So as this came up at Origins, I figured I'd start a discussion here.

Mind you, I'm not real het (badum bum, ka-TCHING!) up about this or anything, but I still think it would be a good idea.

Currently, as the TAC rules stand, parking is simply too attractive in too many situations. When you aren't moving, you have a lot more energy available than your opponent, and you are *infinitely* more manuverable, due to the sequence of TACing. What this results in is people parking/starcastling more often than is reasonable.

Clearly, parking is such an effective tactic that the tournament rules contain a full page of guidelines for punishing players who are non aggressive (i.e. parked) to attempt to remedy the situation. The "non aggression" rules certainly help, but only by creating a situation where if your opponent stops and parks, your best option is simply to leave range 8 and report your opponent to the judge to start the "non-aggression" clock. While this certainly is a solution of sorts, it is kind of convoluted, and tends to generate ill will in the tournament setting.

I'd much rather see a significant in game solution to the "parking" advantage that does not require out of game considerations--i.e. knowing to and being willing to turn in your opponent to a judge as soon as he starts a second turn at speed 0.

I think the most logical solution is to simply change the sequence of TACing, so that TACing ships TAC as if they were speed zero, effectively meaning that a TACing ship will have to TAC before a ship at any speed moves. As it currently stands, TACing is *such* a significant manuver advantage that there is virtually zero disadvantage to not moving (other than that your opponent might turn you in). If a ship is TACing, it will pretty much always have the best possible shield facing the enemy who is moving, and no matter how cleverly you surf the shield spine, you simply are never going to hit that weak sheild.

Yes, this is a major rules change, but I really think it would improve the game signficantly, especially in the competetive setting.

A) It would promote a far more active game. As it stands, stoping and parking is *incredibly* common in tournament play. Yeah, there are ways around it, but generally speaking, a parked ship has a very significant advantage over a moving one. If TACing happened before moving ships moved, TACing would be much less attractive, and moving speed 4 to weasel would often be a better plan than stopping, and if you are moving speed 4, you'll probably want to jup up to 14 as soon as possible, meaning that both ships will be moving rather than one of them. A more active game. Stopping to weasel becomes an actual disadvantage.

B) While it would have a very significant effect on duels (tournament or no), which I believe would be an overall positive one, it would not so much have much of an effect elsewhere, as in fleet games, the advantage gained by parking is much less significant when there are multiple ships coming to get you. The change in TAC sequenceing would mean that the parked ship (in a fleet battle) simply gets to pick which of two opposing ships gets to shoot a weak shield *before* they move, rather than after.

C) Many duel games (again, tournament or no) devolve into a situation where both ships are simply stopped next to eachother, TACing and shooting for afew turns till someone dies. If TACing came before movement, ships in these parked knife fights would have significant incentive to speed up and move, even if only to speed 2 or 3, as it would give them movement precidence over a parked opponent. Again, this makes a more active (and fun) game--I'd much rather see low speed manuver wars between crippled ships than the inevitable "Spped 0 again. You?" "Yeah. Speed 0 for the 4th turn in a row too..." that results in so many duels. If, however, both ships *are* parked, TACing is secret and simultaneous, so a speed 0 TAC knife fight would be any different than it is now, except that both ships would have an incentive to speed up and move.

D) Very little else would change--there is no need to change the base rotation rules (as rotation is different than TACing); shuttles, fighters, PFs, and nimble ships would still maintain their manuver advantage (as all of these units move after regular ships in the sequence of manuver) while TACing.

Overall, I think a change like this would benefit the game significantly, as it would encourage a far more active style of play in a duel situation, and that is why we all signed on to this game in the first place--to play exciting warp speed dogfights.

