But my argument stands, if you roll dice with the exact same method, table, same dice, etc, you WILL get the exact same results.

I don't think anyone would disagree. Just don't think it's possible in a X-Wing tournament to do that. Especially when you don't use the same table for every game.

And it IS possible that there are certain aspects, like the rolling technique and dice position in hand, that could have a greater influence on the over all result.

In theory possible, but not proven, and IMO so hard to do as to be practically impossible. So until we can prove that there is some method used that does change the odds there's no point in making a rule against it.

If someone could prove even a 10% change in expected odds over 1000 rolls I'd be all for banning that method of dice rolling. But until someone actually does that we're talking about calling someone a cheater over something that is at best only possible in theory.

But my argument stands, if you roll dice with the exact same method, table, same dice, etc, you WILL get the exact same results.

I don't think anyone would disagree. Just don't think it's possible in a X-Wing tournament to do that. Especially when you don't use the same table for every game.

And it IS possible that there are certain aspects, like the rolling technique and dice position in hand, that could have a greater influence on the over all result.

It is possible, but not proven. So until we can prove that there is some method used that does change the odds there's no point in making a rule against it.

That's ridiculous logic. AGAIN, it's not up to the person who is rolling funny. It's up to the opponents, or to the TO if the person isn't going to be sporting about it. Cheating is NOT an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

If a teacher catches you looking at a classmate's test, they can't prove you copied their answer, but they sure as hell can rip up your test.

If a pitcher gets caught rubbing pine tar on the ball, they can't statistically prove that it gave the ball enough sink that the last X-number of batters would have made contact or not.

If a hitter uses a corked bat, goes 0 for 4, and has the bat confiscated before getting a hit, it's still cheating even if they never hit anything with it.

Nobody is going to sit around proving that a person's dice are landing better because of their roll style at a tournament and, as you're so worried about, "eating up the TO's precious time." It's absolutely about intent, and even if nobody can prove anything, according to the authorities or the majority, if it's not okay with them, it's not okay to keep doing. Nobody's going to want to play with a guy who says "you can't prove anything" after suggesting they are attempting to gain an advantage.

Also, think about pro sports players, who hone the ability to shoot a free throw the exact same way, or hit a golf ball the exact same way. The best Pros are the ones who can produce more consistent results than others.

I know that this doesn't apply to X Wing and dice, since with dice we are LOOKING for Random.

But honestly, it makes me think that Physical Dice are NOT the most random tools, and we can probably obtain a higher degree of Randomness by using a high end Random Number Generator to determine dice results.

To improve the Physical Dice Randomness, we would have to require that players do not roll dice with the exact same technique, and do not purposely place dice in the same position in their hand, with the same hit/miss result facing.

I don't think a Dice Tower solves anything unless you require a similar level of "players need to actively put dice in the tower using random techniques. It stands to reason that dropping a dice in the tower with the same facing and force each time WILL give you similar results (the exact same in an ideal setup using some machine to drop the dice into the tower(.

I think it IS possible, that I could go home, quit my job, pick up 3 dice, and in 10,000 hours master the art of rolling these dice the exact same way, and I could end up with more consistent dice results than I did before this, and as long as I am on a wooden table of a similar (not exact) surface, I could take this technique to a tournament and use it to roll better dice.

It is also true that some people have better muscle control and can already produce very consistent movements without much practice, so it stands to reason there are people that can already do this.

Of course, I'd have to perfect a technique that gives me more hits, otherwise it is useless.

@VanorDM

I'm not advocating any rules, and before an hour ago when I started thinking about the Physics behind a dice roll, I thought our dice rolling technique had no input. But now I DO think dice rolling CAN be influenced, and Physics seems to agree with me, if we can reduce as much of the "non ideal" scenarios as we can.

So it COULD be a problem, and players are not totally off base if they ask an opponent to change up his dice rolling technique, because it WILL give you slightly more consistent results if you use the same technique each time, including dice facing in hand.

I'm not saying it is a huge % more consistent, but it is possible it is 5% more consistent, or 20%, but that is only a guess.

Cheating is NOT an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

I see so someone is a cheater just because you accuse them of it, and if they can't prove they weren't they should be removed from the event...

