The Comprehensive Secret Hitler Guide

header

Written by Iconic

Prelude: Hello! Just a brief introduction before getting to the bulk of the guide. I won’t be going over how to play the game or anything, since it’s assumed you know how to play the game before reading this. If you want to learn how to play the game, either a) find the instructions online, or b) play the game.

Why write the guide? Since the player base on the io is quite undeveloped, and if players get better, then everyone who enjoys the game wins, so, I want players to get better.

Who is this guide for? For anyone looking to get better at the game. Naturally, it won’t happen if you just read the guide once, it’ll take time and you’ll have to practice a lot, but if you’re serious about getting better at the game, it’s entirely possible to go from green to yellow to orange to purple, and so on.

Note: This guide will be covering solely 7P, but a lot of what is said here can be applied to every game type. 7P is just the most ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ of all the game modes, and even then, it’s heavily tilted towards liberals by a margin of ~70% if all players are decent. It’s just how the game goes. To truly become a good fascist, you must first become a good liberal, at least in my eyes.

Also, the guide is focused mostly on how to better play as lib. At the end of the guide I will include some generic fascist tips, but being a good fascist is incredibly game dependant, and what works in one game might not work in the next, and so on and so forth.

*When you get to the Golden Rule of SH, please pay extra attention to it, since it’s called the Golden Rule for a reason. It should be embedded into your mind whenever you play SH and it should be followed without exception since not following it always harms libs. Or, alternatively, if you want to skim this guide do not skip over this section. I put extra emphasis onto this because this concept is really that important.

But more on that when we get there, now, onto the guide.

Common Terms You Should be Familiar With:

Side Note: Throughout the guide I might use either B or L to refer to Blue / Liberal Cards, and R or F to refer to Red or Fascist Cards (they refer to the same thing in both cases, and it’s fine to use them interchangeably).

HZ: Hitler Zone

SE: Special Election

Inv: Investigation

Bullet: The Assassination Power

R/BP: Red / Blue Pres

R/BC: Red / Blue Chancellor

Silent Reds: When a President claims RRR (I.e., they do not conflict on their reds)

Lines: What someone claims to be the fascist team

CNH: Confirmed Not Hitler. Someone who has been elected chancellor during HZ without the game ending in a fascist win.

TD: Topdeck (When 3 gov’s fail in a row), the top card of the deck is enacted

Tracker: The counter that is moved forward every time a gov fails to pass. It maxes out at 3, at which point the top card of the deck is placed. The tracker then resets.

VZ: AKA Veto or Veto Zone -> When 5 fascist policies are on the board, if the president and chancellor both agree, the card selected by the chancellor isn’t put down (this counts as a failed government, so it moves the tracker forward)

BTEC: A total and utter fool at the game, or life in general

TL: Term Limit, when neither the previous president / chancellor can be selected to be in government (the TL is removed if a Topdeck occurs). If there are only 5 players alive, then the previous president is NOT term limited. Aka, if in your 7 Player Game, 2 players get shot, then the last president would not be term limited)

Conf Lib: A confirmed liberal. Aka, there is no doubt that this player is a liberal. It can happen in two scenarios in a 7P game.

The First: There are 3 conflicts, each having only 2 players involved, ergo, the one person not in conflict is confirmed lib.
The Second: There are two card conflicts and an investigated liberal who was investigated liberal by a player WHO IS NOT IN CONFLICT. Aka, 15 and 37 are both in conflict, and 2 investigated 4 liberal. 4 is confirmed lib since the only way he is fascist is if 2 is fascist as well, but due to the other 2 conflicts, that is not possible (since only 3 fascists in a 7P game). This does not however apply if say: 1-5 are in conflict, and then 2 card conflicted 6 and investigated 4 liberal. In this scenario 4 is not confirmed lib since the person who investigated him liberal is one of the players in conflict, and 4 can be fascist with 2.

