed). That said, let's keep this shit moving.

BSG

7 PB
Destiny Deck: Y1, G2
Apollo: R2
Boomer: Y3
Zarek: No Cards
Helo:No Cards
Tigh: No Cards
Chief:
Running Total: -8 out of 7
FAIL

That brings us to Chief. I can't recall if Chief said in the past if team human wants to fail, don't play anything. I'd rather error on the side of caution. Since everytime I try to write a note on the sheet to remind me of these things, it blocks some of the automation it does. Garrr.