I think you mean precedence and I do not agree, his decision is based on well established non-aggression rules, it was a simple decision at the end of the day and a clear rare violation of said rule.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 01:00 am: Edit

Thank you; Paul!

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 01:38 am: Edit

I ran away from Bill Schoeller on T:3 when I had no EPTs to launch. Would SPP judge that as non-aggression too? Possibly. I had both F torps held after all (note to myself: should an adjucation come make sure to bolt the Fs on some space debris).

God I hate the concept of non-aggression. I hate the moral judgment inherent in it. I hate the idea that players are not doing everything to win (I only met one player who ever actually played to lose, that was Maxspeed more than 15 years ago. A case of acute lack of confidence for some reason)
I hate that it is not a well defined concept and a written actual rule; "-Here is the Award winning SFB rulebook. Base your tactic on what the rules therein allows. Here is the crystal ball to read the judges mind on if they will turn your use of those rules against you."

We got a cloak-vs-cloak limit included in the tournament rules (for what was basically non-aggression), and I can't see why some other limits could be added and in return get rid of the concept for good.

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 02:12 am: Edit

Hey MetalDog,

I've sent you an email regarding scheduling, please let me know if you got it.

Thanks.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 02:33 am: Edit

Justin, the problem is that there is no such rule. There are Notes For Judges, however. Of course, it is in the Tournament book and players can't avoid see that section, nor can they ignore what it is written in it. It does them no good however as it advice for Judges, is not written as a rule and is thus impossible to adhere to.

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 10:29 am: Edit

Hey Guys,

Not to re-hash this too much but ... let me try to clarify, to make sure I'm accessing the right info on this topic. The clearest statement about non-aggression, as far as I've seen, is posted here:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/12031/148.html?1183138750

Quotes:

* "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."

* "This "attack aggressively at speed four" ... will NOT be tolerated in future."

We've had discussions about moving in reverse in the past ... not sure if that is clearly considered "non-aggression" in the same way as excessive time at WW speeds and star-castling seems to be considered "non-aggression"? We've also had lots of discussion about cloaking ... there are cloak-vs-cloak rules, but only if both ships have a cloak (as I recall). Since I'm playing a Romulan in this tournament (as I often do), it seems important to know how this might apply. It seems to me that cloaking while charging plasma should not be considered non-aggressive? Staying cloaked after plasma are armed? That might be non-aggressive.

Similarly, using a speed plot (or emer decel) to wild weasel a lot of seeking weapons is certainly a defensive maneuver, but that in-and-of-itself is not non-aggression? But staying in a defensive position too much will get a warning from the judge (if your opponent complains & the judge agrees) or an adverse ruling .... am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 11:06 am: Edit

debate it all you want, my opponent spent the entire game evading me and castling in the sw corner of the map from the drop, not a single weapon was fired at my ship or a single point of damage was scored in more than 4 turns. The judge took very little time to rule as this was a clear and excessive case of non-aggression.

If your plan is to turn out and castle from the drop it is well established that this is unacceptable play clear rules or not and the judge in this case ruled clearly b/c the evidence was overwhelming.

There was no single thing my opponent did that was a deal breaker or a non-aggresive play. In fact it was an entire game of decision after decision to play non-aggressively as a strategy.

Again, the judge took very little time to rule once he had a chance to look at it. This is the 1st time I recall every asking a judge to rule on this matter, it was excessive and I greatly appreciate Steve's ruling not for the win, but to remind everyone that this kind of play is not only unacceptable but can cost you the game in the end.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Geoff, maybe? I once fought Jim Harts Gorn in my TKR. I cloaked to evade him, and then moved in reverse to outmaneuver him and uncloak. I resumed the fight and claimed the center of the board, doing the EPT ballet while moving in reverse. This was non-aggressive play said SPP, and I had top stop and reverse movement.
Today I found the this in Module-T 2012; "Note that moving in reverse toward the enemy is not a problem,..."
So, uh...

By Ronald J. Brimeyer (Captainron) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I am sorry but I have to chime in. I did not "PLAN" to turn out and castle from the get go. Turn 1 I armed 2 standard and 2 OLs. The plan was to get a shot at R8 and move off without getting caught by drones. I used this plan against Droid a few years ago. He dispersed his SP and ship launched drones in a wave in front of his ship. I ended up getting a R5 shot by killing a few drones with p-3s and got some internals including a drone rack.