Power Play: Generally a pretty irrelevant and seldom used term, but will include since it used to be a thing back in the day and is a part of the games history. When a player is in power for two consecutive governments, first where they are either president / chancellor, and the next government where they are the other. It’s not nearly as dangerous as people think, and there should never be a reason why you nein a government solely because it is a ‘PP.’ While I do agree that it is better to pick someone as chancellor who isn’t going to be the next president since you get more information on more players before Hitler Zone that way, it isn’t game breaking. Also, in Hitler Zone, this generally never applies, since you don’t pick anyone to get information on them anymore, you pick them if you think they’re lib, and if they happen to be the next person in power, so be it.

Cucu: Picking the person who investigated you liberal as your chancellor. If during a Cucu the President claims a conflict between the chancellor, the chancellor is confirmed fascist.

Conflict: When players claim that a certain other player is fascist: can be done via cards (the president claims they gave the chancellor a Blue, whereas the chancellor claims they got RR) or the investigation policy (someone claims another player is fascist via inv power).

Fas - Fas Conflict: When two fascists are in conflict with each other. Usually happens via Cards, and not the Investigative Policy (not to say that a fascist won’t conflict his own fascist by the inv, it’s just not nearly as likely).

Double Dip: A player claims two other players are fascist. E.g. Card conflicts one player and then claims another is fascist via the inv.

Gunpoint: To choose someone in conflict and place them under bullet. The idea is that if they are fascist, they will eventually play red, and if they do, the player they conflicted is likely liberal (re: Fas - Fas Conflict).

Vanilla Fascist: A term used to describe a fascist who isn’t Hitler

The Deck:

Before we get onto the actual game itself, one thing that is important to understand in SH to get better is the Deck.

The deck consists of 17 Cards, 11 of which are R, and 6 of which are B. So yes, there are more fascist policies than liberal policies. This means that a liberal getting RRR is entirely possible.

Generally, what happens is, the first deck will have a total of 5 governments played before it is forced to reshuffle, since 6 govs would need 18 cards. This means that the bottom two cards of the deck will usually remain unseen*, what they are, not a single player knows. They could be 2 Blues, 2 Reds, or 1 Red and 1 Blue.

*Sometimes it is possible to see the bottom 2 cards of the deck if the table agrees to topdeck, which will be discussed later on (Strategic Topdecking). Generally, though, it is assumed that no one ever topdecks before Hitler Zone, since there are few, if any scenarios where it is good (just don’t do it).

When people say the first deck was 4B, 5B, or 6B, that means the number of blues that were claimed in the first deck. It is important to know the approximate odds of each deck happening.

6B: 40% 5B: 50% 4B: 10%

It’s just best to assume that every deck you play with is 5B since it’s more common than either other. Knowing what the current deck is at any time is incredibly crucial, since it gives you information and a bit of an idea of what to expect on the next card draws.

Ex: If 4B are claimed, you can safely assume 1 ditch is probably the most likely, maybe 2, or it might be the 10% chance that a 4B deck naturally occurs. At the end of the day, these are just starting odds for you, and you have to take player traits into consideration, since some players are more likely to ditch than others, and so on.

Finally! Now that that’s done, we get to the bulk of the guide, the game itself. For organizations sake, I’ll divide the game into 2 sections, Pre-HZ, and HZ.

Pre-HZ:

The sole point of Pre-HZ is to collect information. And how do you collect information? Well, by the cards played of course. To you, a clueless liberal, information is the single most important thing in this game. It is what helps you decide who is likely lib (those who play Blues, typically) and who is not. If conflicts happen, great! You know at least one fascist is amongst those players, and work your way from there.

There are 2 prevailing methods of playing the game. 1526 meta, and 347 meta. This guide will focus on playing with 1526 meta, and I will explain why it is objectively better than jaing everyone (in a bit, but for now, take my word for it).

For 15 26 meta, you keep gov’s concentrated to solely blue players, and it goes something like this.