If a teacher catches you looking at a classmate's test, they can't prove you copied their answer, but they sure as hell can rip up your test.

Yes, because looking at someone else test is against the rules. I have no issue with someone calling over the TO because they think someone is cheating. But if I'm the TO that person better have something to back up that claim.

Because accusing someone of cheating without any sort of evidence to back it up is the height of poor sportsmanship. If nothing else, it's going to ruin the game for at least one player if not both.

Also, think about pro sports players, who hone the ability to shoot a free throw the exact same way, or hit a golf ball the exact same way.

But they can't. The best free throw shooter doesn't hit 100%. The best golfers don't have perfect drives every time. The best pitcher doesn't throw a perfect game every time.

Because even pro athletes can not replicate with 100% accuracy. If a pro athlete can't do that, then I don't see anyone doing it with X-Wing dice either.

Now maybe you could control the dice to the point you can influence the outcome to some degree on your own table. But as soon as you change the table then I believe all control goes out the window.

To summarize:

1. Based on the Physics behind a dice roll, dice results could be influenced if the exact same inputs are used, or even with very similar inputs each time.

2. It IS possible for a person to work to reduce this variance by using a very consistent rolling technique. (% influence is unknown)

3. I think it is okay to ask your opponent to not move the facing of his dice before rolling, since this DOES influence the results.

4. I think it is okay to ask your opponent to change how he physically rolls the dice, just to ensure more randomness.

5. I do NOT advocate doing this on the argument that "player X rolled way more hits than expected". I only advocate doing this to actually add more randomness to dice results, which is what I think people want with their dice.

Cheating is NOT an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

I see so someone is a cheater just because you accuse them of it, and if they can't prove they weren't they should be removed from the event...

If a teacher catches you looking at a classmate's test, they can't prove you copied their answer, but they sure as hell can rip up your test.

Yes, because looking at someone else test is against the rules. I have no issue with someone calling over the TO because they think someone is cheating. But if I'm the TO that person better have something to back up that claim.Because accusing someone of cheating without any sort of evidence to back it up is the height of poor sportsmanship. If nothing else, it's going to ruin the game for at least one player if not both.

Also, think about pro sports players, who hone the ability to shoot a free throw the exact same way, or hit a golf ball the exact same way.

But they can't. The best free throw shooter doesn't hit 100%. The best golfers don't have perfect drives every time. The best pitcher doesn't throw a perfect game every time. Because even pro athletes can not replicate with 100% accuracy. If a pro athlete can't do that, then I don't see anyone doing it with X-Wing dice either.Now maybe you could control the dice to the point you can influence the outcome to some degree on your own table. But as soon as you change the table then I believe all control goes out the window.

I think we're done here... As long as you're going to twist everyone's words and make wildly off-base claims.

3. I think it is okay to ask your opponent to not move the facing of his dice before rolling, since this DOES influence the results.

4. I think it is okay to ask your opponent to change how he physically rolls the dice, just to ensure more randomness.

I agree, it's ok to ask. Assuming that the person throws exactly the same way (with in the realm of humans being able to do anything exactly the same thing).

But that doesn't mean someone throwing dice the same way every time rises to the level of cheating.

which is what I think people want with their dice.

No it's what I want with the other persons dice, I want mine to roll well, or at least consistently. I don't think I've ever heard anyone cheer "Go Dice be completely random!!"

Cheating is NOT an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

I see so someone is a cheater just because you accuse them of it, and if they can't prove they weren't they should be removed from the event...

If a teacher catches you looking at a classmate's test, they can't prove you copied their answer, but they sure as hell can rip up your test.

Yes, because looking at someone else test is against the rules. I have no issue with someone calling over the TO because they think someone is cheating. But if I'm the TO that person better have something to back up that claim.Because accusing someone of cheating without any sort of evidence to back it up is the height of poor sportsmanship. If nothing else, it's going to ruin the game for at least one player if not both.

Also, think about pro sports players, who hone the ability to shoot a free throw the exact same way, or hit a golf ball the exact same way.

