My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

Did you come to that conclusion by "rolling each die in the same fashion, on the same surface, with the same amount of force, etc.....?"

Poking fun at you obviously for your earlier, equally rhetorical question, but I hope it's clear that this is the best I can do - and probably the best you can do as well. I took the time to roll 1000 dice and provide my observations. It's not perfect by scientific standards, but until someone devises a device that can perfectly replicate rolling conditions like the Lego dude, this is all we've got.

Here are the results after 1002 rolls (batches of 6):

Observed: 420 evades, 248 focus, 334 blanks

Expected: 376 evades, 250 focus, 376 evades

Chi-statistic = 9.87

p-value = 0.00719

If we're strictly looking at blanks:

Observed: 668 evades/focus, 334 blanks

Expected: 626 evades/focus, 376 blanks

Chi-statistic = 7.42

p-value = 0.00645

edit: corrected Chi-square results

Is this 1002 rolls of that set of dice or of one of them? The variance for any single X wing die is actually pretty high.

I rolled a set of 6 dice 167 times.

My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

Did you come to that conclusion by "rolling each die in the same fashion, on the same surface, with the same amount of force, etc.....?"

Poking fun at you obviously for your earlier, equally rhetorical question, but I hope it's clear that this is the best I can do - and probably the best you can do as well. I took the time to roll 1000 dice and provide my observations. It's not perfect by scientific standards, but until someone devises a device that can perfectly replicate rolling conditions like the Lego dude, this is all we've got.

I'm not a huge statistics guy, but everything I researched online pointed me towards a dice tower with 3 "layers" of rods before the final ramp. I built up a tower about a foot tall, created it so that there was almost no way a die could go through without hitting at least 1 (more likely it bounced off 2 or 3) and then put some of the "sticky" shelf liner from home depot on the final ramp to grab the die and spin it more. There was no bump stop at the end, I let them go across an ffg mat and we called out the results. 3 different people would each take turns "rolling" dice through the tower and calling out the results, 100 rolls before switching.

Fallacies in my method: Since we used tiny stickers with numbers on them on each face of all 4 dice, its possible they could not be in exactly the same spot on each face. But the results over 1000 rolls seemed pretty good. Also with 3 people rolling dice, its possible they didn't all roll them similar enough. I'm going to have to get my raw data to MajorJuggler and see what he thinks of the results!

My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

Did you come to that conclusion by "rolling each die in the same fashion, on the same surface, with the same amount of force, etc.....?"

Poking fun at you obviously for your earlier, equally rhetorical question, but I hope it's clear that this is the best I can do - and probably the best you can do as well. I took the time to roll 1000 dice and provide my observations. It's not perfect by scientific standards, but until someone devises a device that can perfectly replicate rolling conditions like the Lego dude, this is all we've got.

LOL, no worries! Mine is just a casual observation based on the fact that very few of my games stick out as having particularly good or bad dice rolls. Only one game comes to mind where my opponent seemed to think my red dice were invincible, but failed to take into account (until I pointed it out) that every attack I made was both Focused and Target Locked. The dice certain do get 'better' when you have double modifications on them. I offered the use of my dice to that guy as well, a number of times.

I guess I just don't like the feeling I got from the starting, seemingly disparaging, tone of the thread - which seemed to me to be saying (or at least implicating) that third party dice are loaded/hot and (perhaps) everyone should be wary of those in play. That was probably not your intention, but it came across to me that way. Maybe I'm just being sensitive.....

I knew a real math guy would chime in at some point!

Again, I'll point out the caveat that these results are not truly accurate due to the inherent inconsistencies in the data generation/gathering. That's not to say that the dice aren't fair/unfair, only that flawed data is a surefire way to get flawed results (my primary expertise is chemistry, not math).

Either way, good on the OP for ditching dice that were at the very least perceived as 'unfair'. I'd also like to add (again) that similar results can be achieved with the FFG dice (as well as most other dice which are not engineered and/or tested for precision). My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

The OP started with Chi-square tests . "At some point"? C'mon, now.

Not really the same thing, but I was wondering about this...