One Possible Scenario:

1-5: RRB

2-6: RRB

Nein 34 to 5

5-1 -> w/e

6-2 -> w/e

If a player is part of a red gov in 1526 meta, you exclude them from play in most cases going forward. So, in the above scenario, had 6-2 been RRR, then 2 would also be excluded from government, and 1 would play 1-x (x being either 3 or 4).

Another Common Scenario:

1-5: RRR (Since RRR, both 1-5 are both excluded from play, and now 26 37 happens)

2-6: RBB

3-7: RBB

6-2: RRB

Now, what would the next government be? Well, you might assume following the natural progression of things, that it would be 7-3, however, that isn’t the case. There is no reason to play 7 over 2, 2 forced and 7 got forced (the person who forces is usually better than the one who gets forced), so objectively, your best bet is to nein to 2 and have him play 2-3, and then continue from there on out. And also, as will be explained later on, you want as little presidents to touch the deck, four being the optimum.
As a quick note, the reason why 6 plays and not 7, is solely due to position, since you can nein to 6 without topdecking whereas you can’t do the same with 7.

A common question that arises from players is, why punish the RC for what they had nothing to do with?

The rationale behind that is, if a RRR-RR gov happens, the best thing you can do (as a liberal who does not know any better), is just pray and hope that at least one of them is fascist. And yes, this is the reason. Winning liberal games is incredibly easy, however, a lib-lib gov getting RRR-RR is one of the few cases where liberals will have a rather hard time winning (assuming the fascists are competent and capitalize on a lib-lib RRR). Don’t worry, though, in the vast majority of games that you play, if a gov is RRR-RR, there is more often than not a fascist in the gov.

Now, you may worry, but what if the pres is a fascist ditching a blue to freeze out a liberal RC? That is completely fine, because if they do that, the deck count will generally show it. Say, that the deck is 4B claimed, then RCs will be more trusted than RPs, and the Fascist Pres who ditched is likely never getting into power.

Do I Give Choice? And Do I Underclaim my BBB?

Choice: You generally should not. If you give choice and a fascist conflicts you that is 2 blues gone right there. Another reason why is because if you claim RBB and your chancellor claims RB, liberals might think of it as either a) a fas fas signal gone wrong, or b) that you’re trying to cover up for someone by making up an extra blue.

Now! This isn’t to say that you should always force. There is one scenario, and only one scenario where I will not force, and that is on the investigation. I have a personal rule that I follow that if there is one conflict on the board I will always choice on the investigation, because to me the possibility of double dipping with a conflict on the board is something I like.

Another possibility where I might not force is if a conflict happening makes a strong player confirmed lib. For example, 1-5 conflict, 2 inv 6 as lib, and 6 is an incredibly good player. If I’m in spot 3, I’ll give 7 choice, because if he conflicts, then I know 6 is confirmed lib.

Other than those scenarios, I personally would never choice. Once you get better at the game you are free to form your own opinion, I have given mine.

Just beware, that when you choice and admit that it was RBB, fascists and liberals are going to shade you for it, so you should be ready to hold your own.

BBB: I typically underclaim my BBB and reveal it at the end of the deck, or once it hits HZ and the SE needs to be made. The reason I do this is since if you claim BBB, fascists are far likelier to ditch since they know they can get away with it because of your BBB. Not only that, but if I claim RBB when I got BBB and 5 blues have been claimed up to that point, then I know that there are no blues left in the deck. In this scenario, if someone claims the 6th blue, I can instantly call them out on it, it’s fun when that happens. Some players have differing opinions on this, and it’s totally fine even if you don’t like to underclaim, this is just what I prefer to do. As a plus, if you are known for underclaiming BBB as a liberal, it lets you do it as fascist as well.

Who to Inv:

The proper investigation for you if you get RRR is generally to investigate your chancellor (assuming the govs are 15 26 37 or the reverse). The rationale being that if your chancellor is lib, you do not want to get them excluded from the game, your inv brings them back, and if they’re fascist, great as well.

