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.

This has been claimed in the past and at least implied in this thread.

I think the majority of agreement here is if too few dice are rolled then add rolled dice making sure they do not hit the ones that have already been rolled, aka the concept of locked dice. Example rolled 2 when should have rolled 3 and the results were hit blank, rolled another dice which hit the blank one into a hit and the 3rd dice rolled a focus. The hit is placed back to blank as it was locked and now the results are hit blank focus and modify from there.

As for too many the best course of action is to remove all dice and make a new roll (not a re-roll) using the correct number of dice. Even if they were all hit or all blanks. Rolled 4 dice when should have rolled 3 all 4 came up blank. Pick up all dice and roll 3 dice rolling blank focus evade and modify from there accepting the new roll regardless if it was better or worse than the illegal roll.

Simply penalizing 1 crit/hit or 1 evade for each additional dice while might be more punishing it still doesn't give the same natural distribution of results as just making a new roll. Dice is like cooking, it is easy to add but impossible to subtract, and if you are in the business of cooking dice then it is time for you to go play with someone 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.

Thank Christ. No more idiotic and pointless claim that "asking someone to reroll the correct number of dice" is somehow equivalent to "requiring them to buy dice."

That claim was one of the stupidest and out-of-left-field claims I've ever seen anyone make (at least outside the realms of politics and religion) ... and I've seen VanorDM himself make some remarkably stupid claims.

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.

Thank Christ. No more idiotic and pointless claim that "asking someone to reroll the correct number of dice" is somehow equivalent to "requiring them to buy dice."

That claim was one of the stupidest and out-of-left-field claims I've ever seen anyone make (at least outside the realms of politics and religion) ... and I've seen VanorDM himself make some remarkably stupid claims.

This is fun. Why not do what you can to keep it going? Maybe he will make your night and respond. Lets all wait and see together. This public table top game forum is definitely the appropriate place for you to hash out a dispute about nothing with a person that you have never met.

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.

your 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.

It may not have been intended, but I find your tone dismissive and offensive. Regardless, your point warrants objective evaluation. You asserted an absolute negative, so we only have to find one counter-example to disprove the point. Here are ELEVEN examples contained within this thread:

(hidden in spoiler to improve readability)

(quote blocks removed since there are too many to allow for posting)

DariusAPB, on 24 Sept 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE (I.E. in your case it would not) then full reroll, or if one less is rolled then roll one more dice.

If it does not make a difference (as is your case) then treat as the 3 evades or whatever.

ficklegreendice, on 24 Sept 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

in case of ****-ups like this, our group leaves your fate in the hands of your opponent

so if you toss **** dice with more dice, you're ******

if you toss amazing dice with more dice, your opponent gets to force you to re-roll the proper amount

if you roll less dice, just roll more until you got the right amount

(pay attention to your dice before you throw them!)

Stone37, on 24 Sept 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

Mostly I find that players resolve this themselves. Usually the extra die had no effect, or both players agree to a re-roll.

I have warned, but never had to actually enforce, that if it becomes habit for a player to roll to many dice that his opponent will choose which die to discount.

Talonbane Cobra, on 24 Sept 2015 - 1:15 PM, said:

I very much agree with the sentiment that if you roll all the same result the re-rolling is silly.

If you roll 4 dice instead of 3 and get all blanks your opponent isn't going to want you to re-roll either

I would only force a re-roll if there's a mix of dice results.

Pinch1loaf, on 24 Sept 2015 - 1:45 PM, said:

I think the opponent should have the right to choose. If someone rolls terribly with an extra dice, then re-rolls and score more hits/evades then their blunder was their boon. If my opponent rolls terribly and rolled extra dice then I say it's my call to let it slide or not. If they roll well with extra dice I should have the right to make them re-roll. You don't have to be consistent, you have to be fair. It's fair that if you make the mistake the opponent should dictate the course of action, not dissimilar to the event when a red maneuver is chosen while stressed.