I've played against people who, before each roll, rolled all their dice, and then picked up and rolled for their actual attack or defense only the ones that got good results. Those people always seem to get really good luck. That begs the question, are dice more likely to roll the result that's showing when you pick them up? I always thought that finding the "lucky" dice was just a superstition...but maybe there's more to it?

In the words of Obi-Wan:

"In my experience, there is no such thing as luck."

Last night, with the 12 dice I always play with, I rolled incredibly hot. On 4 instances rolling a full house on attack dice (3 hits 2 crits) unmodded. Other nights they fail me again and again. I have been using the same dice for a year. Hot sometimes, sometimes not. I have some of the third party dice on the way, we shall see.

By the way, the fact that your dice are heavily tumbled is likely the biggest reason they don't roll fair --

Non-tumbled dice are more likely to roll truly random results because, as I understand it, tumbling is never as even as you’d think. That’s why casino dice aren’t tumbled: They have sharp edges, totally flat faces, and their pips are filled in with plastic that’s the same density as the plastic of the die itself. They also cost a s$&%load of money and, unsurprisingly, don’t come in any shape but six-sided.

http://www.gnomestew.com/general/crock-pot/things-i-learned-while-inking-14-gamescience-dice-with-a-crayon/

I have a set of these dice and I have found them to roll the opposite way for me. I would gets a LOT of blanks with them. I played 3 games and switched back to my regular dice and haven't touched them since. I'll pull them out when I play a newbie nextime.

Not really the same thing, but I was wondering about this...

I've played against people who, before each roll, rolled all their dice, and then picked up and rolled for their actual attack or defense only the ones that got good results. Those people always seem to get really good luck. That begs the question, are dice more likely to roll the result that's showing when you pick them up? I always thought that finding the "lucky" dice was just a superstition...but maybe there's more to it?

In the words of Obi-Wan:

"In my experience, there is no such thing as luck."

Before each roll? Id be calling a judge over if someone did that in a tournament that i was playing against. If nothing else, it makes the game take a lot longer since you tend to roll dice a lot

My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

Did you come to that conclusion by "rolling each die in the same fashion, on the same surface, with the same amount of force, etc.....?"

Poking fun at you obviously for your earlier, equally rhetorical question, but I hope it's clear that this is the best I can do - and probably the best you can do as well. I took the time to roll 1000 dice and provide my observations. It's not perfect by scientific standards, but until someone devises a device that can perfectly replicate rolling conditions like the Lego dude, this is all we've got.

LOL, no worries! Mine is just a casual observation based on the fact that very few of my games stick out as having particularly good or bad dice rolls. Only one game comes to mind where my opponent seemed to think my red dice were invincible, but failed to take into account (until I pointed it out) that every attack I made was both Focused and Target Locked. The dice certain do get 'better' when you have double modifications on them. I offered the use of my dice to that guy as well, a number of times.

I guess I just don't like the feeling I got from the starting, seemingly disparaging, tone of the thread - which seemed to me to be saying (or at least implicating) that third party dice are loaded/hot and (perhaps) everyone should be wary of those in play. That was probably not your intention, but it came across to me that way. Maybe I'm just being sensitive.....

I've been told before that I come off as disparaging, but I can assure you that wasn't my intention here.

It was more an anecdote that the 3rd party dice our community bought in bulk seemed to roll well. A lot of you were understandably skeptical, so I figured I'd roll them out and see what the numbers show. And again, this is just with my particular set of dice. I'm making an assumption at best that it's similar for the rest of the batch and can't speak at all to the balance of other brands of 3rd party dice.

Believe me, I take no enjoyment in the fact that I wasted money on dice I probably won't ever use again. I just wanted to put out a PSA for the sake of fair play - whether or not players are aware there might be something wrong with their dice.

All your 3rd party dice might be perfectly fine, but I think it's reasonable to say mine aren't (acknowledging limitations of my methodology).

I knew a real math guy would chime in at some point!

Again, I'll point out the caveat that these results are not truly accurate due to the inherent inconsistencies in the data generation/gathering. That's not to say that the dice aren't fair/unfair, only that flawed data is a surefire way to get flawed results (my primary expertise is chemistry, not math).

