I agree that it's not something we should be super concerned about. I personally believe it is possible to increase your odds but not land exactly what you want. Whether possible or not, if your dice rolling habbit involves looking at the dice in your hands as you bounce them around till they're "just right" people are going think you have some secret technique. Find a new technique that doesn't bother people. Same reason I don't wear a shirt that says "I have a bomb" in the airport. It bothers people and you're going to have people judging you, right or wrong.

That's pretty much where I am with this too. Like I said, If you get a bad vibe off of the way someone does something and they aren't agreeable to some kind of compromise, quietly bring it up with the TO and ask them just to keep an eye on them. No need for an official ruling just yet.

But if something fishy does seem to be going on, the TO can handle it from there.

I agree that it's not something we should be super concerned about. I personally believe it is possible to increase your odds but not land exactly what you want. Whether possible or not, if your dice rolling habbit involves looking at the dice in your hands as you bounce them around till they're "just right" people are going think you have some secret technique. Find a new technique that doesn't bother people. Same reason I don't wear a shirt that says "I have a bomb" in the airport. It bothers people and you're going to have people judging you, right or wrong.

That's pretty much where I am with this too. Like I said, If you get a bad vibe off of the way someone does something and they aren't agreeable to some kind of compromise, quietly bring it up with the TO and ask them just to keep an eye on them. No need for an official ruling just yet.

But if something fishy does seem to be going on, the TO can handle it from there.

Exactly, if there ever is a ruling many xwingers will cry out in pain and suddenly be silenced.

A court case, a casino manager, numerous videos.

I've seen no link to a court case, and the only videos are of 6 siders which we've said the whole time doesn't prove a thing.

Doesn't prove a thing? It demonstrates that manipulating the outcome of a roll of a polyhedral object is possible. I've seen a lot of assertions that manipulating a d8 roll is more difficult than a d6 roll, yet there is nothing that quantifies how much more difficult in any way. Just a lot of people acting like because it is different, that makes it somehow impossible, rather than difficult or improbable.

To jump in another direction - I've also seen a lot of conflating magic with physical influences in this thread. The difference between a lucky hat and setting die faces is that there is a true physical interaction with setting the die faces that does change the result, regardless of whether or not it can be made to have a "positive" effect. This tells us that believing dice can be manipulated is at least plausible, even if highly unlikely, because a physical mechanism that affects the outcome is present. Meanwhile there is no believable significant physical interaction with your hat, and therefore it is not plausible to presume any ability for it to affect the outcome, let alone affect the outcome in a specifically desired way. That is the thing - one is plausible, while the other is not, and therefore, it is a totally ridiculous comparison to be using. It has not exactly about "intent" even if some would say so, but instead "intent with plausibility".

For the record, I don't want to be a dog in this fight. I don't really believe that dice rolling techniques have been implemented by X-Wing players, and though dice manipulation is plausible because your inputs affect the outputs, it is so improbable we don't need to spend another 13 pages discussing it. Mostly, I just abhor some of the discussion points and conclusions and feel the need to address them.

I think a better solution is to find BETTER data

That's what I've been asking for the whole time.Data that actually supports the idea that someone can control 3-4 X-Wing dice when they roll them. Instead we get videos linked to people trying to sell method of winning at craps, and then claims this proves it can be done.Now lets consider what you'd need to do to cheat with X-Wing dice.You would need to mark your dice in some way. X-Wing dice are not made with the same tolerance that Casino craps dice are. So you'd have to learn how each one rolls/bounces after impact. You'd also have to learn how much force it takes to influence that one die.Then you'd have to do that with each die, and mark it somehow so you know which ones you're rolling. The mere fact that you're rolling 3-4 dice pretty much kills this already. Because each one is going to need a different amount of force. Effectively you'd have to roll each die by itself to exert any real control.Then you'd have to know how they interact with the table. The problem there being that unlike a craps table, X-Wing tables are very, very variable. You can't know how level the table is, how much the floor slants, ect... You also can't know what surface you will be rolling on.So...If you have someone with marked dice, who rolls them one at a time, with the exact same motion, height from table, etc... but changes it for each die thrown, and spends 30+ minutes rolling them on each table before the tournament starts.Then you should call the TO over to investigate. But anything short of that, and you have someone with as much control over the dice as a lucky coin does.