MegaSilver, on 24 Sept 2015 - 1:54 PM, said:

The opponent had an advantage (unintentional or not) by rolling too many dice. Therefore, the other player should be able to get an advantage back to have them reroll the right amount or just keep the current results. You can also roll another die to determine what one could be discarded, but that one can be more complicated to explain in a tourney setting.

For example, at a tourney my opponent rolled too one many green dice by mistake. He was about to pick up the dice and reroll. At this point, I told him I'll have him keep the result, since I had scored a hit anyway. He rolled too much (unintentionally) and gained an advantage, but this still didn't help him block a hit. It was therefore in my best interest to keep the result to score the hit rather than give him the chance to block it.

Another miniatures game I play (Heroscape) uses a similar rule for tournaments.

piznit, on 24 Sept 2015 - 2:05 PM, said:

Our rule when we play is this:

If you screw up the number of dice to roll, and it's noticed/caught, your opponent decides how to fix it. Whether that's an entire reroll, or removing an extra result, or adding an extra die, it's your opponents choice. Sorta like picking a red move when your stressed

MegaSilver, on 24 Sept 2015 - 2:41 PM, said:

It was unfair in the first place that the opponent rolled too many dice. So of course the opponent will decide what suits them the best. Next time be careful what you roll; just like when you select a red maneuver while you're stressed. Your opponent decides what they want to do about it.

Again, this rule has been applied to other games, so I use it here.

MegaSilver, on 24 Sept 2015 - 3:17 PM, said:

Here's a response from a fellow Tournament Director about why that system is used:

The first roll has no impact on the end outcome only if we assume that first over-roll will always be noticed. But in reality, it's sometimes missed. So you want the resolution of this to reduce the incentive for anyone to "accidentally on purpose" over-roll in the hopes of not getting caught.

By giving the other player the choice, you actually streamline play (reduce the amount of rolling that needs to be done) and also provide some incentive to get your dice right the first time.

Some people advocate actually allowing the other player to remove dice to get the right number, which is (usually) even more harsh than asking for the re-roll. In my opinion, though, just allowing the other player the option to re-roll is enough of a penalty that nobody is going to try to sneak extra dice on.

StevenO, on 24 Sept 2015 - 3:40 PM, said:

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; consistency would say roll everything again.

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.

Richard_Thomas_, on 24 Sept 2015 - 3:59 PM, said:

This is how I play for definite. Sure some of the options might disadvantage me, but it was my mistake and therefore I pay the price.

Conversely if my opponent makes a mistake like that I'll always let them choose how to fix it unless they specifically want me to in which case I'd choose the option that seems the most neutral.

This is for both casual play and tournaments. Being a nice opponent is far more important to me than any advantage I'm maybe able to gain.

So, no, the point is certainly not irrelevant - rather, it explains exactly why the rule needs to be codified one way or the other.

Win-at-all-costs players will attempt to apply whatever method is convenient to them at the time. I have seen this with cocked dice, and 1 individual die that pops out before the others are rolled. In both cases the player attempts to keep a hit/evade and reroll a blank.

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 the rule is to always reroll all the dice, then that's fine, as long as that protocol is ALWAYS followed. It changes the conditional probability of the 2nd roll doing better or worse than the first not-applicable roll, but that doesn't matter as long as the procedure is to always reroll everything anyway. So I'm fine with that as long as it is codified.

There is only one corner case I can think of, and it would involve a player attempting to cheat. A nefarious player rolls his three dice as he should. Two come out blank while the third is still rolling around. Before the third die stops rolling, the player rolls a fourth die. His dice result in [blank blank something something]. The rolling player claims he thought he was supposed to roll 4 dice. By rule, he has to redo the entire roll.

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.

This provides a good case study to actually run some numbers. Lets assume that the defense dice are unmodified.