Either way, good on the OP for ditching dice that were at the very least perceived as 'unfair'. I'd also like to add (again) that similar results can be achieved with the FFG dice (as well as most other dice which are not engineered and/or tested for precision). My third party dice are no better or worse than my FFG dice.

The OP started with Chi-square tests . "At some point"? C'mon, now.

To be fair, those were edited in later

Sounds like you started out with confirmation bias, used a method of rolling that's in no way able to produce a scientific result (use a dice tower at the very least), and decided to name the title of the topic "warning on weighted dice" as opposed to something like "my 6 dice seem biased". Your methodology gives me "vaccines cause autism" vibes. Thanks for all the effort anyway I guess...

Sounds like you started out with confirmation bias, used a method of rolling that's in no way able to produce a scientific result (use a dice tower at the very least), and decided to name the title of the topic "warning on weighted dice" as opposed to something like "my 6 dice seem biased". Your methodology gives me "vaccines cause autism" vibes. Thanks for all the effort anyway I guess...

It is a scientific result, and I am glad he took the time to investigate it. The real world is full of craptastic data, and for some of us, it's our job to make sense of it.

I have those exact dice from the exact same seller (they had a big sale on them so I bet a lot of folks bought them) and YES they roll absurdly hot. I used them in one game, after two or three rolls my opponent (correctly) asked to use them as well. The rest of the game was insane. Hits and evades all over the place. After that game I shelved them and haven't used them since.

I rolled a set of 6 dice 167 times.

I see the effort done, but (caveat for my statistics education being old and me no longer practising this regularly):

Beware of dependances and pseudoreplication. Rolling 6 dice 167 times is not the same as rolling 1 die 1002 times. Not every statistical test is applicable everywhere.

I would say you have done 167replicates (which is a not that big sample size, unfortunately), as the results of the rolls are dependent on each other, as they all are rolled together, and you cannot differentiate the individual die, right?

Any of the math guys who still practise statistics regularly, could give some advice here, which test is applicable?

I rolled a set of 6 dice 167 times.

I see the effort done, but (caveat for my statistics education being old and me no longer practising this regularly):

Beware of dependances and pseudoreplication. Rolling 6 dice 167 times is not the same as rolling 1 die 1002 times. Not every statistical test is applicable everywhere.

I would say you have done 167replicates (which is a not that big sample size, unfortunately), as the results of the rolls are dependent on each other, as they all are rolled together, and you cannot differentiate the individual die, right?

Any of the math guys who still practise statistics regularly, could give some advice here, which test is applicable?

I think that fact that he still found a significant deviation (with p < 0.05) rolling 6 at a time shows that there has to be at least 1 die that is not fair. No idea which one of course.

Sounds like you started out with confirmation bias, used a method of rolling that's in no way able to produce a scientific result (use a dice tower at the very least), and decided to name the title of the topic "warning on weighted dice" as opposed to something like "my 6 dice seem biased". Your methodology gives me "vaccines cause autism" vibes. Thanks for all the effort anyway I guess...

Well, unlike the notion that vaccines cause autism:

1. That study was a retrospective survey of parents with autistic children and a sample size of 12. My bias has no impact on my rolling. I wasn't trying to create a correlation and couldn't even if I wanted to.

2. There was no biological mechanism behind the vaccine-autism association. I explained quite thoroughly why I think there is an issue with solid dice and tested that theory with buoyancy tests

3. That paper manipulated evidence for the purposes of impact. I was trying to warn people about improperly weighted 3rd party dice, I'm not sure how you're interpreting the tone of the title but I think it might be your issue?

And yes, I did start out with a bias, because I've observed them being really hot. My bias isn't based on the fact that "they're 3rd party and must be flawed." It's based on actual observation over months and confirmed by other players.

For example, if I bought a set of dice that roll evades 100% of the time, am I biased when I perform 1000 rolls and try to show you that they roll well?

How does my bias impact the 99.9% statistical certainty that these dice are flawed? And why are you so certain that these dice aren't flawed? What tests have you done?