I agree, sir.

This is why we need someone to create a mathematical model for dice rolling. Something like:

Randomness of Dice = [factor from throwing force]*(force used)+ [factor from table angle](table angle used) + [factor from table hardness]*(table hardness used) + [factor from hand placement]*(hand placement used) + 50 other things.

With the right assumptions, and a bunch of test setups that'll allow us to isolate and determine each "factor", it could definitely be possible. I'm pretty sure more difficult motions have been mathematically modeled. I'm picturing 100 different automated throwing machines, each set up to roll dice and determine how each input actually affects the output.

This would tell us how much "randomness" can be reduced by making one of these factors a constant, and we could understand what the dice manipulation actually does. At that point, we could determine if placing all dice on the same facing, or throwing with the exact same force, or something actually has a mathematical basis.

A court case, a casino manager, numerous videos.

I've seen no link to a court case, and the only videos are of 6 siders which we've said the whole time doesn't prove a thing.

Doesn't prove a thing? It demonstrates that manipulating the outcome of a roll of a polyhedral object is possible. I've seen a lot of assertions that manipulating a d8 roll is more difficult than a d6 roll, yet there is nothing that quantifies how much more difficult in any way. Just a lot of people acting like because it is different, that makes it somehow impossible, rather than difficult or improbable.

To jump in another direction - I've also seen a lot of conflating magic with physical influences in this thread. The difference between a lucky hat and setting die faces is that there is a true physical interaction with setting the die faces that does change the result, regardless of whether or not it can be made to have a "positive" effect. This tells us that believing dice can be manipulated is at least plausible, even if highly unlikely, because a physical mechanism that affects the outcome is present. Meanwhile there is no believable significant physical interaction with your hat, and therefore it is not plausible to presume any ability for it to affect the outcome, let alone affect the outcome in a specifically desired way. That is the thing - one is plausible, while the other is not, and therefore, it is a totally ridiculous comparison to be using. It has not exactly about "intent" even if some would say so, but instead "intent with plausibility".

For the record, I don't want to be a dog in this fight. I don't really believe that dice rolling techniques have been implemented by X-Wing players, and though dice manipulation is plausible because your inputs affect the outputs, it is so improbable we don't need to spend another 13 pages discussing it. Mostly, I just abhor some of the discussion points and conclusions and feel the need to address them.

Nice write up, however setting the die faces has just as much impact on the outcome as someone who prefers not to set die faces. Especially when the jumbling of the dice will mix everything up in the end so who's to say by me preferring not to set die faces that that input has a better outcome than someone who does set die faces. It all depends on your opinion of the matter I guess. The points about magic were being made because it really would require something special to be able to change each dice while they are in the air spinning random directions and hitting random directions on the table. Just my opinion tho.

It seems like dice setting / cheating is based around the idea that you'll try and throw the dice so they rotate around a particular axis. In doing so, with a 6 sided die, you can supposedly reduce the chance that 2 of faces will come up (eg: 6 and 1) since they will never be facing "up" as the dice spin.

I think there's a key difference between a D6 in a D8 in this regard:

You can throw a D6 so it rotates around an axis that passes through the center of 2 opposing faces (these are the 2 faces that are supposedly less likely to show up). I don't think you can do that with a D8.

If you draw an axis through the center of 2 faces on a six sided die, you have a rotational symmetry of order 4 (ie: if you rotate the cube around this axis it will "match" itself 4 times).

However, if you draw an axis through the center of 2 faces on an eight sided die, you have no such rotational symmetry.

I do not know of the physics involved, but I'd guess that such a rotational axis on an eight sided die would be "unstable". I have a feeling the only "stable" rotational axes of a D8 go through 2 vertices.

This would mean that there is no way to throw a D8 so 2 faces are never "up", as you can with a D6.

Edit: Ah ha! My Google Fu has found something!

Here's an article that sort of explains what I was trying to say, in laymen's terms, with links if you want to go down the rabbit hole: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24571

If you go down the rabbit hole a little... We need someone to calculate the principal axes of rotation for a cube and an octahedron.