Method #1: reroll 3 defense dice

The probability for 3 defense dice is:

[0.2441 0.4395 0.2637 0.0527]

so, the net damage distribution vs 2 hits previously rolled is:

[0.3164 0.4395 0.2441]

average = 0.9277

Method #2: reroll 3 defense dice only if it makes a difference

The probability for 4 defense dice is:

[0.1526 0.3662 0.3296 0.1318 0.0198]

15.26% of the time you completely blank out and you take 2 damage.

15.16% of the time you get 3+ evades, and take 0 damage.

69.58% of the time, you roll 1-2 evades and so you reroll 3 dice.

The net resulting damage distribution then becomes:

[0.3718 0.3058 0.3225]

average = 0.9507

(Edited for swapped evade and non-evade results)

The point is, the expected damage is going to be different if you decide to use a different method based on what the first defensive roll of 4 dice was. This is A Bad Thing.

Had a situation like this today when playing, friend shot a ship from range three I rolled four dice, he then fired a second ship but didn't measure so without thinking just rolled the same again.

Several rounds of shooting later we realized the mistake but couldn't remember what he'd got on his attack dice.

If we'd realized right away I would of rerolled the correct number of dice, but we just decided to forget it.

If we roll too few we just roll the extra die instead of all of the dice.

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.

This provides a good case study to actually run some numbers. Lets assume that the defense dice are unmodified.

Method #1: reroll 3 defense dice

The probability for 3 defense dice is:

[0.2441 0.4395 0.2637 0.0527]

so, the net damage distribution vs 2 hits previously rolled is:

[0.3164 0.4395 0.2441]

average = 0.9277

Method #2: reroll 3 defense dice only if it makes a difference

The probability for 4 defense dice is:

[0.1526 0.3662 0.3296 0.1318 0.0198]

15.26% of the time you completely blank out and you take 2 damage.

15.16% of the time you get 3+ evades, and take 0 damage.

69.58% of the time, you roll 1-2 evades and so you reroll 3 dice.

The net resulting damage distribution then becomes:

[0.3718 0.3058 0.3225]

average = 0.9507

(Edited for swapped evade and non-evade results)

The point is, the expected damage is going to be different if you decide to use a different method based on what the first defensive roll of 4 dice was. This is A Bad Thing.

I will take your word on the math as I don't have the time, energy, or confidence to generate any numbers.

However, the math ignores the goal of preserving a result, as opposed to generating a new random result, which is something that a lot of players have a very keen interest in.

Lets pretend that I roll four dice when I am supposed to roll three. I and generate 2 evades, 1 focus, and 1 blank. This is in response to an attack that generated only 1 hit. In this scenario, the equivalent of removing improperly rolled die is possible. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was one of the two evades and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was the focus and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was the blank and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. No matter which die result resulted from the extra die, the damage is always the same. This meets the goal of rectifying the illegal situation with the smallest impact on the game.

If what I just describes is actually having an impact on the likelihood of the single hit not resulting in lasting damage, then you will have to explain it to me as I never made it that far into statistics.

Major, you are focused on anything being preferable so long as it is consistently applied. But is a remedy that is; needlessly punative, intrusive to the gamestate (in that it will alter the odds of the accepted roll), not in keeping with the rules, and also not in keeping with the precedent FFG has given in regards to how to remedy player mistakes, somehow acceptable just because it is consistently applied? I don't think allowing the opponent to cherry pick results is ever an equitable situation.

You've stated that there needs to be a specific rule on how to deal with this situation, but the base rules already handle it. If you aren't rolling the requisite number of dice, then you haven't correctly executed the attack. At that point you still have to make the correct attack roll. The rules are already there, they just need to be followed.

