You don't seem to even know you're talking about something completely different than the rest of us are.

That's clearly true of one of us... Considering your posting history here I don't think it's me though.

I mean you do understand that the following two statements are actually different right?

"If you roll too many dice, you completely reroll, using the correct number." and "If you roll the wrong number of dice, you completely reroll, using the correct number."

There is a completely different meaning in these two statements.

In the first one you are saying if you roll more dice then you should, reroll. In the second if you roll any number of dice, other than the correct amount, that being either too many or too few, you reroll using the correct amount.

The first one I agree with. The second however is not only incorrect per the rules, but may be physically impossible for someone, if they don't have enough dice. Based on your follow up comment the second statement is completely pointless. But prior to that comment it was wrong per the rules.

If you're still confused about your own statements after this... Then I will simply not bother.

There is precedence by FFG at Nationals this year. If you roll too few dice, you MUST roll another die (or multiples if required) until the number is correct.

What to do with extras is another issue. But it needs to be the same rule, always. Otherwise if you sometimes remove 1 result if you roll all the same, and then other times reroll all of them, you are actually changing the overall probability distribution.

Personally, I think it should be added to the rules that if you roll too many, your opponent removes dice as needed, at his choice.

In this instance, your rule of always re-rolling has been a disadvantage to the other player in terms of its actual effect on the game.

That fact is completely irrelevant. Because the original roll does not count, and so if the result is better or worse simply does not matter.

The rules treat this roll as if it had never happened. That is, if a B-wing rolls four dice on a range 2 attack, the rules did not permit that roll; it has not happened. The B-wing must now roll its attack using a pool of three red dice.

Can you cite this please?

Rules Reference Guide, page 5, Attack:

2. Roll Attack Dice: The attacker rolls a number of attack dice equal to its primary weapon value; if it is attacking with a secondary weapon, it rolls attack dice equal to the attack value on that weapon’s Upgrade card instead.

If the attacker has rolled more dice than the number specified here (allowing for modifications as described elsewhere), he has not "rolled a number of attack dice equal to its primary weapon value."

Also, this forum features a bold formatting option that is equally effective as (and far less offensive to the eye than) doubling the text size.

Personally, I think it should be added to the rules that if you roll too many, your opponent removes dice as needed, at his choice.

Why would you penalize someone for making such a simple mistake?

I mean if you feel someone should be penalized for a mistake like this, ala red maneuver when stressed, that's fine. I'd accept that decision.

But IMO the penalty is too harsh.

Tabletop games like this are interested in die RESULTS, not probabilities.

Since your whole premise is completely wrong, the rest naturally is also wrong. The one and only point of dice in these types of games is to add random chance to the game. Anything that reduces the random nature of dice is an advantage that must be paid for somehow.

Once again, the only fair way to deal with too many dice is to reroll. Anything else is going to favor one player over another which means the random nature of the game is no longer random, but is skewed in the favor of one player, due to a simple mechanical error on the other person's part.

The fact that so many people don't get this... Makes me glad I'm the TO at most events I go to.

Let's say Player A rolls four dice on an attack, which was one die too many. His results are hit, hit, miss, eyeball. You as TO come over and ask him to re-roll. His new results are crit, hit, hit which, barring certain card combos, is a worse result for his opponent. In this instance, your rule of always re-rolling has been a disadvantage to the other player in terms of its actual effect on the game. No, a re-roll won't always result in a worse outcome for the opponent, or a better outcome for that matter, but either way this game depends on actual results to determine those outcomes. Probabilities are great, but probabilities stop mattering once dice hit the table. At that point, it's about salvaging the roll as much as possible. It's fine with me if we don't see eye to eye on this, but don't just dismiss my argument out of hand.

For what it's worth, when these situations come up and I'm playing someone unfamiliar I just let them decide how to resolve it, it's not worth the time arguing in my opinion. In my usual play group, however, letting the non-offender remove dice is how we do it.