It's harder, but not impossible, to control a die roll on a d8 than a d6 so let's not pretend that you can't cheat with dice.

Chaos Theory says hi.

Statistics tells it to get lost.

If I can roll my dice in such a way that I can improve their consistency I would have an extreme advantage. For example, on a d6 the 1 face and the 6 face are on opposite ends of the die, so if you roll the die, using your finger as a rail you can mitigate the likelihood of those two results occuring. Doing so increases the chances that your dice behave closer to their expected value and as anyone can tell you: Mediocre and consistent will win more over time than streaks of hot followed by streaks of cold.

Again, Chaos Theory says it's impossible to throw them in such a way, therefore your Statistics can take a hike.

You can pretend all you want that your "mad throwing skilz" can net you an advantage, but clearly you're ignorant about basic quantum and molecular physics if you think that it actually works in the real world.

Here's a challenge: post a video of you throwing the dice twenty times the normal way and twenty times the "speshul" way and compare the two. I guarantee it will be a negligible difference, if any.

Did I say that *I* could do it? No, I said it was possible and then no less than two real world examples were shown of people rigging dice rolls using otherwise fair dice. I get that you REALLY want to believe that it can't be done but it can be.

Which examples would those be? The ones with the modified dice?

The burden of proof is on you and those who likewise believe that physics is bunk when it comes to throwing dice. Prove that they can be modified by setting up a controlled experiment wherein you roll several dice using special methods to control their results against a control group of random dice throwing.

If you can do that, or find someone who has done so and posted the results, I'll believe it's possible, despite every known physical law saying that it's not.

Edit: Ah ha! My Google Fu has found something!

Here's an article that sort of explains what I was trying to say, in laymen's terms, with links if you want to go down the rabbit hole: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24571

If you go down the rabbit hole a little... We need someone to calculate the principal axes of rotation for a cube and an octahedron.

That page says that a three-dimensional object will most likely rotate in the direction with the lowest moment of inertia. Since all directions of a cube and an octahedron have exactly the same moment of inertia, the conclusion is that there is no way to predict how they will tumble.

BTW, it's worth noting that all the dice control pages are focused on 6-sided dice. A cube has a HUGE advantage in being controlled over an octahedron, for the simple reason that while cubes can roll with enough inertia, an octahedron will not. Each time it rolls past a face and onto a point, there is a chance that it will change direction, while cubes will continue in the same direction because of Newton's First Law, since they will roll in a direction perpendicular to their edges.

A court case, a casino manager, numerous videos.

I've seen no link to a court case, and the only videos are of 6 siders which we've said the whole time doesn't prove a thing.

Doesn't prove a thing? It demonstrates that manipulating the outcome of a roll of a polyhedral object is possible. I've seen a lot of assertions that manipulating a d8 roll is more difficult than a d6 roll, yet there is nothing that quantifies how much more difficult in any way. Just a lot of people acting like because it is different, that makes it somehow impossible, rather than difficult or improbable.

To jump in another direction - I've also seen a lot of conflating magic with physical influences in this thread. The difference between a lucky hat and setting die faces is that there is a true physical interaction with setting the die faces that does change the result, regardless of whether or not it can be made to have a "positive" effect. This tells us that believing dice can be manipulated is at least plausible, even if highly unlikely, because a physical mechanism that affects the outcome is present. Meanwhile there is no believable significant physical interaction with your hat, and therefore it is not plausible to presume any ability for it to affect the outcome, let alone affect the outcome in a specifically desired way. That is the thing - one is plausible, while the other is not, and therefore, it is a totally ridiculous comparison to be using. It has not exactly about "intent" even if some would say so, but instead "intent with plausibility".

For the record, I don't want to be a dog in this fight. I don't really believe that dice rolling techniques have been implemented by X-Wing players, and though dice manipulation is plausible because your inputs affect the outputs, it is so improbable we don't need to spend another 13 pages discussing it. Mostly, I just abhor some of the discussion points and conclusions and feel the need to address them.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is completely impossible. Just staggeringly unlikely. Humanity doesn't know everything and can't know everything. Until we do know+ everything we don't know is trapped with a cat in Schrodinger's box.)

A court case, a casino manager, numerous videos.