But they can't. The best free throw shooter doesn't hit 100%. The best golfers don't have perfect drives every time. The best pitcher doesn't throw a perfect game every time. Because even pro athletes can not replicate with 100% accuracy. If a pro athlete can't do that, then I don't see anyone doing it with X-Wing dice either.Now maybe you could control the dice to the point you can influence the outcome to some degree on your own table. But as soon as you change the table then I believe all control goes out the window.

I don't mean 100%. But the Pros will surely make way more Free Throws than me. They have MORE control over that particular muscle movement than me, so they produce more consistent results. They reduce the variance caused by "human error" by practicing and training their brain to better control those muscles. I'd think people can do this with Coins or Dice as well. It's just a matter of "what % can we actually influence as humans".

Edit: removing what I said.

Bottom line is, that if you're going to make an accusation of cheating, you better have more to go on then "I don't like how he does something."

It's just a matter of "what % can we actually influence as humans".

Then it comes down to a question of how much effect does where you roll the dice matter. If you're at a tournament then you no longer have control over the surface you're rolling on. The height of the table, how level the table is, the temp, ect...

How much impact are those variables going to have? I believe they'll have enough impact that you can no longer have any meaningful control over the dice.

You may be right, but you'll never prove it. I have seen a way to roll a d20 that curiously lands on the number you are aiming for. I even tested it out and it seemed to work. So it is possible.

@VanorDM

You're right on that point!

I don't think it is cheating, unless someone some day writes an article and does a study showing me that his human influence can produce X % more consistent results.

I'm just trying to advocate that dice are not actually random if you use the same inputs.

Maybe people don't like Vassal dice because they are actually MORE random. I know on the table top I roll my dice with the same general technique, not necessarily on purpose, but that's just how I roll dice.

So idk, we should just all move to a Statician Cerified Random Number Generator. No one could argue if I was shown that a program that actually produces more random dice results than hand rolled dice.

I'm just trying to advocate that dice are not actually random if you use the same inputs.

And I agree. I just don't think it can be controlled enough to have an actual impact on the game.

No one could argue if I was shown that a program that actually produces more random dice results than hand rolled dice.

Don't know if you saw it, and I think it was here. But someone did in fact build a machine to test X-Wing dice. Was interesting.

My issue is that per some people the mere fact that you think you can control the dice means you're cheating. Accusing someone of cheating is a serious thing and needs more behind it then just "well in theory he may roll 2 more <hits> then he should."

We are after all making a charge that can have someone removed from the event, or even banned from the store.

I believe that dice control has as much effect as a lucky coin, and if we're going to call one cheating then logically we have to call the other one cheating as well. At least until someone can provide even some minor evidence that dice control works with X-Wing dice.

Also, I came into this discussion late, so I didn't read a lot of what people posted, so I might have missed some of the more "heated" discussions. I apologize if I added any fuel to the fire.

I honestly just got excited because I wanted to be the first person to create a machine that flipped a coin to produce the exact same result, and it was a relevant topic to this discussion. I hate being born so far into this Scientific age. These days, coming up with something new requires a PHD level of understanding. Too many minds out there nowadays.

One final thought before I leave for the weekend.

Vorpal mentioned above about drawing from the bottom of the deck or shuffling the deck every time you draw a card.

I want to revisit that because it makes a better case IMO for what I'm saying.

We could debate if dice control works or not, and never get anywhere unless someone was willing to devote a Lot of time to learning how and then doing a statically meaningful test. Problem there is failure isn't really proof either way. I could say that after 250 hours of practice that failure proves it doesn't work, and someone else could say it just proves you need more then 250 hours.

Logically both are possible.

But dealing from the bottom of the deck or shuffling. Unless you believe that the order of cards in the deck matters then neither of those things will have any impact on the game. Even if someone stacked the deck, once other guy shuffles it, then the stack is gone.

So if someone is dealing from the bottom, does it really hurt anything? Is it in fact cheating? It may look odd but does that mean the TO needs to get involved? The person may do that out of superstition or some other reason, like in memory of a friend... Either way they want to do it that way, should the TO make them stop just because the other person doesn't like it?

Again it clearly has zero effect on the game, so why should one persons preference matter more the other persons. Perhaps it's the libertarian in me, but if it causes someone else no harm, then they have no say over if I can or can't do it.

