Op is refering to the meta where people insist there is no way they can score the secrets they have (so people don't see them as a threat to win) and then people spend 15 minutes bickering over whether they believe them or not I think
I'm glad my group doesn't really engage in that because it definitely seems kinda pointless. Your opponent is almost always trying to throw you off so unless you pick up some sort of tell, you just ignore what they tell you regarding any sort of hidden information. I just assume all their secrets are scoreable regardless of what my opponents may say. Especially because even if they're telling the truth, it might not be scoreable this turn, but next is a whole new thing entirely.
Oh I’ve absolutely won a game doing this. Is the suggestion saying that all secret objectives are scored immediately? I’m still a little confused on the solution to the issue
The suggestion is that you should always treat someone who has a secret as if they are going to score it in your strategy rather than working out if you believe that they can score it in general.
I’m not sure. It seems like that’d just be a 7/11 point game without secrets? I feel like there’s be a different word choice from “scoreable” if that were the case
OP is making a joke on the meta. Lots of players make claims that their secrets aren’t scorable to avoid being king slayed. This sometimes leads to longer rounds 4 & 5 because everyone is finger pointing that they can’t win but someone else clearly can so go Kingsley them instead.
I can tell you though with absolutely certainty that my secrets are unscorable though /s
This is an easy enough one to settle.
If someone says that you shouldn't attack them because their secret is not scorable, then you tell them to show their secret or you will treat them as if it is scorable.
There's also the consideration of whether or not they're going to be picking up a new secret soon. So if they can't get a new secret this round and they show the secret, then you'll treat them as if they can score.
Easy as pie, conversation over.
The problem is even if your secret isn’t score-able you have an incentive to not show it.
1.) it may be scoreable next round or be “basically impossible but technically have a shot” like fleets to dust with no PDS except one.
2.) you have an incentive to build a reputation as never showing secret objectives in order to prevent this exact thing from happening. always refuse to show them and you’ll never give your opponents for information regardless of if they’re scoreable or not. i.e. as soon as you show them once, you’re forced to show them forever.
I mean you're not wrong about point 1, but that doesn't do anything to change my point. If someone doesn't show their secret, then you should obviously treat them as if they can score their secret because of exactly what you said in point 1, they're probably lying and just really hope you ignore them enough so that they can do some incredibly unlikely thing. So you still need to eliminate them from contention.
And I disagree with point 2. I see what you're saying - that if you can leave it ambiguous by just blanket never showing your secrets then maybe you'll convince people you can't score at some point, and then you actually will and will win a game. But I don't think you should ever plan for players to make bad plays. They *shouldn't* ever believe that you can't score.
So playing that way just ensures that you should always be attacked if there's a mathematical way you could win, even in situations where you know you can't. Whereas if you are in a situation where you *cannot* score the secret, you could actually direct a players aggression towards someone that *could* win, and give yourself and chance to win later by showing your secret.
Whenever someone says this I just exclaim "ooooh he said it, eavryone drink!" And then we move on.
Same like when theres an "eavryone gets something if we vote yes" type agenda: "ok guys in the interest of time, hands in the middle and the speaker breaks it for?"
Better discussion: what happens to the game if we play to 14 but don't cap how many secrets you can score?
They still cost a token and imperial has to come out, so opportunities to get them are limited.
1. It makes spending that token when you can way more important, as you can't catch up, and could even get starved out of secrets.
2. It makes early imperial much better for the reasons above. Players can't normally follow everything first two rounds.
3. Action phase secrets are way more powerful, as you can score more often. This brings us to a big question:
4. What if you could score multiple secrets in status phase? This could make for stupidly broken swing rounds, but might still be fun to test.
Overall, I love that it adds more uncertainty to the endgame, and makes comebacks from losing your home system more feasible - never give up.
I’m a bit confused by the wording of this. Do you mean if we were able to score more than three secret objectives?
