You will have to explain to me where you got that from. The use of dice that modified to achieve something other than a random result is cheating. It is breaking an implied rule that the dice are to produce random results.

Ever heard the saying about pissing into the wind?

You're well onto the way to wet legs.

Sorry.

Cheers

Baaa

@Rapture

Take a breath mate.

OK, I have already conceded that using dice that modify the potential out come as cheating. You don't even need to use that Implied rule nonsense with me.

A dice that rolls a hit or a crit 90%-95% of the time is still random. An 8 sideed dice that is flawed to role one facing (not result, facing) more often will still come up with the other facings just not as much.

That is why I said that the actual result that a dice rolls is irrelevant it is the dice facing that we are concerned with regards to cheating, in the example both you and everyone else had been putting forwards (i.e. a dice that through either deliberate tampering or faulty construction favours once face above another)

In a case where the dice comes up with that one face 100% of the time you are saying that is cheating weather you mean it or not. That is fine for the propose of this discussion I have aligned myself with your view that only the result matters not the intent, even though my personal opinion differs.

Now, due to Probability being a thing, even a weighted dice does not come up with that facing every time. As I said, the numbers that were thrown out and accepted as an random stat was 90%-95% of the time the dice was rolling a hit/crit.

This is already a variance of randomness for that dice as 5%-10% of the time it is still coming up one of the 3 blank faces, within those hits and crits the distribution could be anything but lets of with 60% Hits (10% above expected over the lifetime of the dice) this leave worst case 45% for the cries which is a whopping 20% more than they should come up. Unfortunately that still leaves two faces, only one of which would actually be the intended weighted face so again being generous lets assume that the non weighted crib only comes up 15% of the time leaving the weighted side at 30% of the rolls come up at as this side.

That is a weighted dice the does not work 70% of the time for the expected out come, if we had used 90% instead of 95% it would fail 75% of the time.

Now using your argument that the intent to cheat is irrelevant, it is not outside of the realms of probability that the player using this dice could play many games where it would in fact roll results other than the intended result and over this smaller SAMPLE SIZE provide results closer to the norm. I.E. Random

Now that we have established this premiss we return to me explaining how it ties in to your argument on this point.

Your own premiss is that only the results mater, not the intent.

This player is fine, in no way a cheater, cheater pumpkin eater and should be able to ride off in to the sunset with his random dice, because even though he wanted to cheat, he did nothing wrong as he actually didn't get the results he was hoping for.

To boil this down to the core issue, I am saying that it is possible for a mistake to be made and for a player to play with dice that are not perfectly balanced for their entire gaming life and not actually be cheats.

You seem to be saying that if your dice don't conform to the statistical average over an unspecified SAMPLE SIZE than you are breaking a rule and therefor cheating.

Kris

I think Im gonna swap the loaded dice for a loaded gun...

Ever heard the saying about pissing into the wind?

You're well onto the way to wet legs.

Sorry.

Cheers

Baaa

Dude,

Its a Friday, I am at home with the dogs while my Wife is at work.

What else would I be doing, painting my Imperial Assault stuff for a tournament tomorrow?

Kris

I am board,

Ever heard the saying about pissing into the wind?

You're well onto the way to wet legs.

Sorry.

Cheers

Baaa

Dude,

Its a Friday, I am at home with the dogs while my Wife is at work.

What else would I be doing, painting my Imperial Assault stuff for a tournament tomorrow?

Kris

I've been drinking beer since 2 o' clock this afternoon (zulu).

That's why I've been so serious

Cheers

Baaa

I remember parts of these discussions from a previous post. Then, like now, it basically boiled down to Rapture vs.

Without solid statistical or physical evidence that the dice are either flawed or altered this becomes a moot argument and, like the other thread, dissolves into a disagreement over the definition and nuances of cheating.

Its funny because all of this happened because Rapture missed the word perceived in Baaa's post about being able to spend an evening rolling dice to find the "good" ones.

The sample size/rolling style changes/perception of result makes such a test as good as irrelevant in any meaningful way.

Yet, such is life.

We can spend another 3 hours on the internet agreeing with each other loudly, the problem comes when you have set your stall out to be opposed to what someone is saying even when they are trying to agree with your ultimate point.

Which I think we can all agree is that using dice to gain an unfair advantage is wrong.

Now back to quibbling over what is classed as "unfair"

Kris

Huzzah!!!!

Beer

Cheers

Baaa

Huzzah!!!!

Beer

Cheers

Baaa

Make mine a single malt.

Bottoms Up!

I remember parts of these discussions from a previous post. Then, like now, it basically boiled down to Rapture vs.

Without solid statistical or physical evidence that the dice are either flawed or altered this becomes a moot argument and, like the other thread, dissolves into a disagreement over the definition and nuances of cheating.

Well thats twice he has bounced in and back out of the thread with no reply. I am sure that, unlike me, he is busy with more important things.

I am ready with the fabled Merriam-Webster links (although I am more of an Oxford English man myself) so can't wait for the discussion to move forwards in a conducive manor.

Kris

This thread came into the world bright with hope for tomorrow, it's entire life ahead of it. So much world to see, or maybe it would fall in love and spend its days in eternal bliss.

But now? Now it just craves the sweet release of death, to shuffle off this mortal coil into the gaping maw of oblivion.