Exactly, I think throughout this whole thread people keep missing the fact that if you decide to place your dice a certain way in your hand because you THINK it will help you, DID IT ACTUALLY HELP YOU?! Until someone proves that placing hits face up and rolling the same way each time from the same distance above the mat actually results in increased number of hits then we may have something to talk about. But seriously no one is perfect and there's no way you can recreate the exact same roll each time unless your just slamming them on the table. Even if someone drops them they will still vary each time. Some things to consider. If opponent drops them are they hitting the table at the same time? Is each dice pointing exactly the same direction when they are released and upon subsequent impact? Is each dice hitting the exact same spot as it hit the previous time? Are the same number of dice being rolled each time? Did you drink water or go to the bathroom within the last 2 hours (bloating or non bloating of hands could affect dice rolls)? Seriously all these things would have to be taken into account for someone to consistently affect their dice rolls. Until you know for sure all these things then as long as your opponent is rolling the dice or dropping them as long as they bang around and hit each other let them fondle their dice as much as they want.

Both sides have interesting arguments.

But to say something to the statistic:

For the defense die for example, it is not about trying to roll a certain side out of 8 possible sides. It is about to avoid the blank sides. If you split up the defense die into two 4-sided halves (doesn´t matter from which perspective you look), you will always see that one half has only one blank side, but the other half has two blank sides. So you have different rolling distances to get to either the one-blank-half or the two-blank-side (the problem zone). You just want to avoid that "problem zone" on your dice. And that is easier to influence than something like "roll a 6"

Prior rolling, if you see 3 icons on the top, theoretically you could try to roll a certain distance to statistically avoid certain zones on the die. And that is very well by far easier to influence.

Nevertheless, whether it is possible or not, nobody knows exactly. Therefore it is better to constrain handling in order to minimize potential hideouts. I think it is not a big deal to change the way of rolling the dice in order to avoid sceptic reactions. Nobody gets hurt by that

VanorDM (very much intentionally) keeps conflating "belief" with "intent."

What someone believes doesn't matter: lucky coin, socks worn since the Redsox won the series, dice placed to the side with all good faces up.

What someone intends matters, when it has to do with the tools of the game, and when there is any doubt at all as to the efficacy of the actions taken with that intent.

Slamming the dice down after placing them just so in the hand is cheating. Rolling the dice laterally from 18" such that they bounce and truly roll, even after placing them just so in the hand is not cheating.

But somewhere between those extremes there is the possibility of influencing the dice roll, and taking actions to do so, with intent, is cheating. It is just plain stupid -- there is no other word for it -- to say that the non-rolling player bears the burden of proof at precisely locating the degree of height and oomph required for a roll to hit the cheating/not-cheating line. It's impossible, and therefore to expect it is stupid.

Since the burden cannot fall to the player who is not intending and attempting to influence the dice, the burden fall on the other player ... the one who is intending and attempting to influence the dice. That burden is exactly this: "stop cheating."

And, again, VanorDM is going to come back with examples of "belief" and "superstition" to purposefully muddy the requirement of intent to influence the dice combined with the inability to know at what point it might work. But that's okay with him, because he really, really wants to win this argument: just be aware of what he's doing.

I still have to ask - if you spend 10,000 hours perfecting a method to roll more successes with X-Wing dice, is that cheating or just good play in the same way that spending 10,000 hours of moving the ships around will give you an uncanny sense of range and movement? I'm inclined towards it just being a form of good play myself, but I hate dice, and they hate me.

VanorDM (very much intentionally) keeps conflating "belief" with "intent."

What someone believes doesn't matter: lucky coin, socks worn since the Redsox won the series, dice placed to the side with all good faces up.

What someone intends matters, when it has to do with the tools of the game, and when there is any doubt at all as to the efficacy of the actions taken with that intent.

Slamming the dice down after placing them just so in the hand is cheating. Rolling the dice laterally from 18" such that they bounce and truly roll, even after placing them just so in the hand is not cheating.