This won’t always be the case however, since sometimes a fascist might conflict you and give you the inv, and if this is the case, you must ask the table who they want investigated, and get a consensus or at least majority vote on who they want investigated before investigating.

Sometimes you’re in neither of these scenarios, and if that is the case, the best thing for you to do is to try and find a liberal who you are confident will get the SE if they are investigated liberal. The best way to do this is vocally ask the table that, ‘if I inv x as Lib, who will Ja an SE on him?’ If the table mutually agrees then whoever they want inv is probably a fine inv. Note, that sometimes, even though people verbally confirm that they will ja someone, when it comes time to it, and that liberal picks a liberal in HZ, you might see an instant change of tone or refusal from them to ja it, so take from that what you will, be it a paranoid lib, or a fascist.

Do not be surprised if this happens often, it’s easy for a fascist to say that they’ll ja someone when it doesn’t matter, but when the time comes to do it, they can easily have a ‘change of heart.’

Note: Try to help your investigated liberal as much as possible, and if you can convince them to go to you during hitler zone, great. Don’t get too angry if they don’t think you are liberal, you can try to convince them, but if they don’t pick you in HZ, just work alongside them. You know 50% of the liberal team, so the odds of any other player being lib go down immensely. You should try as hard as you can to get your inv lib in as many govs as possible, and once in HZ, any gov that doesn’t include either of you has incredibly low odds of being ‘good.’

And lastly, if your inv liberal picks anyone (and they are openly stating that they are Ja’ing), you can NEVER nein, even if you think it is Hitler. More on this later (The Golden Rule of SH). You can (and should) nein naturally, if they state they are neining.

The Argument for 1526 Meta:

If you have ever played 5P, you might have heard of the 1-4 meta. 1-4, if blue, nein to 4-1, and so on and so forth. The same reason why that meta is good, is the same reason that 1526 meta is good. The reason 1526 meta is more effective for liberals than jaing everyone is simply because the less amount of unique presidents that touch the deck, the better it is for liberals and the easier it is to ascertain who the likelier ditcher was.

A common argument against 1526 meta is that ‘oh but what if ‘1526’ has 2 or 3 fascists. The point is, even if it does, those fascists still need to play reds to win. Eventually the fascists in 1526 need to play red, and they either do that by conflicting (which is good for libs), or, they do that by silent RRRing and ditching (again, good for libs since you can ascertain that 1526 is fascist heavy and switch play to 347 if need be).

Granted, if a liberal gets RRR, fascists can play blues and skip over liberals, but if a liberal got RRR, then even jaing everyone wouldn’t change much since that liberal would be excluded from power regardless.

Alternatively, another way to think about why 1526 meta is better than is to play from the position of 1526.

If you are in spots 1526, why would you ever want to ja 347 over yourself? It’s nonsensical, you know your role, you don’t know 347’s, sure, they could be lib, but you’re 100% lib. It is always better for you to nein 347 and play yourself instead.

Now, in the spots of 47, I will explain why it is bad for you to ja 3-x. Jaing 3-x means that you as a liberal are allowing 5 different people to become president in the deck excluding you, and at least two of them have been fascist. The moment someone becomes president, you are letting them have influence over the game by virtue of them manipulating the cards (assuming they’re fascist). In most games, 1526 will always play, and if you’re a lib in 4 or 7, you want to keep it that way since it is easier for you to determine who ditched with less presidents touching the deck than it is with more presidents. Also, simple reasoning goes, the more players you allow to play as president that don’t include you, the more chance it is that a fascist is coming into play. If 5 players have been president, 2 of them have been fascist minimum, if it’s 4, the minimum is at least 1 fascist. Also, just another side note, if you are in spot 4 and ja 3-7 and it ends up being blue, that is the single worst thing that can happen for you, since it now means that 6 players have been into gov, all have been part of blue govs, and you know for a fact that 50% of them are fascist. Your influence on the game as a liberal will be really low, and that is not what you want.

If you’ve ever played Avalon, they use the same reasoning. “I won’t approve a mission unless it has me in it because unless it has me in it odds are low that it is a good mission.”