-Peter

By David Beeson (Monster) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

E) This will give a large advantage to tourney ships that really, really don't want to see thier stack of 12 drones weasled away

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit

I am going to let this topic run but I don't see how we could possibly make such a radical change to the game. It would be easier to change the phaser-1 table.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 04:37 pm: Edit

The cheeky Mr. Beeson wrote:
>> E) This will give a large advantage to tourney ships that really, really don't want to see thier stack of 12 drones weasled away>>

Not really so much. It is currently disadvantageous to over run a speed zero opponent in most ships. The best way to deal with an opponent who parks is, generally speaking, to go run off into the corner and tell the judge that your opponent is being non aggressive. Given the choice between having to rat out my opponents on a regular basis, and a fairly minor rules change that would make such a situation not necessary, I'd go with the minor rules change.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 04:46 pm: Edit

SVC wrote:
>> I am going to let this topic run but I don't see how we could possibly make such a radical change to the game. It would be easier to change the phaser-1 table.>>

Ya think? Changing the sequence of the TAC rules would require little more than changing a scentence here and there in the book--the clarification of the unplotted mid turn speed changes took much more verbiage, and strikes me as far more significant. And the changes to the Particle Cannon rules are far more significant, in terms of having to re-write rules. Looking in the rulebook, the only actual things that would have to be changed would be in (C1.313) make point 7 (ships make tactical manuvers) into point 1B, so it comes before point 2 (Ships move).

In terms of overall play changes, I don't see it having that big of an effect on non duel scenarios, and while it would have a significant effect on a duel scenario, it strikes me as only positive.

But again, I'm not really convinced this is totally necessary--I just think it would be nice, and would improve the game. And would save me from having to report half my opponents to the judge for non aggression.

-Peter

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

The problem is if this is justa tournament rule the tournament starts to become it's own thing rather than a microcosm of SFB proper. slippery slope.

There may be very good game reasons bayond the scope of a tournament why TACs run as they do and those need to be taken into accout.

In general a parked opponent is also a reactive opponent. You have been handed the initiative for at least the next two turns. Perhaps the next time an opponent parks you can ask yourself how to exploit that.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I can tell you that, from a non-tournament SFB perspective, if you park you die. Perhaps one in ten games I've played do I see a parked ship, and I can't think of a time when it has worked out well.

While parking is an option, it's not synonymous with emergency deceleration and the two shouldn't be confused. E-decel has its uses, parking very rarely does in most SFB games.

This seems like a tournament issue that doesn't warrant a rules change.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 08:23 pm: Edit

It took me a long time to remember that:
a) Slower speeds move first
b) except zero which moves last (in regards to taccing)

I for one would happily accept the tac-before-speed change. It just makes sense.

But what the hell do I know?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 09:42 pm: Edit

John wrote:
>> The problem is if this is justa tournament rule the tournament starts to become it's own thing rather than a microcosm of SFB proper. slippery slope.>>

I'm not saying it should be a tournament only rule. Just a rules change. Like the Particle Cannon rules were changed. Or the unplotted mid turn speed changes were revamped considerably.

>>There may be very good game reasons bayond the scope of a tournament why TACs run as they do and those need to be taken into accout.>>

There might be. But as I pointed out above, I don't believe that in a multi ship scenario a change to the TAC rules would have a significant impact, while in any duel, tournament or no, it would have a singificant impact, but I don't think it would be anything but positive.

>>In general a parked opponent is also a reactive opponent. You have been handed the initiative for at least the next two turns. Perhaps the next time an opponent parks you can ask yourself how to exploit that.>>

In a multi ship engagement, you put a couple ships in a couple different arcs, so TACing doesn't help. In a tournament duel, you leave range 8 and report your opponent to the judge for non engagement.

I'd rather there be an in-game fix to a problem that is clearly significant enough to justify a full page of guidlines for reporting your opponent for non engagement. The in game fix is simple and makes the game more active. Strikes me as reasonable.

-Peter

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Come to think of it, having ships HET at their speed in the sequence of play and yet allowing ships to TAC last, rather than their 'speed' does seeem somewhat incongruous.