But somewhere between those extremes there is the possibility of influencing the dice roll, and taking actions to do so, with intent, is cheating. It is just plain stupid -- there is no other word for it -- to say that the non-rolling player bears the burden of proof at precisely locating the degree of height and oomph required for a roll to hit the cheating/not-cheating line. It's impossible, and therefore to expect it is stupid.

Since the burden cannot fall to the player who is not intending and attempting to influence the dice, the burden fall on the other player ... the one who is intending and attempting to influence the dice. That burden is exactly this: "stop cheating."

And, again, VanorDM is going to come back with examples of "belief" and "superstition" to purposefully muddy the requirement of intent to influence the dice combined with the inability to know at what point it might work. But that's okay with him, because he really, really wants to win this argument: just be aware of what he's doing.

If you're attempting to use the force on the dice, even if you believe you are in fact using the force on the dice, you are not cheating. The force will not change the dice roll.

If you're enacting your dice mojo ritual it isn't cheating unless it quite explicitly changes the outcome of the dice.

Let people have their superstitions. Calling that cheating is petty behavior. Don't be the guy that takes the game that seriously. Nobody wants to play that guy.

If somebody is cheating the dice rolls people will notice eventually. But for every 1000 people with a dice ritual one is cheating.

VanorDM (very much intentionally) keeps conflating "belief" with "intent."

What someone believes doesn't matter: lucky coin, socks worn since the Redsox won the series, dice placed to the side with all good faces up.

What someone intends matters, when it has to do with the tools of the game, and when there is any doubt at all as to the efficacy of the actions taken with that intent.

Slamming the dice down after placing them just so in the hand is cheating. Rolling the dice laterally from 18" such that they bounce and truly roll, even after placing them just so in the hand is not cheating.

But somewhere between those extremes there is the possibility of influencing the dice roll, and taking actions to do so, with intent, is cheating. It is just plain stupid -- there is no other word for it -- to say that the non-rolling player bears the burden of proof at precisely locating the degree of height and oomph required for a roll to hit the cheating/not-cheating line. It's impossible, and therefore to expect it is stupid.

Since the burden cannot fall to the player who is not intending and attempting to influence the dice, the burden fall on the other player ... the one who is intending and attempting to influence the dice. That burden is exactly this: "stop cheating."

And, again, VanorDM is going to come back with examples of "belief" and "superstition" to purposefully muddy the requirement of intent to influence the dice combined with the inability to know at what point it might work. But that's okay with him, because he really, really wants to win this argument: just be aware of what he's doing.

Intending to influence the dice is not cheating. Only actually influencing the dice is cheating.

If you're attempting to use the force on the dice, even if you believe you are in fact using the force on the dice, you are not cheating. The force will not change the dice roll.

If you're enacting your dice mojo ritual it isn't cheating unless it quite explicitly changes the outcome of the dice.

Let people have their superstitions. Calling that cheating is petty behavior. Don't be the guy that takes the game that seriously. Nobody wants to play that guy.

If somebody is cheating the dice rolls people will notice eventually. But for every 1000 people with a dice ritual one is cheating.

Ad Intend: If you take an athlete and make some doping tests and it turns out that he is positive, what people do? They kick him out of the tournament (and maybe ban him). And altough you cannot proof that the applied doping substances did actually had an positive effect on him. It is nevertheless cheating, if the possibility exists that by his acting the game gets infulenced in a way not specified in the rules.

I still have to ask - if you spend 10,000 hours perfecting a method to roll more successes with X-Wing dice, is that cheating or just good play in the same way that spending 10,000 hours of moving the ships around will give you an uncanny sense of range and movement? I'm inclined towards it just being a form of good play myself, but I hate dice, and they hate me.

Well the dice are the one random element of the game, if your actively working to remove that randomness I'd consider that cheating as much as hacking the dice app.

Intending to influence the dice is not cheating. Only actually influencing the dice is cheating.

But isn't trying to cheat just as bad as cheating?

If someone truly believes that they can influence the result of a die roll and attempts to do so, how is trying to roll an evade through a practiced motion any different than microwaving dice? One might have a demonstrable effect, but both attempts are an effort to cheat the other player.

We jail people for trying to commit murder, **** and theft so clearly intent can be as bad as the actual successful completion of something.