TOURNAMENT RULES UPDATE
The board of directors of ADB, Inc., having met on 18 Nov 2025 to review certain recent issues regarding tournaments reports these decisions to the tournament community.

1-The effective and enjoyable continuation of the Star Fleet Battles Sapphire Star tournament system is a priority for the company. The Board takes note that the Sapphire Star system was created because of previous consumer comments that the time deadlines should be enforced and not allowed to drag on for months.

2-Paul Franz will continue as the Tournament Judge. Steve Petrick will remain as Tournament Marshal. Albert Beddow will join this team as Deputy Tournament Marshal. These three will comprise the Board of Judges.

3. Deadlines will be continued and enforced as before, i.e., three weeks for Round One, two weeks each for Rounds Two, Three, and Four. The Tournament Judge, Deputy Tournament Marshal, or Chief Tournament Marshal may extend any given tournament for one or (in unusual cases) one additional week in order to accommodate emergencies or other required adjustments. Players should not expect such extensions to be granted automatically. The Tournament Judge or a marshal may resolve games by judicial decree if they exceed the scheduled deadlines.

4. The Tournament Judge and/or Tournament Deputy Marshal shall email all active participants in any given tournament once per week to remind them of impending deadlines. The deadlines will be posted in the tournament topic on the BBS.

5. Any player who sees a violation of the rules by his opponent is responsible for notifying the Tournament Judge and may also choose to notify the marshals or other company officials. Players can be reasonably expected to handle such violations privately with the judges and not by public displays of rancor. The judges and the company cannot be faulted for not enforcing violations which are not reported to them.

6. The limit of five minutes for Energy Allocation provided in SFB Module T is extended to 10 minutes for online games only. Players may mutually agree on minor extensions for their convenience, but this is a courtesy a player may extend to his opponent not a right which a player can assume or demand. In the event of violation of this time limit, the following steps will apply:
First violation: a warning by the aggrieved player.
Second violation: a warning by the aggrieved player with specific notice given to the Tournament Judge.
Third violation: the Tournament Judge will impose a penalty of five damage points to be distributed by the offending player to “internal” boxes of his ship at the selection of that player.
Fourth violation: five damage points to the offending player’s ship distributed by the Damage Allocation Chart.
Fifth violation: the judge will terminate the game and the offending player will forfeit the victory to the aggrieved player.

7. Tournament judges may use the lost boxes penalties above in other situations which the judges feel warrant such penalties. This is intended to avoid situations in which the only action a judge has available is to declare a forfeit.

8. Players cannot be expected or forced to commence a game session at unreasonable times, such as after 10pm, before 8am, or during hours the player is required to be at his real-world employment. Any player may grant his opponent other starting times at their mutual agreement, but no player can be bullied into an unreasonable starting time. If two players cannot agree on a schedule, they should contact a judge to consider options such as rearranging the tree or the schedule, or replacing a player. In such cases, a player might be given a free pass into a later tournament, at the discretion of the Board of Judges.

9. The Board of Judges reviewed the plasma-vs-plasma question that came up with company officials as decided to make no changes in the rules. Games must be completed within the deadlines and if both players are happy with the situation no one can complain that the game took an unusual number of turns. Let plasma be plasma.

10. Geoffery Clark (Spartan) will have to replay the disrupted game against a wild card selected by Paul Franz, who will adjust the schedule appropriately. Seth Shimansky, having resigned from the disrupted game, cannot be this wild card player. Geoffrey is specifically warned not to repeat the actions which disrupted the game; Seth Shimansky will be given a free pass to Sapphire Star 20 but it is noted that he failed in his obligation to contact a judge when the problems began. Players should not benefit from violating the rules or failing to follow the judicial protocols.