Justin stayed back from his SP drones. Yes, I could have turned in and probably gotten a shot. I would have had to use my HET to get away and I hate doing that early in a game. If I don't HET I face 14 drones in 3 waves during turn 2 with only 1 WW prepared. So I took out his SP drones and turned off.

Now, I am a bit rusty and old. I forgot to launch drones on Imps 32. Had I launched drones I could have turned in and engaged turn 2 on a somewhat even odds. I could have parked and WW. Most likely he then comes in ahead of his drones and unless I knock off both tractors I get Anchored. I chose to run and put 8 points reinforcement on my #4. My hope was that Justin would shoot early and with the 8 points my #4 would hold even if he goes 4/4 with OLs. I would then loop around, killing drones with phasers, and launch 3 drones at his ship EOT.

Justin just stayed behind me and launch 4 fast drones and shooting my #4 on Imps 32. Knocking it down to 13. Now I have 8 drones in 2 stacks 2 hexes from my ship and a zin 7 hexes away.

On turn 3 I park for the 1st time! Because I have had a Zin player who was prepared for me to park come in and outmaneuver me in the past. (He got around me and used those wide firing disrupters to hit a weak shield) I plotted an HET, 3 tacs, and 6 moves at -9 as a tactic if he came in. I had ZERO reinforcement up. Justin HETTED and moved away. Launching 3 drones imps 32 at R20. ( I thought this was a bad move. If I don't move it leaves him with only 2 drones per rack. But now I think I know why he did it)

Turn 4 I got silly. As I have said I like to have fun. I plotted -4/0/-1. 2 moves and a tac or 2. ZERO reinforcement. I had 11 in tractor. I thought Justin may come in now that he was running low on drones. My plan was to grab him at R2, Launch SS and drones imps 31, and pull him into them imps 32. Silly I know but had it worked it would have been talked about for weeks. Justin does not come in and does not launch drones. We are R11.

Turn 5 I plot 0 with 1 tac, then Speed 9 on Imps4. Instead of turning in and engaging at even odds, 1 launch of drones and weapons each, Justin turns off, Questions if I move so soon, Charges me with non-aggression, and refuses to continue playing.

I will not say that Justin "planned" to force me to engage his ship and 8 drones in one turn or he would claim non-aggression. I do not know what was in Justin's head. But DO NOT claim that I PLANNED to play a Non-aggression strategy. I rarely plan at all. I do not take this game that seriously. Many times I have lost games making stupid mistakes.

Justin, you won by the judge's ruling and that is fine. But I will not be insulted in this way.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I am sorry you feel insulted Ron, my apologies. I guess your earlier statement that you do not care is maybe not so true.

My plan was to fight intelligently and to be aggressive and to win this game the good old fashioned way. This is the first time in playing sfb for 40 + years now I have ever asked a judge to look at a game for non-aggression.

I do not feel that you intentionally planned to play non-aggressively. I believe it was a series of decision after decision, in the moment.

Regardless the judge has ruled and he was clear in his ruling, if you have a problem, it is not with me. Talk to the judge or appeal. /shrug

Also, I see nothing my in posts or tone that could be considered offensive or insulting. I am strictly talking about the match and the judge's ruling.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Justin, when is it NOT non-aggressive play?
Is it non-aggression to chose to turn away from OL range because you can't handle the drone swarms coming towards you? Do I have to turn in and accept the consequences of not having armed enough weasels in order to prove my aggressiveness?
Am being aggressive if I no longer am star castling but accelerate to speed, 1...?
The rules doesn't say.
"While a couple of turns of non-aggression can allow a ship that is hurt to reload and get back in the game there must be some limits." - M:T-2012 (but book sets no such limits)
It is up to the participants, which means there always are at least three opinions on the matter.