I feel your corner case example is creating a seperate issue, the player hasn't just rolled the incorrect number of dice, he's purposefully trying to add unneeded dice to a roll after the fact. It's an absurdly blatant attempt to cheat and a TO should deal with it as such, but that does not provide grounds for a TO to act in a punative manner towards a player that simply picks up the wrong amount of dice to begin with. Is there any doubt that that situation is pretty much non-abuseable given the fact that the opponent is going to have to roll his own dice for comparison making it easy to see that the roll wasn't properly executed?

You clearly understand that an illegal false roll has no bearing on any subsequent legal roll, so why should there be any remedy other then the completely neutral option of following the game rules and making the correct roll?

The answer is there shouldn't be any option to keep a roll made with more then the requisite number of dice. It is an illegal roll and should be discarded for a legal roll. It should not be acceptable to allow the opponent to decide if the roll should be kept or allow them to modify it is some way, as an opponent shouldn't be given the option to allow the rules to be violated if that can be avoided.

So I completely agree with you it needs to be consistent, but given that I feel there is only one way to remedy the issue without specifically violating the game rules for no reason there is no way to not be consistent given a singular option. Ya know?

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.

This provides a good case study to actually run some numbers. Lets assume that the defense dice are unmodified.

Method #1: reroll 3 defense dice

The probability for 3 defense dice is:

[0.2441 0.4395 0.2637 0.0527]

so, the net damage distribution vs 2 hits previously rolled is:

[0.3164 0.4395 0.2441]

average = 0.9277

Method #2: reroll 3 defense dice only if it makes a difference

The probability for 4 defense dice is:

[0.1526 0.3662 0.3296 0.1318 0.0198]

15.26% of the time you completely blank out and you take 2 damage.

15.16% of the time you get 3+ evades, and take 0 damage.

69.58% of the time, you roll 1-2 evades and so you reroll 3 dice.

The net resulting damage distribution then becomes:

[0.3718 0.3058 0.3225]

average = 0.9507

(Edited for swapped evade and non-evade results)

The point is, the expected damage is going to be different if you decide to use a different method based on what the first defensive roll of 4 dice was. This is A Bad Thing.

I will take your word on the math as I don't have the time, energy, or confidence to generate any numbers.

However, the math ignores the goal of preserving a result, as opposed to generating a new random result, which is something that a lot of players have a very keen interest in.

Lets pretend that I roll four dice when I am supposed to roll three. I and generate 2 evades, 1 focus, and 1 blank. This is in response to an attack that generated only 1 hit. In this scenario, the equivalent of removing improperly rolled die is possible. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was one of the two evades and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was the focus and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. If we assume that the improperly rolled die was the blank and remove it, then the result is that the attack does not cause any damage. No matter which die result resulted from the extra die, the damage is always the same. This meets the goal of rectifying the illegal situation with the smallest impact on the game.

If what I just describes is actually having an impact on the likelihood of the single hit not resulting in lasting damage, then you will have to explain it to me as I never made it that far into statistics.

Rapture you can't cherry pick the instances in which an illegal roll can be kept. It isn't a legal roll thus there can be no ability for it to ever stand as valid, as there is absolutely no justification in the rules for the type of modification you are suggesting. You are essentially making up rules to avoid following the actual rules, which would be a roll with the requisite dice.

And MajorJuggler I completely apologize as it appears there are people still arguing that it is somehow acceptable to handle the given situation in different manners depending on whether it hurts or helps the opponent.

This is why "always rerolling" is the best way to do it:

(1) There are other equitable ways to do it, but ...

(2) Some people will always disagree whether any other method is equitable.

In the interest of saving time, while still doing things fairly, "always reroll."

WHAT THE $$%^& with your opponents remark? I would never play him again!

Guy probably tought: " i rolled 4 evades on 4 dice, take away the extra, that still leaves 3 eavades, so whats the big deal?"*

But it's even worse when in a game, let's say RISK, they need 1 six to win and they roll 3 dice instead of the 2 they are allowed, and one of those 3 comes up a six. And then they want to argue that the six is on one of those two "legit" dice....Oooh... no. uhuh. (I almost kicked that dude! well maybe I did... a little... )

* guy would still be wrong and should have been made to reroll proper amount.