This is one of the most ignorant stances I have ever read on these boards and showcases a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic tenets of probability.

The two rolls are completely independent of each other, one has absolutely no effect on the other. The illegal roll has absolutely no bearing on the subsequent legal roll. Therefore forcing the legal roll to be made will only yield the exact randomness the rules dictate in the given situation. It can therefore in no way benefit any player anymore then it was suppose to.

If you have no ability to keep the first roll (the illegal roll) then whatever the result of it was is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Obviously, the simple language of "The TO has the final say" covers just about everything in the rule-book.

I'm pointing out that letting someone chose what dice to keep, is skewing the game in the favor of one player, because another player made a very simple mistake. And that is IMO not something a TO should ever do. A TO should sorta be like a doctor.. The first goal is to do no harm.

I think it's important to remember that the game sets a precedence for the kind of generality you're talking about, which is what to do when a red maneuver has been set for a stressed ship. It clearly favors the non-offending player, despite being a completely innocent mistake. It's simply a way to resolve an impossible condition. That's what my view on resolving the rolling of too many dice is, just my opinion on how to resolve an impossible condition.

Punishments are consequences, but not all consequences are punishments.

Obviously, the simple language of "The TO has the final say" covers just about everything in the rule-book.

Sure you can rule that way, I'm not questioning that, the rules don't actually address this in anyway, so every TO has to come up with something themselves.

I'm pointing out that letting someone chose what dice to keep, is skewing the game in the favor of one player, because another player made a very simple mistake. And that is IMO not something a TO should ever do. A TO should sorta be like a doctor.. The first goal is to do no harm.

The most fair way for everyone is to reroll every time.

But FFG does not agree with your "do no harm" when a player makes a "mistake". From Page 4 of the FAQ:

You don't seem to even know you're talking about something completely different than the rest of us are.

That's clearly true of one of us... Considering your posting history here I don't think it's me though.

I mean you do understand that the following two statements are actually different right?

"If you roll too many dice, you completely reroll, using the correct number." and "If you roll the wrong number of dice, you completely reroll, using the correct number."

There is a completely different meaning in these two statements.

Yes, that's why they're actually and specifically called out as two different rules in my original post.

Neither of them has anything to do with how many dice anybody owns or uses ... they both have to do with how many results are generated for a given roll.

The first suggestion is:

"If too many results are generated, roll all of them again."

The second suggestion is:

"If you really want to be completely consistent, if too many or too few results are generated, roll all of them again." (It actually makes far more sense to just add dice as needed, but a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and all that.

You're so ready to argue that you don't even see that what I've said is actually the same thing you're saying. Instead, you -- for some reason that defies explanation -- start talking about forcing people to buy extra dice and blather like that. The not even part of the conversation the big kids are having, and it indicates a level of vapidity that is just ... bemusing.

I think it's important to remember that the game sets a precedence for the kind of generality you're talking about, which is what to do when a red maneuver has been set for a stressed ship. It clearly favors the non-offending player, despite being a completely innocent mistake. It's simply a way to resolve an impossible condition. That's what my view on resolving the rolling of too many dice is, just my opinion on how to resolve an impossible condition.

Punishments are consequences, but not all consequences are punishments.

I'm repeating an argument here, but setting an illegal maneuver is potentially not an innocent mistake. Were it not for the existing rule (your opponent chooses a legal maneuver) or an equally objective but less punitive one, the chance to correct the mistake comes with additional information for the offender -- information that undermines the whole concept of the planning phase. In my analysis, the purpose of this rule is not to punish the offender (though it does) but to prevent an unfair advantage for the offender; if one player must have an advantage, it should be the one who did not break a rule.

Starting an attack over if it has been illegally performed advantages neither the defender nor the attacker. Further, if the defender rolled his defense dice before realizing that the attacker rolled too many dice, the defense roll is also invalid.

With that, I'm off to play X-wing. You guys have fun arguing about it while I'm away.