11. To encourage tournament participation, ADB will provide four pre-paid passes to Sapphire Star 20 and 21 (and possibly future tournaments) to players who have not played in a Sapphire Star Tournament during 2024 or 2025. This will not affect the prize fund as ADB is buying the four tickets. Seth’s free pass (#10 above) is in addition to these four.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Ok, so should I *not* play Geof (Spartan) on Friday at 5:00 pm?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Correct. Paul will arrange for someone else to play Geoff first. It was the best of bad options.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Fair enough. Thank you for clarity.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 08:56 pm: Edit

We knew we had to get this decided.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 09:46 pm: Edit

What ship does the wild card player have to play or can they choose? I would be interested in being the wild card.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Paul will pick the wildcard from players who lost in the previous round (or the current round might be better, I guess, his call). I would presume they would continue in their original ship. That's how we usually do it. We have never picked a wildcard from outside the players already in the event.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Wednesday, November 19, 2025 - 10:40 am: Edit

I went out in round 1 so I suppose I am not allowed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 19, 2025 - 11:23 am: Edit

I would say not eligible, more accurate. Or at least not the first in line. In theory if every player who got farther than you did declined, you'd be in, or have to fight another first rounded for the slot. Anyway, Paul has this.

By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Tuesday, November 25, 2025 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I guess we are on hold until after the holiday?

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Tuesday, November 25, 2025 - 09:16 pm: Edit

We've had some action last night. Hardcore and I played three turns of the Round 2 part two battle, ISC vs RKR.

Just a summary in brief,

Turn 1 - ISC was 23/31/26, Rom was 21/24. Rom launched one S torp, ISC launched 2xG, then fired PPD and range 9 and missed with two pulses! ISC then turned out and launched a rear F when the Rom turned in. Given the speeds and angles, the Rom might have gotten a range 5 centerlined shot on a flank shield, but not until the G-torps had to be dealt with somehow. Shortly thereafter the Rom hetted away, due south, and the ISC got lucky with some phaser fire on a flank shield before we moved out of range 8. Rom phaser fire weakened plasma, killing one G torp.

Turn 2 saw one G torp impact for minor damage on the same shield as was phasered, and also one F torp on the #4, then Rom turned to pursue. ISC ran the S torp out to 25th, saw it was a fake, turned away to spin about in the upper NW corner. Rom had been pursuing due north. We ended the turn at range 10.

Turn 3 saw the ISC stop, the Rom was 21/26/15 ? ISC launched a G torp from B mount, it was unclear what it could be. Rom closed to range 8, PPD fired and hit with four pulses, spread between shields 5 and 6, Rom turned away from G torp, which ended up hitting as a fake. Rom spun around, ISC accelerated to ten reverse, Rom eventually turns in to face ISC.

Turn 4 - allocation was done and impulse 1 played. ISC is speed 9 reverse, Rom is 21. Impulse 1, ISC launches EPT from C mount.

Looking to schedule a follow-on session in the coming days, around Carl's work schedule.

By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Ah, alright...didn't realize your replacement player had been assigned, I must've missed the announcement.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Daniel,
My fault. I didn't announce it. I wanted to confirm everything first and get the game going first before I announced that replacement for Seth. I will update the tree shortly.

Geoff,
I hope you have a plan on reversing you current direction (i.e. changing from going to reverse to going forward).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Geoff, go read the non-aggression rules. You are running dangerously close to a violation and forfeiture and may be in danger. I avoided studying the game too closely as I'm not going to get in the habit of doing rulings; there are judges better qualified than me to do that.

By Daniel Bitseff (Cadet_Stimpy) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Curious if reverse is allowed if you're still moving towards your opponent? Not saying that is what is happening in Geof's game (I haven't been watching), but in the past I've had all the front shields shot off of my gorn & started chasing my opponent while moving in reverse (the Gorn is well equipped to do this).

THIS IS OKAY--SVC

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Here are the rules in T2012 -- 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 Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 05:39 am: Edit

Retrograde, moving in reverse to keep weapons and reinforced shields pointed at the enemy, saying in effect "you spend your energy on moving toward me, while I spend my energy on weapons and shields" is a classic battle tactic. In a real world battle, it works if the enemy mission is to kill you. If his mission is to push you, you're just letting him win, which is why the tournament outlaws it except for brief tactical situations. If someone does this for more than a few impulses, it's a violation of non-aggression and can force a forfeit. The other guy is not expected to spend his energy playing the retrograde guy's game plan. From what little I saw, this seems to be something the judge has cautioned against. In Geoff's case he has two strikes against him going into the game and needs to stay well away from questionable moves, which will be automatically ruled against him. Somebody with no prior history of abusing the rules might well be given the benefit of the doubt. Prior history, however, might result in the judge ruling against him immediately without waiting out the multiple turn chain. Note what Paul said to Geoff: "I hope you have a plan..."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 05:48 am: Edit

I might comment that in previous cases judges looked with disdain at players who reasoned: "This is a violation of the rules but the judge procedure will let me get away with it for three turns while I repair shields and reload the torpedoes."