I've seen no link to a court case, and the only videos are of 6 siders which we've said the whole time doesn't prove a thing.

Doesn't prove a thing? It demonstrates that manipulating the outcome of a roll of a polyhedral object is possible. I've seen a lot of assertions that manipulating a d8 roll is more difficult than a d6 roll, yet there is nothing that quantifies how much more difficult in any way. Just a lot of people acting like because it is different, that makes it somehow impossible, rather than difficult or improbable.

To jump in another direction - I've also seen a lot of conflating magic with physical influences in this thread. The difference between a lucky hat and setting die faces is that there is a true physical interaction with setting the die faces that does change the result, regardless of whether or not it can be made to have a "positive" effect. This tells us that believing dice can be manipulated is at least plausible, even if highly unlikely, because a physical mechanism that affects the outcome is present. Meanwhile there is no believable significant physical interaction with your hat, and therefore it is not plausible to presume any ability for it to affect the outcome, let alone affect the outcome in a specifically desired way. That is the thing - one is plausible, while the other is not, and therefore, it is a totally ridiculous comparison to be using. It has not exactly about "intent" even if some would say so, but instead "intent with plausibility".

For the record, I don't want to be a dog in this fight. I don't really believe that dice rolling techniques have been implemented by X-Wing players, and though dice manipulation is plausible because your inputs affect the outputs, it is so improbable we don't need to spend another 13 pages discussing it. Mostly, I just abhor some of the discussion points and conclusions and feel the need to address them.

On magic. The point is that the ability to manipulate the dice is as implausible as magic. Both possibly exist, but are vastly unlikely and unprovable.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is completely impossible. Just staggeringly unlikely. Humanity doesn't know everything and can't know everything. Until we do know+ everything we don't know is trapped with a cat in Schrodinger's box.)

I don't disagree that being able to manipulate the dice to provide some positive gain is highly improbable to the point of approaching impossible. I disagree that there is an equivalence to magic though. The end result of a die roll is based entirely on physical forces and initial conditions that we as humans mostly understand, even if we cannot duplicate the conditions accurately enough in the physical world to take advantage of it. We could create a simulation where the identical inputs yield the identical outputs using the variables we understand to be involved. The idea that wearing a hat could have anything of similar effect is entirely different because it relies on an some force or ability that is unknown or supernatural, because there is no known worldly connection between the hat and the outcome of die rolls. No simulation could be created without first making some additional scientific discovery of the manner in which hats affect die rolls. Absent that, it is equivalent to magic.

But this is just a digression on why the lucky hat is a poor analogy, and not a case that dice manipulation is a thing. Like I said, I just abhor the equivalency attempting to be made between the two and not necessarily the dismissal of "concerns" over dice manipulation.

A court case, a casino manager, numerous videos.

I've seen no link to a court case, and the only videos are of 6 siders which we've said the whole time doesn't prove a thing.

Doesn't prove a thing? It demonstrates that manipulating the outcome of a roll of a polyhedral object is possible. I've seen a lot of assertions that manipulating a d8 roll is more difficult than a d6 roll, yet there is nothing that quantifies how much more difficult in any way. Just a lot of people acting like because it is different, that makes it somehow impossible, rather than difficult or improbable.

To jump in another direction - I've also seen a lot of conflating magic with physical influences in this thread. The difference between a lucky hat and setting die faces is that there is a true physical interaction with setting the die faces that does change the result, regardless of whether or not it can be made to have a "positive" effect. This tells us that believing dice can be manipulated is at least plausible, even if highly unlikely, because a physical mechanism that affects the outcome is present. Meanwhile there is no believable significant physical interaction with your hat, and therefore it is not plausible to presume any ability for it to affect the outcome, let alone affect the outcome in a specifically desired way. That is the thing - one is plausible, while the other is not, and therefore, it is a totally ridiculous comparison to be using. It has not exactly about "intent" even if some would say so, but instead "intent with plausibility".

For the record, I don't want to be a dog in this fight. I don't really believe that dice rolling techniques have been implemented by X-Wing players, and though dice manipulation is plausible because your inputs affect the outputs, it is so improbable we don't need to spend another 13 pages discussing it. Mostly, I just abhor some of the discussion points and conclusions and feel the need to address them.