This thread came into the world bright with hope for tomorrow, it's entire life ahead of it. So much world to see, or maybe it would fall in love and spend its days in eternal bliss.

But now? Now it just craves the sweet release of death, to shuffle off this mortal coil into the gaping maw of oblivion.

And yet you; like I with this post, condemn it to remain on that mortal plane which we so both so disdain.

Cheers

Baaa

I remember parts of these discussions from a previous post. Then, like now, it basically boiled down to Rapture vs.

Without solid statistical or physical evidence that the dice are either flawed or altered this becomes a moot argument and, like the other thread, dissolves into a disagreement over the definition and nuances of cheating.

Well thats twice he has bounced in and back out of the thread with no reply. I am sure that, unlike me, he is busy with more important things.

I am ready with the fabled Merriam-Webster links (although I am more of an Oxford English man myself) so can't wait for the discussion to move forwards in a conducive manor.

Kris

Prep the good old OED!

Get one of your group to pretend they are choking in front of him and when he dives in to help, you replace his die with some of your own and roll his against him. If they are loaded, you will see it in his face when you start defeating him and if he continues to win, you know you are probably not a very good human being.

MonkeyInSpace, on 19 Feb 2016 - 5:01 PM, said:

Get one of your group to pretend they are choking in front of him and when he dives in to help, you replace his die with some of your own and roll his against him. If they are loaded, you will see it in his face when you start defeating him and if he continues to win, you know you are probably not a very good human being.

And, if he doesn't jump in and help when someone is choking, you know the dice are loaded and should absolutely engage your enemy in mortal combat in the car park.

See if you're opponent will let you roll them...

If he won't, they're loaded.

By FFG tournament rules, he MUST allow you to use his dice if you request to. Same goes for range rulers and maneuver templates.

I remember parts of these discussions from a previous post. Then, like now, it basically boiled down to Rapture vs.

Without solid statistical or physical evidence that the dice are either flawed or altered this becomes a moot argument and, like the other thread, dissolves into a disagreement over the definition and nuances of cheating.

Well thats twice he has bounced in and back out of the thread with no reply. I am sure that, unlike me, he is busy with more important things.

I am ready with the fabled Merriam-Webster links (although I am more of an Oxford English man myself) so can't wait for the discussion to move forwards in a conducive manor.

Kris

Prep the good old OED!

Both the OED and MW are clsoe at hand. The OED comes in handy when some bloke says something about 'clappers' and I know whether to use a medical dictionary or te OED.

Holy crap!

I started this post to ask a question of how to determine if a set of dice MAY or MAY Not have been tampered with.

Never intended this to turn into a sword fight...if you know what I mean.

To boil this down to the core issue, I am saying that it is possible for a mistake to be made and for a player to play with dice that are not perfectly balanced for their entire gaming life and not actually be cheats.

Again, that depends on what definition of "cheating" you are using and whether or not you think that having dice that produce a random, meaning an equal probability of any one result occuring (which should be obvious in the context of using dice), result is part of the rules for this game.

You seem to be saying that if your dice don't conform to the statistical average over an unspecified SAMPLE SIZE than you are breaking a rule and therefor cheating.

Kris

As I stated, multiple times, breaking the rules is cheating. I do not see what sample size has to do with it.

With all this talk about manufactured dice flaws, has anybody actually put any thought into how likely such a situation presents itself? With dice coming random in every package, is it 1 package in 10? 1:100? 1:1000? If the likelihood is great enough, then it isn't an unfair advantage as it is likely to randomly happen to anybody. If it is exceedingly rare, then somebody is shelling out hundreds if not thousands of dollars to try to find the odd dice that are not only flawed, but flawed in such a way that they roll evades or crits instead of blanks.

At this point, you should be thanking said individual for boosting X-Wing sales for FFG so that they continue producing this fun game for all of us to play.

As for whether it is cheating, I've seen multiple times where WH gamers have agreed to pause the match so that one of them could buy a new block of dice because their current ones were rolling way too many low numbers for their liking.

To use Rapture's view on cheating, said player is paradoxically cheating both because their dice were rolling too low (and thus seemingly non-randomly) and because they tried to change the outcome of their dice rolls by buying new dice. This means that not only is superstition to be considered cheating, but that the very company that produces this game can cause you to be a cheater regardless of whether you wanted to or not. Such a strict interpretation on the word most likely means that every player is cheating is some way, shape, or form. Since the advantages of such random cheating would tend to cancel out when another player is randomly cheating, nobody is really cheating unless they are making a concerted effort to cheat!

To the OP I have this to say. Unless this player had godlike luck when it came to buying dice, it is likely that there is nothing special or quirky about them unless he specifically loaded them.

Unless this player's name is Qui-Gon Jinn. That dude is a well known dice cheat and you should wait for him to leave the shop and promptly break his kneecaps.

Cheating requires intent. Whomever doesn't think this is not worth arguing with. If there is no intent, it is just a mistake or stupidity etc.

Rolling dice to find "the best" ones is merely convincing yourself of your own confirmation bias.

The scales of magnitude at which you can count on the randomness of standard dice to be even slightly predictable are beyond mere mortal minds and in the realms of machines rolling every second for months.

Therefore, the idea that this superstitious selection of dice is cheating is, frankly, idiotic.