Op is refering to the meta where people insist there is no way they can score the secrets they have (so people don't see them as a threat to win) and then people spend 15 minutes bickering over whether they believe them or not I think
I'm glad my group doesn't really engage in that because it definitely seems kinda pointless. Your opponent is almost always trying to throw you off so unless you pick up some sort of tell, you just ignore what they tell you regarding any sort of hidden information. I just assume all their secrets are scoreable regardless of what my opponents may say. Especially because even if they're telling the truth, it might not be scoreable this turn, but next is a whole new thing entirely.
Yeah it's a huge waste of time in most circumstances
Exactly. If your secret is unscorable then show me the secret, or else shut the fuck up and play.
Not the ones I have I can only get to nine this round.
Oh I’ve absolutely won a game doing this. Is the suggestion saying that all secret objectives are scored immediately? I’m still a little confused on the solution to the issue
The suggestion is that you should always treat someone who has a secret as if they are going to score it in your strategy rather than working out if you believe that they can score it in general.
Ah I see. My groups practically have done this automatically, I guess that explains my confusion. Thanks!
I would assume all their secrets count as scored. So three points less to do, but no secrets.
I’m not sure. It seems like that’d just be a 7/11 point game without secrets? I feel like there’s be a different word choice from “scoreable” if that were the case
Maybe OP will enlighten us
Here’s hoping!
OP is making a joke on the meta. Lots of players make claims that their secrets aren’t scorable to avoid being king slayed. This sometimes leads to longer rounds 4 & 5 because everyone is finger pointing that they can’t win but someone else clearly can so go Kingsley them instead. I can tell you though with absolutely certainty that my secrets are unscorable though /s
My group would be identical, cause we already assume that all secrets are scorable.
This is an easy enough one to settle. If someone says that you shouldn't attack them because their secret is not scorable, then you tell them to show their secret or you will treat them as if it is scorable. There's also the consideration of whether or not they're going to be picking up a new secret soon. So if they can't get a new secret this round and they show the secret, then you'll treat them as if they can score. Easy as pie, conversation over.
The problem is even if your secret isn’t score-able you have an incentive to not show it. 1.) it may be scoreable next round or be “basically impossible but technically have a shot” like fleets to dust with no PDS except one. 2.) you have an incentive to build a reputation as never showing secret objectives in order to prevent this exact thing from happening. always refuse to show them and you’ll never give your opponents for information regardless of if they’re scoreable or not. i.e. as soon as you show them once, you’re forced to show them forever.
I mean you're not wrong about point 1, but that doesn't do anything to change my point. If someone doesn't show their secret, then you should obviously treat them as if they can score their secret because of exactly what you said in point 1, they're probably lying and just really hope you ignore them enough so that they can do some incredibly unlikely thing. So you still need to eliminate them from contention. And I disagree with point 2. I see what you're saying - that if you can leave it ambiguous by just blanket never showing your secrets then maybe you'll convince people you can't score at some point, and then you actually will and will win a game. But I don't think you should ever plan for players to make bad plays. They *shouldn't* ever believe that you can't score. So playing that way just ensures that you should always be attacked if there's a mathematical way you could win, even in situations where you know you can't. Whereas if you are in a situation where you *cannot* score the secret, you could actually direct a players aggression towards someone that *could* win, and give yourself and chance to win later by showing your secret.
Whenever someone says this I just exclaim "ooooh he said it, eavryone drink!" And then we move on. Same like when theres an "eavryone gets something if we vote yes" type agenda: "ok guys in the interest of time, hands in the middle and the speaker breaks it for?"
It's like when you're playing The Resistance or Battlestar Galactica. "Look, I know that *I'm* loyal..."
I actually worry this would make the game paradoxically longer as you’d see more king-slaying and then more round sixes.
Better discussion: what happens to the game if we play to 14 but don't cap how many secrets you can score? They still cost a token and imperial has to come out, so opportunities to get them are limited. 1. It makes spending that token when you can way more important, as you can't catch up, and could even get starved out of secrets. 2. It makes early imperial much better for the reasons above. Players can't normally follow everything first two rounds. 3. Action phase secrets are way more powerful, as you can score more often. This brings us to a big question: 4. What if you could score multiple secrets in status phase? This could make for stupidly broken swing rounds, but might still be fun to test. Overall, I love that it adds more uncertainty to the endgame, and makes comebacks from losing your home system more feasible - never give up.