As seen in this question ...Playing "Executive Orders" on self

Executive Order lets another player take 2 Actions if they don't move. From my understanding of the rules this means the other player could:

  1. Play another Executive Order on me, allow 2 players to take many actions in a row.
  2. Allow Cylons to do as listed above, which can be devastating.
  3. Allow a player to move out of Sickbay without penalty.
  4. Allow a player to move out of jail (does Executive Order 'allowing moving' trump jail 'not allowing moving'?)

This seems too powerful. We play with the following modified rules.

  1. No chaining, 1 Executive Order allows the receiving player to play any action other than an Executive Order.
  2. A player may use the Move to exit jail, however this forfeits the 'action'.

Does anyone have an official rule source on this?

1 Answer 1


Much of this is covered in the FAQ and Errata, which you can find a link to here.

  1. You can't play 2 Executive Orders on the same turn. Under Errata:

    The “Executive Order” Skill Card should include the following text: Limit of 1 “Executive Order” card may be used per turn.

  2. Revealed Cylons can't play Executive Orders on each other (though un-revealed Cylons, sure!). Under Cylon Players:

    Q: Can a revealed Cylon player be targeted by the “Executive Order” Skill Card or Quorum Cards?
    A: No.

  3. Yes. Under The Brig and Sickbay:

    Q: Can a player in “Sickbay” move out of that location if targeted by an “Executive Order” Skill Card?
    A: Yes. If the player moves out of “Sickbay” before the start of his turn, then he will not be restricted to drawing a single card.

  4. I read it that a player may not move out of the Brig voluntarily, not even due to an Executive Orders free move. I don't think anything explicitly states this rule, but I generally feel that "You may not move" from the Brig trumps the "You may move" from Executive Orders.

As for your house rules, the first rule is good (and in the Errata). The second rule seems to be not strictly in the rules, and I personally don't think it's a good idea - it would make Executive Orders more powerful than it already is (which is already quite powerful!) and the Brig less bad. The Brig is supposed a scary place to be and hard to get out of; being able to Executive Order someone out of it seems like it diminishes that too much for my tastes.

  • 4
    I believe the Brig says "you may not move" and Executive Order says "you may move", so I can see where someone could be confused as to which one trumps the other. We have always played that EO cannot get you out of the Brig. My interpretation is that the Brig prevents you from moving. EO simply grants the option to move, just as your normal turn does. The Brig prevents the movement in both cases. A more technical ruling might be that the Brig's restriction is mandatory, while EO's ability is optional. In general, mandatory trumps optional.
    – Todd
    Commented May 14, 2011 at 2:46
  • @Todd Hm, perhaps you could read it that way. For some reason I assume that "You may not" always trumps "You may" (not just in this game but others I am used to).
    – Mag Roader
    Commented May 14, 2011 at 4:30
  • I agree. I thought that's what I said. Was I not clear?
    – Todd
    Commented May 14, 2011 at 18:05
  • In most games I've played that have similar level of game text effects that deny something usually beat effects that allow the same thing. Also like others said. XO'ing someone out of the brig feels unrealistic and cheap.
    – Kempeth
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 8:18
  • @Todd that is what you said. You were quite clear. The brig's movement restriction trumps Executive Orders. Commented May 18, 2011 at 12:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .