99% we give each other as much time as they need.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, January 01, 2015 - 07:11 pm: Edit

From T2012 "LATE PENALTY: Players who are late are subject to penalties or forfeiture at the sole discretion of the Judges. The general rule is one hull or cargo box (owner’s choice) for each 2.5 minutes which you are late. Forfeiture is normally (always at Origins) no more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start of a round unless other arrangements agreeable to your opponent and the Judges have been made. This damage does NOT count for the purpose of Judges’ deciding the victory of an incomplete game. If a ship runs out of hull or cargo but has not been declared forfeit, the owner must give up other boxes of his choice to satisfy further penalties. Note that PBEM games have similar penalties for players who are late Emailing their turns to the Moderator."

Are late penalties enforced for SFBOL Tournament games? What if a player completely no shows for a scheduled SFBOL play session?

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzilla) on Thursday, January 01, 2015 - 07:27 pm: Edit

99% of the time the player emails and say they will be late and no penalties. I had a few times person did not show and we played a later date, no big deal. Those rules are more for a convention where everyone is gathered for a short period of time and where made before there was the internet.

By Sebastian Palozzi (Sebastian) on Friday, January 02, 2015 - 08:55 am: Edit

Is there a listing somewhere of email addresses for the tournament players?

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Friday, January 02, 2015 - 09:23 am: Edit

SFB Online Subscriber Search

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, January 02, 2015 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Shawn wrote:
>>From T2012 "TIME LIMITS:

Are time limits imposed or followed or even attempted when playing tournament games over SFBOL? Does this speed up games?>>

Historically speaking, no. Give that games on SFBOL can be saved and played over a lengthy period of time if needed, there tends to not be a specific time limit for games, decisions, or EA. Generally speaking, most folks play at a reasonable pace, and only rarely do games seem to take an exceptionally long time. I mean, once and a while, I'll see an opponent who is, for whatever reason, incredibly slow. And it often makes me want to throw myself in front of a bus. But it tends to be pretty rare.

There have been instances where games have gone for so long that one play or the other wants the game adjudicated due to game length, but really, when it comes down to it, the game length is rarely the actual issue, but instead what is 'causing the game length is the actual issue, and that is something that can be dealt with by virtue of any number of existing precedents--"non aggressive play" is usually the #1 culprit (i.e. excessive cloaking is the most likely issue), and there is, at least in theory, a tournament rule to govern that.

>>From T2012 "LATE PENALTY:

Are late penalties enforced for SFBOL Tournament games? What if a player completely no shows for a scheduled SFBOL play session?>>

Much like time limits, not really. Both the time limits rule and the late penalty rule specifically exist for face to face tournaments, where time limits are purely a practical issue--you have a small window of time for the whole tournament, and a small window of time for each individual game, so you need rules like that.

On SFBOL, not as much. I mean, yeah, once and a while, you make a game date with someone, and they don't show up without warning, and it is a total drag. But most folks tend to be reasonably communicative and good natured about the whole thing, so much like time limits, it usually isn't much of a problem. Again, once and a while, you'll make plans, go out of your way to be on time to a game, and then your opponent never shows up, and has some sketchy excuse that you get way after the fact. And that is irritating. But again, that tends to not happen that much. And in terms of SFBOL, there is always a judge, and if your opponent is consistently skipping/missing games or whatever, historically speaking, people have been ejected/replaced/given a summary loss for such things. So it isn't like it is the lawless west or anything. But generally, most folks are pretty good about the whole thing, and occasionally things come up, and most folks are pretty understanding and/or responsible about stuff.

By Ken Lin (Old_School) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Jumping in late, but to echo what's been said already, when you think about it, the "late penalties" make much more sense in a convention setting where everyone is pretty much at the con all weekend to play games (i.e. pretty dedicated), and where there may naturally be time limits set for purely logistical reasons. In this sort of situation it makes more sense to penalize for lateness.

It makes less sense for SFBOL where people are squeezing in SFB games amongst work, family, church, doctor's appointments, unexpected emergencies and work demands, vacation travel, work travel, walking the dog, pilling the cat, helping the kids with homework, talking to Mrs_SFB_Player about her day when she gets home from work, differing schedules and time zones, etc.

In my estimation SFB tournament folks are pretty responsible and friendly. Like Peter says, once in a while there's a no show and it's a bummer, but in my opinion nothing to get totally worked up over.

(Edited to add: 128 cloak limit for all cloakers no matter the matchup, ding ding ding winner!!)

By Sebastian Palozzi (Sebastian) on Thursday, January 08, 2015 - 04:58 pm: Edit

On the Gorn TCC are the F Plasma tubes fixed or swivel? Which facing do the F torps have when launched?

By Chris Proper (Duke) on Thursday, January 08, 2015 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Swivel. D2.34 gives the illustration. A,B, or C for the RS or A,E, or F for the LS launcher.

By Sebastian Palozzi (Sebastian) on Thursday, January 08, 2015 - 05:10 pm: Edit

thanks Chris

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, February 05, 2015 - 11:28 pm: Edit

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions to this point have been downloaded for Captain's Log #50.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, February 08, 2015 - 10:20 am: Edit

On overloads for the Fed TCC. The Fed gets 8 points of overload energy already in the tubes. Turn 1 is the third turn of arming of the photons. So could be as such.
2+0 2+2 2+2 16 warhead. All tubes. 16 power turn 1

2+0 2+4 2 hold cost. tube A
2+0 2+4 2 hold cost. tube B
2+0 2+0 5 1 hold 4 overload. Tube C
2+0 2+0 5 1 hold 4 overload. Tube D
total energy turn 1 14 used

legal are not for tournament play?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 08, 2015 - 03:41 pm: Edit

I'm not sure I fully understand your notation, but I think you have it correct.

You start with 4 standard photons. You can add 8 points of OL energy, which, if you are just being simple, means you start with 2 fully overloaded photons, and 2 standard photons.

If you hold them, that is 2+2+1+1=6 energy to hold them. You can then add the extra 4 power to overload the two standard photons, so your photon allocation on T1 would look like this:

A: 2 (hold)
B: 2 (hold)
C: 1 (hold) +4 (OL)=5
D: 1 (hold) +4 (OL)=5

For a total of 14 power which results in all of your photons being fully overloaded.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Sunday, February 08, 2015 - 08:22 pm: Edit

That is what i was thinking and loading that way saves you 2 points of power from the standard way.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 08, 2015 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Well, sort of? Only 'cause 2 of the photons are already fully overloaded by virtue of the tournament rules. I mean, yeah, if you had to arm them the regular way, you'd be paying 16 total power on the second turn of arming. But if they started fully overloaded, you'd only be paying 8 power to hold them all.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Sunday, February 08, 2015 - 09:41 pm: Edit

However you use your 8 OL energy, if you want 4x16 point photons, it will take at least 14 energy on turn 1.

For example, you could start with four 12-pointers (4x2=8 OL energy), and boost them to 16:

A: 1.5 (hold) + 2 OL = 3.5
B: 1.5 (hold) + 2 OL = 3.5
C: 1.5 (hold) + 2 OL = 3.5
D: 1.5 (hold) + 2 OL = 3.5
Total: 14

You could start with a standard, a 10-pointer (1 OL energy), a 14-pointer (3 OL energy), and 16-pointer (4 OL energy, 0+1+3+4=8), and boost them to 16:

A: 1 (hold) + 4 OL = 5
B: 1.25 (hold) + 3 OL = 4.25
C: 1.75 (hold) + 1 OL = 2.75
D: 2 (hold)
Total: 14

If you started with any odd-pointed warheads, you would have to spend more power, so don't do that.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 05:07 pm: Edit

•••• forgot all about the 1.5 hold cost if all were 12 pointers. DUH.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Friday, July 17, 2015 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Hi guys,

I wanted to clarify the call for fire "rule" for tournament play as I had a discussion around it with my opponent last night. My understanding is that this rule is in place to allow a stopping point in the SoP (that does not actually exsist in the SoP hence it is done in the Dis Dev step) so that both players have the opportunity to plot fire if either player wishes to do so. My opponent asserts that you must in fact write out cf4, again, in the dis dev step (oddly) if you wish to fire at all. To be even more clear my opponent asserts that if he writes Cf4 or CFF and I do not, again, in the dis dev step of the SoP, then I am not allowed to fire on that impulse, as I did not write C4F (in the dis dev step) on that impulse, and he did in fact do so. Hence he is able to fire but I am not b/c I did not write out cf4 in the dis dev step, and he did.

So, I am confused, is the C4f rule the steve's instituted there put in place to allow both players the opportunity to fire? Or is it there to state intentions to fire in the Dis dev step, disallowing any fire from the player that does not tip his hand stating his intention to fire again, in the Dis Dev step?

I play most of my games online, I understand the FtF convention of "calling for fire". Online play is truly secret and simul (as the SoP states it should be), seamless, and there is no need to call for fire. One just selects the IA phase one wish to perform actions in and the interface does the rest, there is no need to C4F, and it truly eliminates "me too" fire. I have scanned the SoP for this C4F phase, I don't see it.

I understand this is a special tournament rule of some kind, and I use it if my opponent wishes to do so, like in this current RAT round 2 game. I am just trying to understand its intention and also trying to clarify if I must write out in the Dis Dev step C4F if I plan to fire, or am I disallowed my opportunity to fire if my opponent plot c4f in the dis dev step and I do not? I don't play with this rule in 90% of my games, most online opponents also prefer not to use c4f, so I have very little experience with this rule, thank you.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, July 17, 2015 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Copying my response from the RAT45 topic:

Call-For-Fire is the standard rule for Online RAT games. It is used unless both players agree otherwise. When it is in force it means is that you should NOT allocate fire without first calling for it.

- If neither player calls for fire, the impulse advances.

- If either player calls for fire, then there is a fire phase. As Peter says, if any player calls for fire, any player (or none) can choose to fire at that point. Calling for fire does NOT compel you to actually fire anything. And if you don't call for fire, but your opponent does, you CAN still fire if you want to.

It is a convenience to make SFBOL function more like FTF games. But, it IS the default procedure for RAT games.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, July 17, 2015 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I answered a question on this in January:

Seth Shimansky asks: In online tournament games, when using Call-For-Fire, suppose one person declares it and the other does not. Can both players fire at each other in Direct Fire stage or just the one who declared it?

ANSWER: Confirming Andy Koch's answer. Call-For-Fire is just a convenience to make the client feel more like face-to-face play, and to make game play flow more efficiently. The idea is that you don't spend a lot of time allocating your weapons in the client, only to have your opponent take action that is earlier in the sequence that changes what you would be firing. You don't have to think about your fire decision until you are sure earlier Impulse Activity is done.

If both players decline to call for fire, the impulse advances. If one or both calls for fire, either (or neither) player can choose to fire. You might call for fire without planning to fire, just to bluff your opponent into firing. You might not call for fire, but after your opponent does, change your mind and decide you will fire.

By default, Call-For-Fire is the standard for RAT games, and is used unless both players agree otherwise.


Follow-on question: When using Call-For-Fire, do you need to call for fire to fire at seekers:

ANSWER: Definitely, yes. Your opponent might be thinking about firing at other things, and if you jump the gun you mess up the play sequence. It might seem a little tedious, but with practice, calling for fire can be done pretty quickly.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, July 18, 2015 - 01:47 am: Edit

Justin,

In a number of the FtF games I have observed some players will call for fire at sub-optimal ranges just to get their opponent to opt in and fire weapons. When the fire is revealed the player calling for the fire may not fire anything or fire a P-3 at a drone.

