Guidelines on Non-Aggressive Play in the Star Fleet Battles Tournament at Council of Five Nations
Guidelines on Non-Aggressive Play in the Star Fleet Battles Tournament at Council of Five Nations
Last Update: September 17, 2007
There has been some juicy discussion in the SFB community (mainly on ADB's online discussion forum, located at www.starfleetgames.com/discus) about the topic of "non-aggressive" play in Tournament SFB, and how such play damages the tournament experience for all players.
As the Tournament Judge at Council of Five Nations XXX (October 5-7, 2007), here is how I will be ruling on this.
There are three documents I will rely upon, as well as the body of online discussion.
- The original policy document issued by ADB, available in PDF format on their web site here, or at the SWA web site here.
- ADB BBS post from Steve Cole on June 29, 2007
- ADB BBS post from Andy Vancil on August 22, 2006.
1. ADB PDF Download: Tournament Rules: Notes for Judges: Non-Aggression
This document is the foundation of the
non-aggression policy, and how I will interpret non-aggression at the
Council tournament. Please be familiar with it. We will have copies
on-site for your referral.
One comment I will make is that if you believe your opponent is flying in a non-aggressive way, it is in your best interest to notify the Tournament Judge as soon as possible. It is the Judge's responsibility to notify your opponent that he is "on the clock".
Please note that being on the clock is not that big a deal, really. Only if the clock "runs out" (i.e. you fly in a non-aggressive way for multiple turns) will you receive a judgment against you.
One comment I will make is that if you believe your opponent is flying in a non-aggressive way, it is in your best interest to notify the Tournament Judge as soon as possible. It is the Judge's responsibility to notify your opponent that he is "on the clock".
Please note that being on the clock is not that big a deal, really. Only if the clock "runs out" (i.e. you fly in a non-aggressive way for multiple turns) will you receive a judgment against you.
2. ADB BBS post from Steve Cole on June 29, 2007
Reproduced here:
Tournament Rulings
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone: Tournament Rulings
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 01:38 pm
JUDGES TO USE JUDGEMENT TO END NON-AGGRESSION
Module T-2000, Judge's Ruling #6, states that 'All players are expected to engage the enemy aggressively throughout the game.'
The practice of "cruise around at low speed with overloaded weapons and reinforced shields, waiting for the enemy to make a mistake or impale himself on your weapons" is non-aggression. Judges have avoiding ruling on this before because there was not (nor can there be) any hard-and-fast numerical definition of what is and is not a legitimate tactic. Basically, waiting for the enemy to do something stupid is non-aggression, and everybody knows it, and it will no longer be tolerated.
Judges are expected to use their judgement. They may not be able to give a legal definition of non-aggression, but they know it when they see it. I may not be able to give them a legal definition of non-aggression, but I expect them to recognize it and deal with it. I trust their judgement, and I expect them to use it.
In future, if your opponent is (in your opinion) obviously stalling, waiting for you to attack him, call a judge at the end of a turn. If the judge agrees, he will issue a warning. (If the player who is warned disputes the warning, he can call for a triumvirate to confirm or lift the warning.) If the tactic continues for one more turn, the judge may end the game immediately and declare the other player the winner. (If the player who is ruled against disputes the ruling, he can call for a triumvirate to confirm the ruling or allow the game to continue.)
If the practice is repeated at a later time (after a few turns of normally aggressive play), the judge may repeat the procedure (warn, and rule against at the end of the next turn, both subject to triumviate review). If it happens a third time, the judge may end the game immediately (subject to triumvirate review).
This "attack aggressively at speed four" nonsense happened in a game last night, at in several games at the last Origins. It will NOT be tolerated in future.
I am going to post this multiple places to be sure it is widely distributed.
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Tournament Zone: Tournament Rulings
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 01:38 pm
JUDGES TO USE JUDGEMENT TO END NON-AGGRESSION
Module T-2000, Judge's Ruling #6, states that 'All players are expected to engage the enemy aggressively throughout the game.'
The practice of "cruise around at low speed with overloaded weapons and reinforced shields, waiting for the enemy to make a mistake or impale himself on your weapons" is non-aggression. Judges have avoiding ruling on this before because there was not (nor can there be) any hard-and-fast numerical definition of what is and is not a legitimate tactic. Basically, waiting for the enemy to do something stupid is non-aggression, and everybody knows it, and it will no longer be tolerated.