I would be worried about the change in the game this would engender though. Peter, I would try several games using your idea and see if it can be 'broken'. I think it would change the game so much that it would be a different game (unless no one ever stopped of course). That's kind of a problem.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 09:48 pm: Edit

Marc wrote:
>> I can tell you that, from a non-tournament SFB perspective, if you park you die. Perhaps one in ten games I've played do I see a parked ship, and I can't think of a time when it has worked out well.>>

In which case changing the TAC rules won't really have much of an effect on these situations--if stopping and TACing makes you die currently, then it would still make you die if the sequence of TACing was changed. So there is no negative impact on the current non-tournament environment.

>>While parking is an option, it's not synonymous with emergency deceleration and the two shouldn't be confused. E-decel has its uses, parking very rarely does in most SFB games.>>

Not saying it is.

>>This seems like a tournament issue that doesn't warrant a rules change.>>

Maybe. Maybe not. Parking has a significant impact on tournament SFB--enough that a full page of guidelines were developed to instruct players to report their opponents to the judge for non engagement. If parking in non tournament SFB is as detrimental as you claim it is, then making it more detrimental (by changing the sequence of TACing) won't hurt non tournament play at all. On the other hand, it might make a considerable difference in tournament play (or non tournament duels) by shifting the game into a much more active one.

But then maybe not.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Geoff wrote:
>> Come to think of it, having ships HET at their speed in the sequence of play and yet allowing ships to TAC last, rather than their 'speed' does seeem somewhat incongruous.>>

And it also allows for the very strange HET then TAC on the same impulse manuver.

>>I would be worried about the change in the game this would engender though. Peter, I would try several games using your idea and see if it can be 'broken'. I think it would change the game so much that it would be a different game (unless no one ever stopped of course).>>

I'm not somuch seeing it as that big of a change. From what I am reading above from non tournament players, parking doesn't come up much--meaning that adjusting the TAC sequence wouldn't have much of an effect on non tournament play (which I don't think it would). It would have a considerable impact on a duel scenario, however, as it makes parking *much* less attractive, and it currently is very attractive in many situations.

-Peter

By David Cheng (Davec) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 10:43 pm: Edit

I am much less experienced than many of you other folks, but...

I remember the first time someone (Kevin Block-Schwenk, actually) did the "Speed 0 and TAC" thing to me. When he TAC'd _after_ my move, I thought that was silly. As a 25-year gamer, I didn't think that made good gaming sense. I insisted on re-reading the order of precedence to confirm what he was doing was correct.

I think Peter's proposed rules fix is a positive suggestion.

-DC

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Changing the TAC rule timing would be brutal to ships with major movement limitations like sublight Romulans.

By David Cheng (Davec) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:56 am: Edit

I'd like to add a point to clarify my "good gaming sense" comment (above, but I'm too late to edit).

Much as Glenn H notes above, there is a lack of consistency between the rules for moving speeds 1-31 and the rules for moving 0.

I think it is more consistent, and thus better gaming sense, and thus better rules design, to say "slower always moves first", and thus speed 0 ships would have to make their "move" earlier than speed 1+ ships.

-DC

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 02:16 am: Edit

The inconsistency helps with a slower ship. If one has a Fed BT or Rom WB with one down shield, should that ship try moving, an opponent will be able to skirt a shoot boundary and hit the down shield. If the slower ships TACs, that shield can be safely hidden. If the TAC precedes the faster ship making a move, then the slower ship will never have a chance to protect a down shield from a faster opponent. That may be the result you prefer but many BPVs of slower vessels will need considerable revision.

By David Cheng (Davec) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 02:24 am: Edit

It almost goes without saying that warp-capable ships ~should~ have such huge advantages over sub-light ships.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 02:45 am: Edit

...and they do.

they just don't have...and don't need...this one.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 04:56 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Many duel games (again, tournament or no) devolve into a situation where both ships are simply stopped next to eachother, TACing and shooting for afew turns till someone dies

---

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 06:57 am: Edit

Ok, I have chimed in on this several occasions, and have said essentially EXACTLY what Peter said. I think the parking and TACcing rule is way too strong, and it is exactly why I do it any game I can remotely get away with it.