Tabletop games like this are interested in die RESULTS, not probabilities.

Since your whole premise is completely wrong, the rest naturally is also wrong. The one and only point of dice in these types of games is to add random chance to the game. Anything that reduces the random nature of dice is an advantage that must be paid for somehow.

Once again, the only fair way to deal with too many dice is to reroll. Anything else is going to favor one player over another which means the random nature of the game is no longer random, but is skewed in the favor of one player, due to a simple mechanical error on the other person's part.

The fact that so many people don't get this... Makes me glad I'm the TO at most events I go to.

Let's say Player A rolls four dice on an attack, which was one die too many. His results are hit, hit, miss, eyeball. You as TO come over and ask him to re-roll. His new results are crit, hit, hit which, barring certain card combos, is a worse result for his opponent. In this instance, your rule of always re-rolling has been a disadvantage to the other player in terms of its actual effect on the game. No, a re-roll won't always result in a worse outcome for the opponent, or a better outcome for that matter, but either way this game depends on actual results to determine those outcomes. Probabilities are great, but probabilities stop mattering once dice hit the table. At that point, it's about salvaging the roll as much as possible. It's fine with me if we don't see eye to eye on this, but don't just dismiss my argument out of hand.

For what it's worth, when these situations come up and I'm playing someone unfamiliar I just let them decide how to resolve it, it's not worth the time arguing in my opinion. In my usual play group, however, letting the non-offender remove dice is how we do it.

This is one of the most ignorant stances I have ever read on these boards and showcases a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic tenets of probability.

The two rolls are completely independent of each other, one has absolutely no effect on the other. The illegal roll has absolutely no bearing on the subsequent legal roll. Therefore forcing the legal roll to be made will only yield the exact randomness the rules dictate in the given situation. It can therefore in no way benefit any player anymore then it was suppose to.

If you have no ability to keep the first roll (the illegal roll) then whatever the result of it was is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I never mentioned the two rolls having any effect on each other, merely that the separate outcomes of each roll, illegal or not, are necessarily different, and that those differences matter. For some reason you're assuming I agree with you that an irregular (or illegal, in your terms) roll is a roll to be voided, but I've never stated that as my position. What I'm saying, and I apologize if I wasn't somehow clear about this, is that once the dice hit the table as a result of an intentional roll, their results have been determined and need to be dealt with. THAT is cause of our difference, not my understanding of the nature of probability.

Personally, I think it should be added to the rules that if you roll too many, your opponent removes dice as needed, at his choice.

Why would you penalize someone for making such a simple mistake?I mean if you feel someone should be penalized for a mistake like this, ala red maneuver when stressed, that's fine. I'd accept that decision.But IMO the penalty is too harsh.

It needs to be codified one way or the other. Otherwise some players will say "I rolled 4 hits so I will just get rid of one", but then say "I rolled 4 blanks, I am going to reroll them all."

The other point is, if you can choose to reroll in some instances, or choose to keep the result in other instances, then that grants a significant advantage to the player that makes the choice. At that point you no longer have "fair" dice.

On a side note, did anyone bother to check and see that the whole "if you don't have enough dice available" thing is actually covered in the rules reference?

• If players would roll more dice than the maximum number that they have available, keep track of the rolled results and reroll the dice necessary to equal the total number of dice the player would have rolled all at once. Note that these dice are not considered rerolled for the purposes of modifying dice.

When too many are rolled the default should be to pretend the roll never happened and roll again with the correct number of dice. The ONLY exception I'd make to this is when all dice produced the same initial result in which case you could just drop the extras but his is only in the case of moving things along quickly; however consistency would still say roll everything again as it also shuts down potential cheating.

If too few dice are rolled then you just roll additional dice to make up the difference. If you don't have enough dice (roll 6 dice for defense when you only have three!) you record the initial rolls and reuse the dice.

Obviously, the simple language of "The TO has the final say" covers just about everything in the rule-book.