ADB wanted to avoid unfun tactics "the other player will simply do nothing for several hours and then insist that the judge summarily execute his opponent for him (rather than him having to work for the win" but instead open up for were a player can use the CONCEPT of non-aggression to his advantage.
To make it clear I am talking about the concept of non-aggression in general, and agree it was your right to go to the judge. However, you likely did so because you knew about non-aggression and it's penalties after reading the tourney module. If this had happened in a game way back before that concept was public, I figure you would just have played on. IOW the advice to judges also have had influence on player behaviour, maybe intentionally.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Carl why are you asking me questions for a judge? I am going to bow out here, it is what it is. I have played in many tournaments and never had a game adjudicated until now. Sour grapes and all that.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Personally, this is the first time I've seen a game called strictly on non-aggression. I'm sure others here can point out examples, but it's the first time I've seen it.

T

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Carl-Magnus Carlsson:
No one faulted Ron Brimeyer for using a weasel when faced with the Kzinti drone wave which included the Kzinti scatter-pack shuttle drones. The problem becomes the failure to get back up to speed and essentially passively respond to all future Kzinti moves. After that initial deceleration the WYN did not try to bring the Kzinti to battle. He could have countered Kzinti drones (four of them in a given turn) with his own drones (three available) using his labs too at worst pick out one Kzinti drone that is type-I that he could kill with a phaser-1, leaving the reset of his phasers to fire at the Kzinti ship that turn. At close range the two extra Ph-1s and one extra Ph-3 (in the Kzinti L or R firing disruptor arcs) can make up for the WYN's lacks of extended firing arcs for its own disruptors, but at any range allowing the WYN to use his disruptors to counter the Kzinti's the two extra phaser-1s can be critical. In short, the WYN was not moving to engage but was waiting for the Kzinti to make a mistake, and the Kzinti is not obliged to do so.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 03:59 pm: Edit

SPP, yes, it is all clear to me, also that CaptainRon didn't break any actual rules.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 04:16 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit
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.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Ok, one last thought.. as far as rules go.

My understanding was anything MORE THAN 96 consecutive imps of non-aggression was considered grounds for forfeit of the match per a judges ruling.

There are most def rules for non-aggressive play, they are not new, and they allow a judge the latitude to do anything from giving a warning to internals to a forfeit of the match IMHE.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 04:30 pm: Edit

This ruling above is a straight cut and paste from the tournament rulings section. If I were in Ron's place, I would expect that ruling to preside over the decision making on his game. Did he get a warning from a judge to discontinue behavior? Did he get one from Justin that he would consult a judge if he did not change behavior? Did he then continue to play non-aggressively after the warning from Justin or Petrick?

I mean- we have a ruling, those are the actual rules. If the rules have changed and there is no warning process we all need to know.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 04:46 pm: Edit

I'm curious. Does anyone have knowledge of other games called only on non-aggression (like the game currently under discussion)?

I've seen the issue raised many times, but this is the only forfeiture ruling I've seen based on this long-standing rule. (Note: *I* have seen).

By Ronald J. Brimeyer (Captainron) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Mr Petrick, and this is for debate purposes only, You say I was not punished for ww on turn 3. I plotted a negative speed as a tactic. I believed that Justin would engage. He did not, instead moving away and setting up another 8 drones in one turn wave by launching drones on Imps 32. So on turn 4, the 1st turn I am being sited for not engaging, you are saying that I was required to go my best speed (0 and then 10 on impulse 9), is that correct? Facing 8 drones and his ship in 1 turn? On turn 4 Justin did not launch drones. I payed breaking cost on turn 5 so I could start moving sooner. We were at R11 so if Justin OLs and turns in we engage with 1 turn worth of weapons each. He turned away instead. All of that being said. If you do not consider my 1st 2 turns and my ww on on turn 3 non-aggression, I count only 32 imps of non-aggression. Justin is claiming "more than 96 imps" I think this needs to be clarified for the good of the games.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Your math is funny Ron, you played the entire game non-aggressively, this is not about any one point the game and getting lost in the minutia is a mistake.

This was a complete and total game of non-aggression, every maneuver, every weapon fired/ not fired, every impulse of the game for over 4 turns you played non-aggressively, leaving resources on the table turn after turn unused. You spent the entire game corner dodging and then castling in the SW corner.

If I am being honest I have never seen such an obvious attempt at non-aggression as a means to a win. There was no single thing or point in the game where you played aggressively inspite of being given multiple opportunities to engage.