Judges are expected to use their judgement. They may not be able to give a legal definition of non-aggression, but they know it when they see it. I may not be able to give them a legal definition of non-aggression, but I expect them to recognize it and deal with it. I trust their judgement, and I expect them to use it.
In future, if your opponent is (in your opinion) obviously stalling, waiting for you to attack him, call a judge at the end of a turn. If the judge agrees, he will issue a warning. (If the player who is warned disputes the warning, he can call for a triumvirate to confirm or lift the warning.) If the tactic continues for one more turn, the judge may end the game immediately and declare the other player the winner. (If the player who is ruled against disputes the ruling, he can call for a triumvirate to confirm the ruling or allow the game to continue.)
If the practice is repeated at a later time (after a few turns of normally aggressive play), the judge may repeat the procedure (warn, and rule against at the end of the next turn, both subject to triumviate review). If it happens a third time, the judge may end the game immediately (subject to triumvirate review).
This "attack aggressively at speed four" nonsense happened in a game last night, at in several games at the last Origins. It will NOT be tolerated in future.
I am going to post this multiple places to be sure it is widely distributed.
This addendum to the official policy
came as a result of some play in the 2007 Origins tournament. While
well-intentioned, I do not believe it gives Judges enough guidance
about when to invoke this specific type of "non-aggressive play". I
also fundamentally disagree that advancing and attacking at slow speed
counts as non-aggression.
3. ADB BBS post from Andy Vancil on August 22, 2006
Reproduced here:
Andy Vancil (Andy)
on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 01:18 am:
I'll be judging Tacticon in a couple weeks. I will enforce the non-aggression guidelines, as posted on this website.
Approaching someone at speed 4 is never non-aggression. Flying away from someone to reload after you have fired, is not non-aggression. Parking is not non-aggression. Cloaking is not non-aggression. Flying backwards, either toward or away from your enemy, is not non-aggression.
In order for parking, cloaking or flying backwards to be non-aggression, one additional ingredient needs to be present: It needs to be done in such a way that you are placing your opponent in a position where either a) the game is a stalemate, or b) your opponent must place himself in a disadvantaged position in order to make the game progress. If you read the guidelines carefully, this condition is implicit.
Parking is legitimate. If you park, your opponent can charge you, or break off. If he breaks off, and you stay parked, you are being non-aggressive. If he charges in, and the two of you spend the next 5 turns parked next to each other, beating each other up, neither of you is being non-aggressive.
Cloaking is legitimate. For matches where there is a limit on cloaking, you are using up resources. For matches without a cloak limit, it is still legal for you to cloak. What you can't do is stay cloaked with the intent to make your opponent waste his weapons firing on a cloaked ship so that you can uncloak and attack. If you are cloaked, and your opponent does not fire, you are being non-aggressive if you stay cloaked longer than necessary to rearm.
Flying away from your opponent is legitimate. Continually running away such that your opponent must swim upstream through your seekers, fire from a bad position, or put the game in a stalemate, is non-aggression.
Flying backwards is legitimate. You can attack someone going forwards, you can attack going backwards. Sometimes flying backwards makes sense, like if your forward shields are down. Sometimes while flying backwards, you might be flying away from your opponent. If you are wondering whether this is non-aggressive, see the above paragraph.
You may notice that in the above paragraph I did not say "retrograding". Retrograding is, by definition, non-aggressive, because it implies that you are flying backwards away from your opponent in such a way that he must put himself in a disadvantaged position, or break off the chase.
Finally, I should point out that being non-aggressive is legal. It's perfectly reasonable to try to put your opponent in a position where he is disadvantaged. Most tactics involve this in some form. You can park, cloak, or fly backwards to try and put your opponent at a disadvantage.
What you can't do is use these tactics turn after turn. If you are non-aggressive for 4 turns, you lose. If you are non-aggressive for less than 4 turns, your opponent gets a tie-breaker if the game must be adjudicated.
As a judge, I will be happy to issue warnings for non-aggression if you ask me to, provided they are warranted. I will not, however, make your opponent impale himself on your weapons. I will not force your opponent to not fly slow. And if your opponent beats you, he beats you, even if he spent a turn or two being non-aggresssive.