Sure you can rule that way, I'm not questioning that, the rules don't actually address this in anyway, so every TO has to come up with something themselves.

I'm pointing out that letting someone chose what dice to keep, is skewing the game in the favor of one player, because another player made a very simple mistake. And that is IMO not something a TO should ever do. A TO should sorta be like a doctor.. The first goal is to do no harm.

The most fair way for everyone is to reroll every time.

But FFG does not agree with your "do no harm" when a player makes a "mistake". From Page 4 of the FAQ:

Mistakes

Mistakes happen. At competitive and premier events, it is important to have a

clear system in place to resolve mistakes when they arise.

• If a player assigns the wrong ship dial to his ship (for example, assigning

a B-wing dial to an X-wing), when he reveals the dial he must inform

his opponent of the error. If the revealed maneuver is a legal maneuver

for that ship (for example, the revealed B-wing dial shows a green [ 1]

maneuver, a maneuver that also appears on the X-wing ship dial), it is

executed as normal. If the revealed maneuver is not a legal maneuver

for that ship (For example the B-wing dial shows a red [ 2] maneuver,

a maneuver that does not appear on the X-wing ship dial), the player’s

opponent chooses which legal maneuver from that ship’s actual dial that

ship will perform.

• If a player reveals a dial that is stuck between two different maneuvers

in such a way that it is impossible to determine which maneuver was

selected, the player’s opponent chooses which of those two maneuvers

that ship will perform.

• If a player knocks a ship over, he must endeavour to replace it exactly as

he found it. If there is any disagreement about its placement, the player’s

opponent has final say over its position, though he must attempt to match

the ship’s original position.

Every step of the way FFG rules that the opponent decides. This WILL BE a game changing event for sure.

Except in ever instance you just detailed the reason FFG is having you resolve those issues in that manner is because if you didn't then you are allowing the offending player to gain advantage from thier procedural error.

You can't allow them to pick another maneuver because that would be to their advantage. So frankly your only options are to give them a game loss or hand to dial to thier opponent. You also can't allow a player to possibly gain superior position because they knock a game piece so again the only way to prevent that is placing the issue at the opponents discretion or giving the player a game loss.

In the first example you'll notice that the initial remedy to the situation would be one that looks to apply a neutral solution when available before moving to one designed to not allow a player to gain advantage from an error. So the precedence is to first explore a neutral option if available

But in this case the procedural error can be easy corrected in a neutral manner that has no ability to benefit the offending player. So given the precedence you provided, why would you not opt for the neutral option of simply rolling the correct number of dice?

Even in games with pro-tours, actual cash prizes, and real procedural guidlines they wouldn't act in a punitive manner towards this type of error. And these are games in which you will get an instant game loss for a number of things that could very easily be an innocent mistake. And the reason they wouldn't act in a punitive manner is because this mistake has an extremely low prechant for absuse.

Personally, I think it should be added to the rules that if you roll too many, your opponent removes dice as needed, at his choice.

Why would you penalize someone for making such a simple mistake?I mean if you feel someone should be penalized for a mistake like this, ala red maneuver when stressed, that's fine. I'd accept that decision.But IMO the penalty is too harsh.

Letting your opponent remove 1 die result at a time minimizes the effect on the game state. If you reroll them all, then you can go from having a completely terrible roll to a perfect roll, or from a perfect roll to a terrible roll. If you simply remove 1 result, then it is, by definition, only possible to change the outcome by one hit or crit.

It needs to be codified one way or the other. Otherwise some players will say "I rolled 4 hits so I will just get rid of one", but then say "I rolled 4 blanks, I am going to reroll them all."

The other point is, if you can choose to reroll in some instances, or choose to keep the result in other instances, then that grants a significant advantage to the player that makes the choice. At that point you no longer have "fair" dice.

Having the opponent cherry pick which results will be kept is absolutely not following the rules in regards to rolling dice. The rules make zero allowance for this behavior as the only thing they do allow for is a roll with the requisite number of dice contained within.