The only liberal who should ever want to ja 3-x after 1256 is blue, is 3, and no one else.

The Segue for HZ - How to Give out SE Properly:

Now, this is where a very important rule of SH comes to play. The SE is one of the most important things that can happen in a game, and whoever is handing out the SE must obey this crucial rule.

You may not SE anyone without confirming that that person has votes from at least 4 different players. Why? Because SE is an integral chance for liberals to nominate someone they think is Liberal, and you don’t want to throw it. As much as you dislike it, the SE is not yours to give, it is up for debate and discussion from the entire board. Why 4? Because then it is confirmed that at least one liberal is jaing. If you SE without confirming vocally from four different players then you are objectively playing bad since if the SE doesn’t pass, it’s a huge detriment to the table.

The Golden Rule of SH

(Aka, the Single Most Important Rule, if you’re going to take nothing else away from this guide, at least have this idea ingrained into your head)

Now, that brings me to one of the most important rules in all of SH. As some call it, the golden rule of SH. That being, if it is confirmed at least one liberal is jaing a gov, then every player is required to ja it, no exceptions.

Why? Because, if this is the case, then you can never stop the government if it is “bad.” A “bad” government is one that has a fascist president and / or Hitler as a chancellor. If it is VZ, than a bad government is one that has any fascist. You can only stop it if it is good.

Now, some of you may be wondering what it means that at least one lib is confirmed ja’ing. Take the following scenario, there are 2 conflicts, 15 and 26. That means that 347 has at max one fascist. This also now means that 347 have all the power in the game, and the moment that 2 of them agree that they want a government, that gov’t must go through. That is because if any 2 of them agree on something, it is confirmed that at least one of them is liberal, if not both. So now, lets state that 3 and 4 both agree to ja 4-x, that means a lib confirmed is jaing, so you are obligated to ja.

A common complaint people have is, ‘oh, but what if 4 is lib and I think he picked Hitler?’ That is completely irrelevant since if 4 picks Hitler, the government passes without your vote. HOWEVER, if 4 had picked a CNH, and you nein, then you may potentially stop the government if it is good.

So now, to quickly recap what has been said here, two main points are integral for you to become a better SH Player, those being the following.

If you, or anyone else is handing out the SE, it is not your SE to give out, it is the table, and you must gather votes before handing it out. The moment that you have at least one lib confirmed jaing an SE, then you may SE that person.
E.g, 1-5 is conflict, you are in spot 7, get RRR, and then 3 people outside of 1-5 state that they want 4 SE’d. You must SE 4. Simply because those 3 players outside of 1-5 cannot be the fascist team and must contain one liberal. If you SE anyone but 4 at this point, you open yourself up to becoming ‘confirmed fascist’ since you threw the SE, since if 4 has 4 votes, then whoever else you SE doesn’t.
Now! This isn’t to say that if you think 4 is fascist you cannot try to change their minds. If you think 6 is more liberal than 4 is, then by all means, go ahead and try to convince the board that you want 6 SE’d, and if they budge, great! You can SE 6, however, if they don’t, you cannot.
And lastly, the golden rule of SH. If it is confirmed that at least one lib is jaing, every lib must ja, no exceptions, ever.
Again, if you think a government is bad, you can convince people otherwise, but if they don’t budge, they don’t budge, and you must ja it.

Once Again to Reiterate: Sometimes people get emotional and out of spite nein, I’ve seen this happen countless times, and it throws so many games that would’ve been wins otherwise. The only (and yes, only) scenario where you are allowed to nein if it is confirmed a lib jaing is if someone you are 100% sure (ie, they are your conflict) is fascist is getting picked in a veto zone government - Duh. In any case, I’m sick and tired of players failing to follow this one rule. If it is confirmed a lib is jaing and you nein the government anyways out of spite / emotion or whatever other excuse, you are not only a bad player, but you are gamethrowing in every sense of the word.