Again, this was a total effort on every level to castle in the corner and hope I would oblige your starcastle. I did not chose to do so.

Not a single point of damage scored or weapon fire vs my ship, not a single hex of maneuver in over 96 impulses meant to engage my ship. /shrug

If you really want me to take the gloves off, half the reason you made the choices you made was b/c you were getting out played badly, especially in maneuver and you knew it, you knew you were in trouble the entire game and hence your decision making. That STILL DOES NOT justify castling in the corner all game.

Lastly, the shark is VERY well suited to fight the Zin, and this made it ever more frustrating that you chose to fight the way you did.

By Seth Shimansky (Kingzila) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 07:34 pm: Edit

I am encouraged by how active the boards are and how many people enjoy playing the game.
We have a fragile amount of players in the tournaments from years ago and want to maintain the players base and also see it grow like its has with new players. When the game was played face to face with a 3 hour time limit at tournament conventions, it had to be finish by the weekend. You where forced to play aggressive to do the most damage or win in the 3 hours. When the game transitioned to online with no time limits players can take advantage of this unlimited time resource with there tactics. We have all seen or read about worse uses of non aggression over the years then this particular game that most of us thought should have been call on then. In my opinion this was a mild case that snow balled from a movement error turn one do to scatter pack drones not wanting to die. I completely understand why a judge was asked for a review. I would not of been shocked if the result was a warning to hull box damaged or the game called or just play on and I am watching. We all kinda get a high from playing the game and we all have fun stories from playing. Our group is fragile in numbers and we all are much older now and not as healthy as we where when we started playing years ago. Lets respect the call and our fellow players.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Justin, Ron, give it a rest.

As far as any other issues that came up, I will discuss them with SPP tomorrow at lunch.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 09, 2025 - 12:25 am: Edit

Jack, that post is an (unfortunate) mix of guideline for judges and admonitions for players. A rule is something you can break, but how can you break: "They [The Judges] may not be able to give a legal definition of non-aggression, but they know it when they see it."? It's quite Kafkaesque.

I agree that there is a procedure for going to the judge (and it is sensible), but it is still in the "Advice section" of the module. That means it is not a rule and that a player can go to a judge with a complaint anytime. That the procedure is not followed does not invalidate the complaint. In the end it is up to the judge.

Btw here is the section from the 2012 edition of the Tournament module, in case you haven't bought that one:
"NOTES FOR JUDGES:
NON-AGGRESSION
Perhaps nothing is more complicated or controversial than
a judge ruling that a player has not fought aggressively and will
lose the game. Even more frustrating is when a player, exhausted
by six hours of following a cloaked opponent, gets tired and fires
an alpha strike into limbo and is then destroyed. A panel of top

SFB judges offer these guidelines. First, what actually is “non-
aggression”. This is defined as any of the following:

• STARCASTLE (i.e., parking) to use the energy that would
have gone into movement for shield reinforcement, forcing the
enemy to use power to get into range and then exchange
weapons fire at a disadvantage.
• RETROGRADE, i.e., backing away from the enemy with
your weapons pointing toward him, forcing the enemy to chase
you through a wall of seeking weapons while his own seeking
weapons are useless. (Note: this comes into play even if neither
ship has seeking weapons beyond suicide shuttles.)
• CLOAKING is by definition non-aggressive, but (like the
above) is okay to reload and conduct a few repairs and, within
limits, get into a firing position. It is not legal to cruise around,
cloaked and holding plasmas or overloads, and refuse to uncloak
until the enemy tried to shoot at your cloaked ship and missed.
Note that moving in reverse toward the enemy is not a
problem, and note that just plain running away (forward) is not
illegal as you will get run down and shot. Parking and moving in
retrograde are non-aggressive even if that ship is firing weapons
at the enemy. All forms of non-aggression are interchangeable
and changing from Starcastle to Retrograde does not “start the
clock” over again; the count of non-aggression continues.
No one is required to engage a ship using non-aggressive
tactics, since that player is, unfairly and with bad sportsmanship,
refusing to play unless you hand him a major tactical advantage.
If the enemy starcastles or retrogrades, you are not obliged to
attack him. If the enemy stays cloaked, you are not obliged to fire
at him (although many players use the “subhunt” tactic of firing a
phaser-1 now and then just to rattle the cloaked ship, and do so
to good effect).
Two problems can result from non-aggression. One is that
the other player will simply do nothing for several hours and then
insist that the judge summarily execute his opponent for him
(rather than him having to work for the win). The other is when a
judge does not understand the mechanics of non-aggression and

allows it to go on and on. While a couple of turns of non-
aggression can allow a ship that is hurt to reload and get back in

the game, there must be some limits. Here is the procedure:

1. A player who notes that his opponent has been non-
aggressive for one entire turn should verbally warn him.

2. After two consecutive turns of non-aggression, the other

player may summon a judge who (if he agrees the above condi-
tions were met) will issue a formal “advisory of non-aggression.”

3. At the end of a third consecutive turn of non-aggression,
the judge (if the conditions have been met) will issue the formal
(and final) “warning of imminent judgement.”

4. At the end of the fourth consecutive turn of non-aggres-
sion, the judge must (if the conditions have been met for most of

that turn) rule against the non-aggressive player, ending the
game and giving the victory to the other player.
The other player can never be penalized for refusing to take
the “sucker bet” offered by the non-aggressive player. Anything
that happened more than two turns before the judge was called
does not count. It is up to the judge to rule if the conditions have
been met or, in some way, avoided. PBEM and SFBOL may use
a slightly modified system due to the nature of those venues. If
done right, it will never come up as both players know the
penalties.

PLAYING AGGRESSIVELY
Many judges (and players) have asked us for a better
definition of “playing aggressive” since not doing so is counted
against a player in an adjudication. Here are some guidelines.
1. If the game is played until one ship blows up, then the
question of playing aggressively doesn’t come up and complaints
by the loser that the other player did not play aggressively are not
a factor. The abuse comes when one player starcastles or cloaks
or stalls and forces the other player to fire a low-percentage volley
in frustration, giving the edge to the abusive player.
2. Starcastle is a tactic that is sometimes abused. If the two
players are widely separated, and one of them goes to speed
zero or low speed with all of his power into weapons and
reinforcement, the other player is not obliged to spend his power
getting to the battle. If this happens, the player not using Starcastle
should notify the judge, and the judge should then warn the
Starcastle player than if he does this for more than a turn or two,
the game may well be adjudicated against him. Starcastle can
legitimately be used for short periods when you need to repair or
rearm, and can be used quite legally and effectively in what we
call “the old drawbridge trick”. One player heads for the far end of
the map with the other player in hot pursuit. At the start of the next
turn, the player in the lead suddenly drops to speed zero, TACs
or HETs or turns to bring his weapons to bear, reinforces his
shields (and sometimes goes into retrograde). If you are the
pursuing player and you put your power into speed (assuming the
chase would continue) then you just got suckered. Your options
are to blow past him (trading weapons fire as you go) or to
Emergency Decelerate (which at least gets some power into the
shields) or to turn and run away (not a good idea if the Starcastler
timed it right).
3. Cloaking is much the same story. The only valid reason to
cloak in the tournament is when you need to reload your weapons
and repair your ship. If you cloak when you are losing, well, you’re
still going to be losing when time runs out and you never
uncloaked. The abusive part of cloaking is when one player
cloaks, arms his weapons, then moves around the board waiting
for the non-cloaking player to fire with a bad chance of doing any
damage. If this is happening, the uncloaked player should send
for a judge and point out what is happening. The judge then warns
the cloaked player. If time runs out and the game is adjudicated,
the judge will count this abusive cloaking heavily against the
cloaking ship. If there is no time limit and a ship remains cloaked
for three turns, the judge may well call the game and rule against
the cloaking player on the spot.
4. Running in reverse is legal, but the opponent is not obliged
to follow you, and if he does not, the retrograding player would be
ruled against for non-aggressive play. But watch out for the “old
Drawbridge Trick”, which is legal and deadly."

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, January 09, 2025 - 12:33 am: Edit

Justin, there is no 96 imp rule (unlike the cloak vs cloak limit of 128 imps). There is a "procedure" to follow though, (clearly intended for players, but in the Advice to Judges section) which you can find above in the bit I pasted from the rulebook. It is still not rule, and if you didn't followed the steps has no consequences.