Again, a roll that you can never keep is completely and utterly irrelevant. Just as your other point is irrelevant as no one is claiming that there should be any choice in whether you decide to simply roll the correct number of dice or not.

The rules haven't been followed. There exists the ability to follow the rules at no benefit to either player. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to do anything but go back and follow the rules, which in this case is gathering and rolling the requisite number of dice for the given situation.

Here is a question to those that believe re-rolling the correct number of dice can in any way benefit the offending player.

If there is no way for the roll to count, regardless of what is rolled, then how exactly would making the initial roll alter the odds of the subsequent roll with the correct number of dice? If I am going to roll 3 red dice for an attack does my expected damage somehow increase if I roll 10 dice before hand, and then discard that roll irregardless of if it is 10 hits or 10 misses? Are not my odds exactly what they would be if I just rolled the 3 dice to begin with?

I'm having this situation happen from time to time. In casual games I'm usually more lenient but in Tournaments I'm usually caught in the awkward position of arguing whether dice should be re-rolled or not.

One particular case I remember is shooting my secondary weapon, clearly stating that there was no R3 bonus, and the opponent rolled an extra green anyways. He rolled 4 evades, and when I noted him rolling an extra die, he claimed "well, even if I rolled 3 it would've have been 3 evades".

Is the standard etiquette to re-roll your dice if you roll too many? Or am I being a stickler by thinking they should?

Is there an official TO ruling on this? Or does this just come down to etiquette?

I'd like to hear your thoughts! Thanks!

Did you at least beat this guy in the game? I hope so!

Here is a question to those that believe re-rolling the correct number of dice can in any way benefit the offending player.

If there is no way for the roll to count, regardless of what is rolled, then how exactly would making the initial roll alter the odds of the subsequent roll with the correct number of dice? If I am going to roll 3 red dice for an attack does my expected damage somehow increase if I roll 10 dice before hand, and then discard that roll irregardless of if it is 10 hits or 10 misses? Are not my odds exactly what they would be if I just rolled the 3 dice to begin with?

Rolling the correct number of dice can benefit the offending player in the instance when ALL of original dice produced undesirable results. Of course it can also hurt the offending player if all dice are desirable results.

Of course a second roll doesn't care one bit about what the invalidated roll had been. It's just like flipping a coin; you should have a 50:50 chance of heads or tails on your next flip even if you have flipped five heads in a row.

Too many dice. This happens from time to time, and it is almost always a communication error. The range was not clearly stated, the attacker did not say verbally that he was using a mangler cannon etc. Communication errors are the fault of both players to some extent in varying degrees. So to have one player be able to cancel the best result of the other for a problem that was caused by both is inherently unfair. A full re-roll is the best course.

Cocked die. I am a craps dealer, and the method used is this: there is a face of the die that is touching the obstruction.....the opposite face of the die is the result of said die. This is a way to put a rule to something that is obvious to everyone anyway. There are very few cocked dice that are unreadable.

Mistakes
Mistakes happen. At competitive and premier events, it is important to have a
clear system in place to resolve mistakes when they arise.
• If a player assigns the wrong ship dial to his ship (for example, assigning
a B-wing dial to an X-wing), when he reveals the dial he must inform
his opponent of the error. If the revealed maneuver is a legal maneuver
for that ship (for example, the revealed B-wing dial shows a green [ 1]
maneuver, a maneuver that also appears on the X-wing ship dial), it is
executed as normal. If the revealed maneuver is not a legal maneuver
for that ship (For example the B-wing dial shows a red [ 2] maneuver,
a maneuver that does not appear on the X-wing ship dial), the player’s
opponent chooses which legal maneuver from that ship’s actual dial that
ship will perform.
• If a player reveals a dial that is stuck between two different maneuvers
in such a way that it is impossible to determine which maneuver was
selected, the player’s opponent chooses which of those two maneuvers
that ship will perform.
• If a player knocks a ship over, he must endeavour to replace it exactly as
he found it. If there is any disagreement about its placement, the player’s
opponent has final say over its position, though he must attempt to match
the ship’s original position.