You've stated that there needs to be a specific rule on how to deal with this situation, but the base rules already handle it. If you aren't rolling the requisite number of dice, then you haven't correctly executed the attack. At that point you still have to make the correct attack roll. The rules are already there, they just need to be followed.

The very existence of this thread is testimony to the fact that, unfortunately, the rules do not succinctly and clearly state what to do if extra dice are rolled. You are probably right in that is how the rules should be interpreted. Unfortunately it is not point-blank obvious, so in the issue of a dispute, or even honest uncertainty in how to play, the rules don't pragmatically help much. Ideally FFG would add a section in the FAQ that covers dice rolling. Most of the entries in the FAQ don't strictly need to be there, as they are already covered under the existing rules -- this could just be one more addition.

Too many = reroll with the correct amount

Too few = roll extra dice until you're at the correct amount

But why? I'm asking seriously - I'm curious why it isn't more balanced to simply reroll the correct amount in both instances.

You don't get to keep the results you like if you rolled too many. Why should you get to if you rolled too few but like the ones you did roll?

Actually depends on the game: World of darkness had a system in wich 6 = success, 1= fail. Thing is: 1's cancelled 6's. So as you rolled more dice, the chances of rolling 1's increased, making rolling lots of dice not a very good thing.

Now imagine a guy rolling a 6 on 3 dice (success) while he should have rolled 5 dice (increasing the odds to get a 1)

I haven't seen my old GM in years, but pretty sure that wouldn't fly with him

You've stated that there needs to be a specific rule on how to deal with this situation, but the base rules already handle it. If you aren't rolling the requisite number of dice, then you haven't correctly executed the attack. At that point you still have to make the correct attack roll. The rules are already there, they just need to be followed.

The very existence of this thread is testimony to the fact that, unfortunately, the rules do not succinctly and clearly state what to do if extra dice are rolled. You are probably right in that is how the rules should be interpreted. Unfortunately it is not point-blank obvious, so in the issue of a dispute, or even honest uncertainty in how to play, the rules don't pragmatically help much. Ideally FFG would add a section in the FAQ that covers dice rolling. Most of the entries in the FAQ don't strictly need to be there, as they are already covered under the existing rules -- this could just be one more addition.

While they are at it: add a definiton about at what point a dice is concidered to be "cocked" and eligible to be rerolled.

I have seen discussions about that to.

Rapture you can't cherry pick the instances in which an illegal roll can be kept. It isn't a legal roll thus there can be no ability for it to ever stand as valid, as there is absolutely no justification in the rules for the type of modification you are suggesting. You are essentially making up rules to avoid following the actual rules, which would be a roll with the requisite dice.

And MajorJuggler I completely apologize as it appears there are people still arguing that it is somehow acceptable to handle the given situation in different manners depending on whether it hurts or helps the opponent.

I don't think that the rules cover 'illegal rolls' at all, so you will have to point out what rules I am not following (I can't say that I am very familiar with the rules relating to rolling, however).

As to my preferred method of resolving an illegal roll, I make it a legal roll by removing the die that makes it illegal. Look back at the situation that I created with the single hit - what is the difference between a legal roll where 1 evade is rolled and an illegal roll where 3 evades are rolled? Nothing. The outcomes are identical. So, what difference does it make if the offending dice are removed or if a new roll is made? A new roll produces a new random outcome, but we can preserve the outcome of initial roll, even if it is illegal, in the situation that I created.

Some people have little superstitious beliefs. Back as a kid, I developed this habit from a friend, and now from time to time, when I really need a good roll, I will roll extra dice (sometimes a handful if possible) prior to making my actual roll.

This roll is not ment to be part of the game, but is a method I use to pick which dice I will roll to determine results (we reasoned that the dice that just came up as ones, would be now become 4-6.