On magic. The point is that the ability to manipulate the dice is as implausible as magic. Both possibly exist, but are vastly unlikely and unprovable.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is completely impossible. Just staggeringly unlikely. Humanity doesn't know everything and can't know everything. Until we do know+ everything we don't know is trapped with a cat in Schrodinger's box.)

I don't disagree that being able to manipulate the dice to provide some positive gain is highly improbable to the point of approaching impossible. I disagree that there is an equivalence to magic though. The end result of a die roll is based entirely on physical forces and initial conditions that we as humans mostly understand, even if we cannot duplicate the conditions accurately enough in the physical world to take advantage of it. We could create a simulation where the identical inputs yield the identical outputs using the variables we understand to be involved. The idea that wearing a hat could have anything of similar effect is entirely different because it relies on an some force or ability that is unknown or supernatural, because there is no known worldly connection between the hat and the outcome of die rolls. No simulation could be created without first making some additional scientific discovery of the manner in which hats affect die rolls. Absent that, it is equivalent to magic.

But this is just a digression on why the lucky hat is a poor analogy, and not a case that dice manipulation is a thing. Like I said, I just abhor the equivalency attempting to be made between the two and not necessarily the dismissal of "concerns" over dice manipulation.

The lucky hat analogy came into play when it was suggested that even the thought of cheating constituted it as cheating. So someone said so if I think my hat is lucky and I wear it is that cheating as well? Something like that. As far as the end result being based entirely on physical forces and initial conditions is lacking somewhat in my opinion. How about post initial conditions such as the spin of the dice once it leaves your hand and the subsequent bumping into other dice? How can one have control of these factors without some sort of magical skill?

There are a few questions that people need to ask themselves:

Is cheating wrong?

Is trying to cheat wrong?

Is attempting to manipulate the outcome of an event that is meant to be random an effort to cheat?

I can't imagine that anyone would say no to any of those questions. So, the only thing left at issue if why certain attempts at manipulating the outcome of a random event are acceptable. So, more questions:

Is adding weight to dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is requesting that the all powerful creator of the universe 'push' the dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is rolling the dice in a practiced manner in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is doing _________ in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

For each question, the answer has to be yes. Doing anything that you believe will reduce the ramdomness of a die roll is an attempt to cheat. It really is that simple. The fact that your prayers to a man in the clouds and rubbing your rabbits foot will not make a difference does not mean that you are not trying to cheat the other player by reducing randomness - it only means that you are not particularly bright.

My guess is that people criticize this conclusion because attempts to control the outcome of a competition by invoking luck and cosmic forces are so common. The other likely explanation is that it is criticized because the invocation of things like Allah and unwashed underwear do not have a demonstrable effect on the outcome of anything. But, remember that an action taken by an individual who honestly believes that it will produce a certain result is an attempt to acheive that result no matter how misguided the action is.

This is why I shuffle the dice in my hand then fling the dice up in to the air so that they bounce and roll once they hit the table, I get moaned at because sometimes they knock into ships when I get excited and try to make my dice hit the ceiling and the table but hey, no one can say anything when I roll (and this happened at a regional against a Shuttle):

hit, crit

focus, crit

crit, focus

crit, crit

hit, focus, crit (used a target lock as well).

That was eleven hits in total, with massive hang time on my dice and I was rotating between the six red dice I had available. Never rolled that well again for the rest of the game.

However, if someone wants to place all his dice in the palm of his hand, ensuring a certain facing is showing, then gently rotate his hand so that the dice trickle down his sweaty hand and caress the star mat like a baby reaching for its mother for the first time, then hey, go for it. if it means you never roll a miss? Well, hey, you need to win a lot more then I do my friend.

There are a few questions that people need to ask themselves:

Is cheating wrong?

Is trying to cheat wrong?

Is attempting to manipulate the outcome of an event that is meant to be random an effort to cheat?

I can't imagine that anyone would say no to any of those questions. So, the only thing left at issue if why certain attempts at manipulating the outcome of a random event are acceptable. So, more questions:

Is adding weight to dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is requesting that the all powerful creator of the universe 'push' the dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is rolling the dice in a practiced manner in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is doing _________ in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

For each question, the answer has to be yes. Doing anything that you believe will reduce the ramdomness of a die roll is an attempt to cheat. It really is that simple. The fact that your prayers to a man in the clouds and rubbing your rabbits foot will not make a difference does not mean that you are not trying to cheat the other player by reducing randomness - it only means that you are not particularly bright.

My guess is that people criticize this conclusion because attempts to control the outcome of a competition by invoking luck and cosmic forces are so common. The other likely explanation is that it is criticized because the invocation of things like Allah and unwashed underwear do not have a demonstrable effect on the outcome of anything. But, remember that an action taken by an individual who honestly believes that it will produce a certain result is an attempt to acheive that result no matter how misguided the action is.

Without success, it just isn't cheating. And I really don't care what impossible task you try to fail at.

(Of note, I made this point earlier in the thread too.)

Suceeding at manipulating the dice is cheating. But I do not believe that success is possible without modifying the dice(which is cheating) And neither should ANY of you. Because believing that leads to confirmation bias leads to getting mad at the lucky guy and fhe superstitous guy and the slightly overcompetative guy and all of that leads to unpleasant game environments. Assume the best in your opponents. You'll be sooooooooooo much happier. Cheater Lynch Mobs destroy gaming communities worse than angry gamers. Do Not Be That Guy.

We could create a simulation where the identical inputs yield the identical outputs using the variables we understand to be involved.

In theory you could control the dice, if you could control every variable involved in rolling them. The number of dice involved increases the number of variables. I would accept that with enough practice someone could control a single precision made 6 sided die to some degree. But doing so would require a known surface set to a precise level.

When you start throwing in 3-4 mass produced 8 sided dice, on an unknown surface at an unknown level, the ability to exert any control over those dice reaches the likelihood of magic controlling them.

There's methods of controlling dice, that involve not actually rolling them. We aren't talking about those however. It's assumed that the dice fall on to the able, bounce 2-4 times at least and roll some distance. At that point a lucky coin has as much effect as any method of rolling the dice.

But this is just a digression on why the lucky hat is a poor analogy, and not a case that dice manipulation is a thing.

As was pointed out, mostly the lucky hat thing is about intent. People have tried to claim that the mere intent of controlling the dice is a form of cheating. Since I reject any possible control over dice in any real meaning, then accusing someone of cheating because they believe they can do so, is no different than accusing someone of cheating because they believe their hat makes them lucky. After all a lucky hat will have the same effect, none, but is an attempt to exert control over the dice.

But this is just a digression on why the lucky hat is a poor analogy, and not a case that dice manipulation is a thing.

As was pointed out, mostly the lucky hat thing is about intent. People have tried to claim that the mere intent of controlling the dice is a form of cheating. Since I reject any possible control over dice in any real meaning, then accusing someone of cheating because they believe they can do so, is no different than accusing someone of cheating because they believe their hat makes them lucky. After all a lucky hat will have the same effect, none, but is an attempt to exert control over the dice.

I wonder what the people who say the intent to cheat is what's important would think about someone who is superstitious about their dice rolling?

What if I'm superstitious and, whenever I roll my attack dice, I set them all in my hand crit-side up. Then I clasp my hands together, say a prayer to the dice gods and roll them across the table, and they bounce around a bunch.

• Maybe I've never looked up any form of dice control. Or maybe I'm a trained dice-cheating professional that has this "ritual" only to camouflage my dice cheating.
• Maybe I know that, objectively, my dice rolling ritual doesn't affect the results one bit, but I like my superstitions. Or maybe I actually believe that my ritual gives me better luck and I only do it for crucial rolls. - again, you don't really know what I'm thinking.

The point is, as an external observer, you don't know if I'm an cheater, or if I'm just some bloke who's superstitious.

That said, will you say that I'm attempting to influence the results, and therefore I'm cheating?

What if I'm actually lucky that day and every time I go through my ritual I roll nothing but hits, will this be enough evidence to show that I'm cheating?

But this is just a digression on why the lucky hat is a poor analogy, and not a case that dice manipulation is a thing.

As was pointed out, mostly the lucky hat thing is about intent. People have tried to claim that the mere intent of controlling the dice is a form of cheating. Since I reject any possible control over dice in any real meaning, then accusing someone of cheating because they believe they can do so, is no different than accusing someone of cheating because they believe their hat makes them lucky. After all a lucky hat will have the same effect, none, but is an attempt to exert control over the dice.

I wonder what the people who say the intent to cheat is what's important would think about someone who is superstitious about their dice rolling?

What if I'm superstitious and, whenever I roll my attack dice, I set them all in my hand crit-side up. Then I clasp my hands together, say a prayer to the dice gods and roll them across the table, and they bounce around a bunch.

• Maybe I've never looked up any form of dice control. Or maybe I'm a trained dice-cheating professional that has this "ritual" only to camouflage my dice cheating.
• Maybe I know that, objectively, my dice rolling ritual doesn't affect the results one bit, but I like my superstitions. Or maybe I actually believe that my ritual gives me better luck and I only do it for crucial rolls. - again, you don't really know what I'm thinking.

The point is, as an external observer, you don't know if I'm an cheater, or if I'm just some bloke who's superstitious.

That said, will you say that I'm attempting to influence the results, and therefore I'm cheating?

What if I'm actually lucky that day and every time I go through my ritual I roll nothing but hits, will this be enough evidence to show that I'm cheating?

Confirmation bias is a terrifying thing.

I guess I'm just glad I don't have anyone in my gaming group that is that fickle about dice rolling. I can't imagine not being able to wear my favorite SF Giants hat or shirt for fear if I roll all hits I'll be called a cheat.

To bring it back to X-Wing, lets say that I try to microwave my dice to roll more hits. Without my knowledge, my scrappy old microwave jostles the die on its busted spinning plate and doesn't change the weight distribution. I then go to a tournament and use that die. You are suggesting that I did not do anything wrong? That is ridiculous.

I wonder what the people who say the intent to cheat is what's important would think about someone who is superstitious about their dice rolling?

That said, will you say that I'm attempting to influence the results, and therefore I'm cheating?

I would say two things:

1) That person is an idiot; and

2) If that person is genuinely trying to effect the outcome of the dice though hodoo, magic, the force, or standing on one foot, then they are trying to manipulate the dice and are trying to cheat - which is no different than trying to melt them.

So lest test the idea behind your confusion. Lets say that you were walking down the street and a guy creeps up behind you. He has a bucket of water in his hands and honestly believes that, because it was a full moon last night, if and when he dumps it over your head, it will burn you to death. He dumps the water on your head.

That guy is obviously not a murderer, but how much better is he? Keep in mind that he believed he would kill you and attempted to do so.

How about someone who tries to slip a woman a roofie at a bar and accidentally drops an advil in her drink?

How about someone who tries to make a bomb but only ends producing some foul smelling smoke in their target busy intersection?

Attempting to do something is not the same as actually doing it, but to suggest that an attempt doesn't mean anything is outrageous and I don't think that anyone honestly believes that.

There are a few questions that people need to ask themselves:

Is cheating wrong?

Is trying to cheat wrong?

Is attempting to manipulate the outcome of an event that is meant to be random an effort to cheat?

I can't imagine that anyone would say no to any of those questions. So, the only thing left at issue if why certain attempts at manipulating the outcome of a random event are acceptable. So, more questions:

Is adding weight to dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is requesting that the all powerful creator of the universe 'push' the dice in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is rolling the dice in a practiced manner in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

Is doing _________ in order to roll more hits an attempt to cheat?

For each question, the answer has to be yes. Doing anything that you believe will reduce the ramdomness of a die roll is an attempt to cheat. It really is that simple. The fact that your prayers to a man in the clouds and rubbing your rabbits foot will not make a difference does not mean that you are not trying to cheat the other player by reducing randomness - it only means that you are not particularly bright.

My guess is that people criticize this conclusion because attempts to control the outcome of a competition by invoking luck and cosmic forces are so common. The other likely explanation is that it is criticized because the invocation of things like Allah and unwashed underwear do not have a demonstrable effect on the outcome of anything. But, remember that an action taken by an individual who honestly believes that it will produce a certain result is an attempt to acheive that result no matter how misguided the action is.

I say No to trying and failing to cheat. It isn't wrong unless you're actually breaking the rules. If you try to speed in your car and it won't let you you donot get a ticket. You aren't speeding.

Without success, it just isn't cheating. And I really don't care what impossible task you try to fail at.

(Of note, I made this point earlier in the thread too.)

Suceeding at manipulating the dice is cheating. But I do not believe that success is possible without modifying the dice(which is cheating) And neither should ANY of you. Because believing that leads to confirmation bias leads to getting mad at the lucky guy and fhe superstitous guy and the slightly overcompetative guy and all of that leads to unpleasant game environments. Assume the best in your opponents. You'll be sooooooooooo much happier. Cheater Lynch Mobs destroy gaming communities worse than angry gamers. Do Not Be That Guy.

Trying to do something wrong and failing is wrong and constitutes a valid reason for punishment. If someone tried to hit you in the face with a golf club but the club slipped from their grasp at the last second and shot past your head, that would be an attempted battery.

To bring it back to X-Wing, lets say that I try to microwave my dice to roll more hits. Without my knowledge, my scrappy old microwave jostles the die on its busted spinning plate and doesn't change the weight distribution. I then go to a tournament and use that die. You are suggesting that I did not do anything wrong? That is ridiculous.

I wonder what the people who say the intent to cheat is what's important would think about someone who is superstitious about their dice rolling?

That said, will you say that I'm attempting to influence the results, and therefore I'm cheating?

I would say two things:

1) That person is an idiot; and

2) If that person is genuinely trying to effect the outcome of the dice though hodoo, magic, the force, or standing on one foot, then they are trying to manipulate the dice and are trying to cheat - which is no different than trying to melt them.

So lest test the idea behind your confusion. Lets say that you were walking down the street and a guy creeps up behind you. He has a bucket of water in his hands and honestly believes that, because it was a full moon last night, if and when he dumps it over your head, it will burn you to death. He dumps the water on your head.

That guy is obviously not a murderer, but how much better is he? Keep in mind that he believed he would kill you and attempted to do so.

How about someone who tries to slip a woman a roofie at a bar and accidentally drops an advil in her drink?

How about someone who tries to make a bomb but only ends producing some foul smelling smoke in their target busy intersection?

Attempting to do something is not the same as actually doing it, but to suggest that an attempt doesn't mean anything is outrageous and I don't think that anyone honestly believes that.

I specifically picked a law where when you fail at it it's not against the law and not trying to harm anyone. Because this is a game and there is no harm trying the freaking impossible. Even if that impossible is trying to cheat. I just don't care. Because it's so vastly unlikely they can cheat that levelling an accusation of cheating at someone is akin to telling them they're going to win the lottery. You're doing more harm through the accusation and worry then they are through trying the impossible.

I guess all sports teams must be cheats now too since before their games they huddle up and ask god to grant them victory. Does that constitute trying to change an outcome even if they end up losing? Are they cheats too? Just some questions to consider if we are going to follow along that logic.

I guess all sports teams must be cheats now too since before their games they huddle up and ask god to grant them victory. Does that constitute trying to change an outcome even if they end up losing? Are they cheats too? Just some questions to consider if we are going to follow along that logic.

No because the supernatural by definition does not exist in nature and so can't effect the outcome of events that occur in nature.

I guess all sports teams must be cheats now too since before their games they huddle up and ask god to grant them victory. Does that constitute trying to change an outcome even if they end up losing? Are they cheats too? Just some questions to consider if we are going to follow along that logic.

No because the supernatural by definition does not exist in nature and so can't effect the outcome of events that occur in nature.

2) If that person is genuinely trying to effect the outcome of the dice though hodoo, magic, the force, or standing on one foot, then they are trying to manipulate the dice and are trying to cheat - which is no different than trying to melt them.

Aaaaand we're back to the magic hat scenario. Yay.

I guess all sports teams must be cheats now too since before their games they huddle up and ask god to grant them victory. Does that constitute trying to change an outcome even if they end up losing? Are they cheats too? Just some questions to consider if we are going to follow along that logic.

No because the supernatural by definition does not exist in nature and so can't effect the outcome of events that occur in nature.

And if we continue down the path of religious beliefs we're gonna get this thread locked.

Which might not be a bad idea at this point...