Everyone of these attempts to resolve in the most unintrusive way possible giving no one an advantage unless that is not possible. The only way to do that for the "rolled to many dice" is to just reroll the results when to many dice are rolled. All other alternatives mentioned give an unintended advantage for a easily corrected mistake.

If your someone who truly believes that rerolling gives the advantage to the offender because the reroll "could" be better this isnt directed towards you because your not understanding how dice work in general. It also should go without saying that if someone is doing this consistently to try and game the sytem that's another problem.

The possible re-roll advantage to the offender lies in not adhering to the original roll, how is it not clear that that's the crux of the "no re-rolls" argument camp? No one is advocating that a valid re-roll could somehow be better than a non-binding previous roll, or that the re-roll carries an inherent statistical advantage over the original. What we're saying is that the original roll should be counted as THE roll, superfluous dice be damned, and then we suggest methods of dealing with it from there.

There are obvious disagreements here, and no one is changing anyone's mind, but acting like the other person's argument presupposes your own is immature and condescending. Welcome to the internet, I suppose.

Also I'll just address the reductio ad absurdum argument against my stance: yes, if my opponent rolled forty dice, I would just ask them to re-roll.

The other point is, if you can choose to reroll in some instances, or choose to keep the result in other instances, then that grants a significant advantage to the player that makes the choice.

I agree, and it should always be handled the same way. I'm of the opinion that you must reroll every time because otherwise you're effectively giving someone Han's ability for free.

I am breaking a rule and posting during 'family time' because I want to make something very clear. Because I apparently am disagreeing with some people I normally agree with, and don't want there to be any misunderstanding with people like MajorJuggler and Stone37

If you rule that if someone rolls too many dice, the other guy gets to remove the extra results, because doing so is a punishment and/or deterrent, that's one thing. I don't think the punishment fits the crime, but I will agree it's a suitable penalty if you feel one is warranted.

I'd be happy to discuss it from that point, and would be open to changing my mind on if one is warranted or not.

If however you are of the opinion that letting someone reroll the dice is giving them some sort of unfair advantage and effectively rewarding them for the mistake. Then that's something else.

Also as an aside, I remembered that trying to discuss anything with Jeff Wilder is like trying to knock down a brick wall with my head... The only thing it accomplishes is giving me a headache. So I'll save everyone else the pain of derailing this thread further with replying to him.

The orginal roll can't be counted as it isn't the correct roll. It is an illegal roll why would you ever allow an illegal roll to stand even in part.

Why would you keep it and with a negative modification when you can simply roll the correct number of dice. Why when you can correct an illegal play in a neutral manner would you choose not to? That isn't in keeping with either the base rules or in anyway with the various examples FFG gives in regards to how to do with certain mistakes. They always opt for the least intrusive option first.

Wow. People have very strange concepts of what it means to roll dice. Rolling is a way to randomly generate a number. It doesn't matter if you do it twice, ten time, or only once - the outcome is always fair because it is always random. The only way to make it unfair is to introduce manipulation like selecting when a re-roll is appropriate so as to benefit them or like the draconian practice of allowing the opponent of a player who miscounted or let an extra die slip out of their hand choose (as in not determining randomly, which is the goal of dice) a result to remove - which have no basis in the rules whatsoever.

There are two fair ways to solve the extra die problem:

1) Always re-roll always, no matter what, every time; or

2) Re-roll whenever the extra die would make a difference.

I prefer the second. If I roll two hits and my opponent, when he should be rolling three dice, rolls three evades and one blank, I would rather just move on. Of course, I am just as happy if my opponent wants to re-roll only three dice. What I would refuse to do is allow my opponent to design his own little house roll in an attempt to reduce the effect of the game's random nature - that is BS.

That is an interesting way to choose to be the bigger person...