As a footnote to the above, I will note that the non-aggression rules specifically allow you to run away (moving forward) because "you will get run down and shot." However, if I am called to adjudicate a game where one player is consistently moving toward the other player, who is consistently circling or running away, the player who is chasing will have a definite advantage in the tie-breakers.
I'll be judging Tacticon in a couple weeks. I will enforce the non-aggression guidelines, as posted on this website.
Approaching someone at speed 4 is never non-aggression. Flying away from someone to reload after you have fired, is not non-aggression. Parking is not non-aggression. Cloaking is not non-aggression. Flying backwards, either toward or away from your enemy, is not non-aggression.
In order for parking, cloaking or flying backwards to be non-aggression, one additional ingredient needs to be present: It needs to be done in such a way that you are placing your opponent in a position where either a) the game is a stalemate, or b) your opponent must place himself in a disadvantaged position in order to make the game progress. If you read the guidelines carefully, this condition is implicit.
Parking is legitimate. If you park, your opponent can charge you, or break off. If he breaks off, and you stay parked, you are being non-aggressive. If he charges in, and the two of you spend the next 5 turns parked next to each other, beating each other up, neither of you is being non-aggressive.
Cloaking is legitimate. For matches where there is a limit on cloaking, you are using up resources. For matches without a cloak limit, it is still legal for you to cloak. What you can't do is stay cloaked with the intent to make your opponent waste his weapons firing on a cloaked ship so that you can uncloak and attack. If you are cloaked, and your opponent does not fire, you are being non-aggressive if you stay cloaked longer than necessary to rearm.
Flying away from your opponent is legitimate. Continually running away such that your opponent must swim upstream through your seekers, fire from a bad position, or put the game in a stalemate, is non-aggression.
Flying backwards is legitimate. You can attack someone going forwards, you can attack going backwards. Sometimes flying backwards makes sense, like if your forward shields are down. Sometimes while flying backwards, you might be flying away from your opponent. If you are wondering whether this is non-aggressive, see the above paragraph.
You may notice that in the above paragraph I did not say "retrograding". Retrograding is, by definition, non-aggressive, because it implies that you are flying backwards away from your opponent in such a way that he must put himself in a disadvantaged position, or break off the chase.
Finally, I should point out that being non-aggressive is legal. It's perfectly reasonable to try to put your opponent in a position where he is disadvantaged. Most tactics involve this in some form. You can park, cloak, or fly backwards to try and put your opponent at a disadvantage.
What you can't do is use these tactics turn after turn. If you are non-aggressive for 4 turns, you lose. If you are non-aggressive for less than 4 turns, your opponent gets a tie-breaker if the game must be adjudicated.
As a judge, I will be happy to issue warnings for non-aggression if you ask me to, provided they are warranted. I will not, however, make your opponent impale himself on your weapons. I will not force your opponent to not fly slow. And if your opponent beats you, he beats you, even if he spent a turn or two being non-aggresssive.
As a footnote to the above, I will note that the non-aggression rules specifically allow you to run away (moving forward) because "you will get run down and shot." However, if I am called to adjudicate a game where one player is consistently moving toward the other player, who is consistently circling or running away, the player who is chasing will have a definite advantage in the tie-breakers.
I believe Mr Vancil captures the
"spirit" of the non-aggression policy very well in this essay; better
than any other attempt that I have seen in writing. The beliefs
outlined in this document are the ones I will attempt to follow when
judging the Council SFB tournament this year.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me before the tournament at:
dave@swa-gaming.org, or at the tournament itself.
David Cheng
SFB Tournament Judge
Council of Five Nations XXX (2007)
Please click here to go to the Main Council page.
Please click here to go to the Chronological event listing.
Please click here to download the Council Pre-Registration packet in PDF format.
Please click here to Pre-Register via the online form (with immediate PayPal or Credit Card payment)
Please click here for Directions to Council.
Please click here to go to the Council Hotel page.
Please click here to go to the Council Parking page.
(
- 260 reads
Recent comments
3 days 11 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
5 weeks 4 days ago
5 weeks 5 days ago
5 weeks 5 days ago
6 weeks 1 day ago
6 weeks 5 days ago
6 weeks 5 days ago