---

Quote:

In general a parked opponent is also a reactive opponent. You have been handed the initiative for at least the next two turns. Perhaps the next time an opponent parks you can ask yourself how to exploit that.

---

---

Quote:

Wait your D7 is parked.
My CAR goes from R9 to R4 and stops in a non perfect oblique.

Are you really going to stay there?

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 07:18 am: Edit

Yes, and with you at a disadvantaged range, you move so I counter by moving.


Just visiting the most disadvantagious range for you enemy and using it to your advantages ( so long as you're getting past his SSReo), will make him want to move around.


If no body does internal damage for 25 turns you can always involke the stailmate rules.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 09:02 am: Edit

I wrote:
>>Many duel games (again, tournament or no) devolve into a situation where both ships are simply stopped next to eachother, TACing and shooting for afew turns till someone dies>>

Michael wrote:
>>Wait your D7 is parked.
My CAR goes from R9 to R4 and stops in a non perfect oblique.
Are you really going to stay there?>>

My comment that you quoted was refering to how many duels/tournament games end up in a situation where two beat up/crippled ships sit next to each other at range 1, TACing and shooting for 2 or 3 turns. If TACing came before movement of ships, the crippled ships would have incentive to start moving, if even very slowly.

-Peter

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 09:06 am: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>That may be the result you prefer but many BPVs of slower vessels will need considerable revision.>>

Possibly. But how often are sublight ships in one on duels against non sublight ships? In a non duel situation, the sublight TACing ship is going to have its down shield shot anyway, as there will be more than one opponent around it, making the down shield easy to hit.

-Peter

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 09:13 am: Edit

Again, I can only emphasize. The whole TAC thing (speed 0 but turning and going last when all other speeds must apply to the slower must go first) just never made much sense to me.
One person said, "yes, warp ships don't have -- or need the advantage". He may be correct but the advantage should be there nevertheless out of the sheer principle that a warp ship is exceptionally faster than a non-warp ship and out of default must have that advantage, not because he needs it, but because it only makes sense that he has it (whether he needs it or not).
However, I am not so stubborn minded to believe that this is all black and white. The gray area I see that can be invoked that will require no rules changes (or not much anyway) is that, due to the nature of the slow unit, the unit still can TAC after all movement, BUT it must project its movement direction. Rule C3.8 (directed Turn mode) would provide a clue to the approaching enemy vessel which direction the enemy ship may TAC, giving the option of the attacking unit to try to juke (swerve) the other direction.
Summary:
A TACing ship can TAC at the end of the movement phase, but must declare in advance (using C3.8) its intended direction.
Note: The TACing ship need not ever TAC. Any ship moving speed zero may try to fake its enemy into believing it will TAC without allocating power to actually TACing.
Okay, I'm just thinking off the top of my head. If I have more to add (or retract), I'll post.

By Timothy Sheehy (Spydaer) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit

MJC:
First off, it's not like you fill out your EA AFTER I park. "Oh, you're parking? Good thing I knew that and planned accordingly. It is also unbelievably conveneient I plotted the exact speed necessary to do so, regardless of our range, to make my ship better than yours".

The great thing about parking, is that in many cases, you are almost completely indifferent to what the other guy did. I generally brick one shield, and put a partial brick on the other. Even if the other guy is fortunate to get the weaker bricked shield, he will still be firing through a bigger brick than he likely has anyway. And, it won't be like I sacrificed any power for it, since my weapons will stocked, locked, and ready to rock, whereas the enemy will have sacrificed something he put in engines.

Lastly, depending on the ship, parking close to him may just be insanely impractible. In the game me and Peter played, it would be completely suicidal for him to ever just stop anywhere by me, since I will speed change to get right next to him, and blow him to smithereens. (Me in a Hydran, with both fighters alive and available)