Can you penalize me for this roll, nope. It was not the roll that is being made to determine results. You know this because it's not the legal number of dice I'm required to roll.

The only thing I can be penalize or is delay of game. Or cheating if I tried to use them as an actual result.

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.

I agree with everything you just said. This (should be) a discussion about how TOs can best serve their players and maintain a just and fair system of ruling on such problems.

So Stone in the vein you just described is there any reason for a TO to do anything but force a legal roll? Assuming we are talking about a singular instance, and not a repeated issue, is there a reason for a TO to not enforce the rules of the game in the simpliest, most neutral, most in keeping with the rules and other mistake procedures manner?

Rapture, the simpliest difference is one is a valid roll and the other isn't. What the roll is, what is needed from the roll, or any ramifications of the roll are of no consequence if the roll is illegal. The only equitable options is to force a legal roll irregardless of the rolls results or the game situation. This ensures the rules of the game are being followed despite the error and provides no bias, the roll you will be using is the roll mandated at that time.

Any roll that is not the legal roll is therefore an illegal roll. The same way in any attack that is not legally declared would be an illegal attack, or any not legal action would be an illegal action. We are talking about a permissive ruleset, anything not defined as legal essentially is illegal.

...

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.

I'll say solution 2 only would apply when you roll identical results on all dice. You want to say that a defense roll needs to stop two good results from coming through so it is 'safe' to just keep a blank, evade, evade, evade roll when you are only supposed to roll three dice but is it really? If you follow the 'opponent gets to pick dice to remove' then an evade is gone but what if there are other things that may be at work here?

Oh boy, 8 pages of this, VanorDM is right though. Re-roll is the correct answer.

The simplest answer is sometimes the best, you rolled a invalid roll- just redo.

I really dont like the idea your opponent gets to decide which dice you remove... just imagine adding another layer of complexity to fix a goof. You now sit there for a minute as your opponent decides to remove a focus or a hit to force you to use your focus... and you know there are players that will way overthink it. Plus, you are adding a punishment to the player which does not fit at all with the spirit of the game in my opinion- as the game state is not affected as opposed to the needed rules with red dials and stress of using the wrong dial etc.

ALWAYS REROLL. WHAT THE HECK. YOU DONT LET HIM JUST AHVE 3 EVADES AND CANCEL THE BLANK. WHAT THE HECK?!?!?!?!

RAGE.

In every game and gaming group I've ever played we use the same method. If a player rolls too many dice (assuming they aren't brand new to the game) the opponent chooses to accept the rolled result or have the player re-roll the correct amount of dice. This serves as a gentle reminder to police your own dice because if you don't and your excess dice don't yield a positive result you'll have to live with those 3 blanks and a Focus when you should have only rolled 3 dice. This system has always worked amazingly well in my experience.

Re-rolling all the dice is a fair method but it doesn't incentivize the offender to pay closer attention to the amount of dice they roll. This method is also indifferent and egalitarian to to the intentional and unintentional offender so no need to guess or discuss the motivation.

There is only one way to do it, re-roll everything since the first roll was not legal.

Everything else is skirting the rules.

In every game and gaming group I've ever played we use the same method. If a player rolls too many dice (assuming they aren't brand new to the game) the opponent chooses to accept the rolled result or have the player re-roll the correct amount of dice. This serves as a gentle reminder to police your own dice because if you don't and your excess dice don't yield a positive result you'll have to live with those 3 blanks and a Focus when you should have only rolled 3 dice. This system has always worked amazingly well in my experience.

Re-rolling all the dice is a fair method but it doesn't incentivize the offender to pay closer attention to the amount of dice they roll. This method is also indifferent and egalitarian to to the intentional and unintentional offender so no need to guess or discuss the motivation.

I like the variation if you want to punish the other player for doing the mistake. Still think in a tournament it should simply be rerolled for clarity reasons.