I thought I read a term paper from long ago on this tactic for players that "me too" fire.

By David Cheng (Davec) on Sunday, July 26, 2015 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Situation:
Hydran has Fed tractored at range 1.
Hydran #5 (direction B) facing Fed #5 (Direction E)

Hydran pseudo-speed is 6. Hex 1617
Fed psuedo-speed is 15. Hex 1516

Turn 2, impulse 26.
Hydran launches 2 suicide shuttles, speed 6, which moves in imp 27, direction F (directly facing Fed).

imp 27.
Hydran slips right (hex 1718) to pull Fed into same hex as suicide shuttles. Fed is not scheduled to move in imp 27.

Hydran player says shuttles don't move out of the hex, impact now. Fed player is not sure, thinks shuttles have mandatory move forward after launch.

We see rule F2.31:
Seeking weapons impact upon entering the hex of their target, or upon their target entering the hex occupied by the seeking weapon.

Also note F2.32, which covers launch of seeking weapons in same hex as target. Not specifically this situation, but perhaps relevant:
"Seeking Weapon Movement (the seeking weapon impacts on the target, regardless of whether or not the seeking weapon is scheduled to 'move' on that impulse by the impulse chart."

Please clarify for us - do shuttles hit, or are shuttles forced to take mandatory move forward and enter the hex just vacated by the target ship?

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 06:16 am: Edit

(F2.31) is the relevant rule. The target entered the hex of the seeking weapon, therefore (F2.31) applies and the shuttles hit.

Your opponent is trying to cite rule (F2.123), but that is not the governing rule. If the shuttles moved, they would have to move forward, but as they do not need to move, it does not matter where they would go if they did.

I must say that usually the argument is that a seeking weapon in the target's hex cannot impact until it is called for by the chart. Your opponent is arguing that because the seeking weapon IS called to move, it cannot impact. It does not matter, both are wrong, the seeking weapon always hits.

Furthermore, the fact that the movement was as a result of tractored movement rather than voluntary movement changes nothing.

---

Quote:

(F2.312) Several types of “movement” (black hole, nebula, seeking weapon, rotation, target) could result in the target and the seeking
weapon coexisting in the same hex, resulting in impact.

---

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 07:38 am: Edit

I can not find anywhere where it states ignore F2.123, or F2.123 does not apply if.... I accept that once the first movement is done then any target entering the seeking weapon hex would be hit or once launched in the same hex on the following impulse it would also hit. Could we ask Steve P on this as I cant believe they would not have put a"F2.123 applies unless...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 27, 2015 - 08:12 am: Edit

Seeking weapons blow up when they are in the hex of their target. It doesn't matter if they actually move or not--either they can move, enter the target's hex and then blow up or their target can move, enter the hex of the seeking weapon, they are then in the same hex, and they blow up. Movement is not actually necessary. You just need to wait till the appropriate point in the SOP (i.e. launching seeking weapons at R0 does not result in automatic explosion, as launching seeking weapons happens after seeking weapons explode).

(F2.31) is very clear: "Seeking weapons impact upon entering the hex of the hex of their target, or upon their target entering the hex occupied by the seeking weapon. See (F2.32) if the seeking weapon was launched in the same hex as its target."

Then if you go look at (F2.32), it supports the idea that seeking weapons don't need to move to explode, as long as thier target is in the hex. As does (F2.5), the mutual impact rule (specifically look at (F2.54, second paragraph).

Suicide Shuttles work for drone defense, even if the shuttles never move--you are slow, there is an incoming drone, you launch a suicide shuttle at the drone; when the drone enters the hex, the suicide shuttle kills the drone before it gets to the ship, even if the suicide shuttle never moves. The question here is the same situation (suicide shuttle is launched, does not move, target moves into hex with suicide shuttles, suicide shuttles explode).