Edit: Some of you seem to think that I'm bashing 3rd party dice and sound like you're taking these results personally. Again, as someone who bought these dice; I did not want them to be problematic and I certainly did not want to shelf them. But for the sake of fair play, I performed this test and the results are pretty conclusive for my set of dice.

You don't have to believe me or the results even, but if you match up against someone with these dice and they're rolling super hot...

I rolled a set of 6 dice 167 times.

I see the effort done, but (caveat for my statistics education being old and me no longer practising this regularly):

Beware of dependances and pseudoreplication. Rolling 6 dice 167 times is not the same as rolling 1 die 1002 times. Not every statistical test is applicable everywhere.

I would say you have done 167replicates (which is a not that big sample size, unfortunately), as the results of the rolls are dependent on each other, as they all are rolled together, and you cannot differentiate the individual die, right?

Any of the math guys who still practise statistics regularly, could give some advice here, which test is applicable?

You are correct here. Strictly speaking, rolling 3 dice together is the correct way to do it - not rolling 1 die 1000 times. Reason being, you almost always roll dice together and their inter-collisions matter, as well as the spread of results. If you are looking for a systematic bias, ie a replicable defect in manufacturing, then there's no real difference between rolling 1 die 1000 times and 3 dice 167 times. If you are looking for a random defect, then you should be rolling 1 die. Using a human arm is also important as it replicates a source of randmoness you will see "in the wild," so to speak.

But we're not writing an article for The Lancet here

On a side note there's someone over on reddit making metal dice.

Not really the same thing, but I was wondering about this...

I've played against people who, before each roll, rolled all their dice, and then picked up and rolled for their actual attack or defense only the ones that got good results. Those people always seem to get really good luck. That begs the question, are dice more likely to roll the result that's showing when you pick them up? I always thought that finding the "lucky" dice was just a superstition...but maybe there's more to it?

In the words of Obi-Wan:

"In my experience, there is no such thing as luck."

If you roll always in the same way and pick a dice "in the correct" position up, you certainly can manipulate the odds. From 20 years p&p playing I can for example roll desired numbers rather well on D6. Though D6 are easy compared to D8+ because they roll a lot less smooth and thus are a lot more responsive to initial state and a lot less sensible to variations in the force and style you roll them.

Have not tested anything like that for x-wing dice, and I don't plan to do anytime soon, because acquired patterns are hard to lose and I rather would not want to cheat unconsciously ;-)

Interesting, no one here uses 3rd party dice but i will keep an eye on it.

To note my 2016 regional dice seem to roll fairly average for me.

Funny, my 2016 regional dice seem to roll a lot of focussus, but the 2015 ones seem to roll a lot of crits. I may be superstitious, but it really seems that way.

And I always refuse to play against third party dice in Organised Play. It's in the rules, so I'd rather share my own set.

[1000 rolls] is not enough measure. I want a 2 meter tall dice-tower (no fewer than 4 rungs) used. I want the room to be sound-proofed. I want a beer.

What's with all the necroposting at the moment?

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

What's with all the necroposting at the moment?

This thread got linked to from a fb post about someone selling dice.

well since this thread is back from the dead...

I recently bought these off Amazon and I am awaiting delivery. bought 6x6 of them

https://www.amazon.ca/X-Wing-Miniatures-Original-Black-Attack/dp/B01BW259ZK/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_img_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=YGCEWEFR732NCS41248R

They look pretty cool, a little larger than the normal dice and a bit more rounded, and come from the UK... they may run into the same issues as the original dice mentioned in this post.

That being said, a bunch of locals have bought into the Nerd-X dice ( http://nerd-x.de/Wuerfel/X-Wing/transparent-X-Wing-dice-1-set-new-Design::1076.html?language=en ) and they seem to roll pretty average for the ones that use them. One guy can't get a break with them to save his life, so I have no problems with him using them.

I also ordered a 3x3 set of these.

https://www.dieharddice.com/products/Star-Wing-Dice-Set-Battleworn-p76840741

My FFG coredice have been pretty good though. I wouldn't say they betray me a lot... however I do think I got 2-3 green dice that are just constantly in my favor. They have kept me alive longer than I should have in most games because I fly like a doofus. I have no experience with regional dice as I haven't flown in one yet.