The judge procedure is designed to work in good faith with someone who doesn't realize what he's doing is a violation.

When you're playing the judge instead of playing the game, judges have the authority to short-circuit the battle and forfeit your naval career for bad faith.

By Geoffrey Clark (Spartan) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 07:58 am: Edit

I apologize, perhaps I'm not aware of the two strikes against me going into this battle. There was one strike in terms of "delay of game" called by Seth, which I dod not agree with, but did not make any defensive arguments, since Seth quickly resigned. That's one strike, ok. Now, with Carl's claim of non-aggression, that seems like the second strike. Again, having read the rules, I don't agree, and I'll take action based on this claim. I've flown the ISC in many tournaments, often moving in reverse from time to time, and this is the first time that non-aggression has been alleged.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 08:25 am: Edit

(I don't know that anyone actually alleged non aggression; I think Paul just asked if you had a plan for going forward again).

WE JUST WARNED HIM TO BE AWARE. — SVC

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 10:05 am: Edit

IMHE Star castling early game is considered a poor tactical response and is the 1st tangent to non-aggression.

Knife fighting and late game situations might differ, but castling in a corner or backing slowly into a corner early game is certainly NOT aggressive, players are expected to play aggressively.

This is also a common tactic for players that prefer the easy win by forcing the opponent to close the range as they met out the punishment.

In general this is a non-aggressive strategy and that is not allowed as an overall battle plan in tournament play.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 10:16 am: Edit

The above discussion is one reason why I refrain from tournament play.

In the early days of SFB tourney battles and in most dual type battles. It was the battle run. Arm and hold all weapons that can be. Move toward the other ship at a good battle speed. Fire at what you think gives You the best shot at doing more damage to the other ship while taking less. Then either withdrawing to reload or going into a knife fight.

There are variations where a player will do a feint attack. Hoping to catch the other player with overloads. As the game went on tactics changed.

The new speed is life approach. Plasma Ballet and other things. To include retrograde.

The battle run perhaps players should key more on that then all the fancy tactics.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 10:47 am: Edit

Taking thirty minutes to do EA. Insisting on playing in odd hours and times. Geoff, you wore out judicial patience. Play right. Play in good faith.

Gregory, these same rules have been used for over 30 years. I used them when I was the chief judge in 1991, and before that. I can remember bouncing a player who bragged that he could break the rules for three turns before the judge could rule against him. It was his battle strategy.

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 11:28 am: Edit

I can't think of a game ever where the ISC isn't backing up at some point. It's probably in the tactic's manual for the ship. Everyone has done it forever. Geof isn't a non-aggressive player. It just takes a minute to speed up and start moving toward your opponent in reverse. Maybe he isn't moving towards his opponent yet, I don't know. I do know he will, a lot. But the truth is he's always cautious. He doesn't give up the ship. Geof hasn't done anything illegal, (yet) I bet. He hasn't done anything he and 100 other ISC's haven't done. They all back up and it takes a minute to get moving and bringing the ship around. It causes delay. Delay helps Geof.

Long games help the KR and ISC. They are both standoff ships. Longer the better. There is no turn time limit. There is no incentive for them to do anything else but to semi-aggressively delay as best as possible. It's a killer strategy. The ships were not balanced for long games and time limits have not been enforced. Some ships are advantaged now because they are not being played with the same constraints from which they were developed. The proof is in the tournament results. How many times have big plasma won the Sapphires or been in the final? I bet the distribution curve is absolutely crazy compared to how it used to be when games were played 3 hours face to face.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, November 27, 2025 - 11:31 am: Edit

Non-aggression isn't the best term. It implies players are not trying to win, which can be hurtful.