1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Sounds an awful lot like you’re saying intent matters in the definition of something.

No people are pointing out intent matters in the rules, because it does. That's the whole reason FAQ's are released. If dice are banned because they feel cheating is easier with them then providing an object that is cheated with just as easily in the same exact way but calling it something different isn't going to go well with any official who actually cares about the reasoning behind the rules.

Remember the golden rule:

"Don't feed the troll"

Well now we’re just back to RAI v. RAW. People far smarter than you or I have long since failed to win that debate.

9 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Well now we’re just back to RAI v. RAW. People far smarter than you or I have long since failed to win that debate.

Well no, I agreed to not call it a die simply because it wasn't really relevant as I was hoping you'd be interested in defining the reason dice are banned and thus the futility of arguing over whether it was a die or not. If we want to debate pure RAW it is a die, you can roll it and doing so will produce 1 of 20 results each with a 1/20 chance of landing on any particular one. That's the exact function of a D20 to the letter, the only difference being that the numbers are printed in a different order to make manipulation easier. Still a die.

The standard definition is a cube with numbers 1-6, but clearly FF (as well as pretty much any gamer) acknowledges dice like the D4, D8, D10, D20, D100, etc into that factor thus we need only contrast it to those and it's the same. There is no clearly definied layout for a D20 other than it needing 20 sides typically with 20 symbols upon it ranging 1-20.

Can I just point out the game Too Many Bones use dice as counters often. Examples include Boomer's Boom Counter and Tantrum's RAGE!. These counter dice are d6s, but never rolled and are usually spin downs. The game still calls them dice, because of their shape.

If you can easily manipulate the die into a desired result, or range of results, then the odds are no longer 1:20 - and thus functionally different from a legitimate die.

Don't you feel you're misunderstanding the reason why they don't allow dice as counters? Specially if the venue is crowded, it's highly likely for the table to be bumped by nearby people, if not intentionally by a cheater. Such a bump can move and modify the value of a die used as a counter, normal or spindown. If players forget the original value, the game wouldn't be able to continue. This is the danger of using dice as counters.

2 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

If you can easily manipulate the die into a desired result, or range of results, then the odds are no longer 1:20 - and thus functionally different from a legitimate die.

If you roll it the odds of getting any particular side is still 1/20 so no not functionally different. It's more easily manipulated to pick up and move to find an ascending or descending number, that's the entire purpose of the counters being printed slightly differently but that doesn't make them not dice.
Since you where so fixated on the definition lets take a look at it:
" a small cube with each side having a different number of spots on it, ranging from one to six, thrown and used in gambling and other games involving chance. "
Now I think we can all agree that the "cube" and "six sides" parts are irrelevant here as FF clearly breaks those in nearly every single one of it's games that come with, what they call, "dice". That said it specifically mentions throwing the dice ie rolling, doing so produces a chance result does it not?

10 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

If you can easily manipulate the die into a desired result, or range of results, then the odds are no longer 1:20 - and thus functionally different from a legitimate die.

No, the range it produces is just determined differently. It still performs the same function as a die: it can be rolled and result is produced. That result is still random within the parameters of the die's design. You could argue that a spindown couldn't be used as a stand in for a D20 because the result range can be narrowed with skill, but that just means it's not a true d20 and more of an altered die like a "cheater's die" with two 20s. Bad or illegal, it is still a die. Trying to use such a die would be cheating, unless that is the exact range you are trying to produce, just like using 2d6 to stand in for a d12 would be cheating. It doesn't change that dice are still involved.

14 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

Don't you feel you're misunderstanding the reason why they don't allow dice as counters? Specially if the venue is crowded, it's highly likely for the table to be bumped by nearby people, if not intentionally by a cheater. Such a bump can move and modify the value of a die used as a counter, normal or spindown. If players forget the original value, the game wouldn't be able to continue. This is the danger of using dice as counters.

He's not misunderstanding, he's willfully ignoring intent and focusing on black and white "legality" to prove to everyone how smart he is. He is, however, producing the opposite effect.

30 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Well now we’re just back to RAI v. RAW. People far smarter than you or I have long since failed to win that debate.

You started a discussion on the RAI vs RAW discussion. The RAI is perfectly clear on this matter. The verbosity required to produce a rules text that covers/excludes every possible misinterpretation would be excessive. So I guess if enough people really end up pushing this point and trying to use die-shaped objects with numbers on them as counters because they feel they don't qualify as dice ... the only rules change this could lead to would be, that they ultimately change their mind and simply require people to use the official cardboard tokens provided with the starter set.

One's ability to manipulate the output of a die doesn't negate the identity of a die. If you roll a spindown well, it's just as random as any other die. You could imagine a theoretical cheater that's really good at rolling a standard D6, but just because that person can use a die for a non-random output doesn't mean the die itself is non-random or not a die.

1 minute ago, Shimaaji said:

You started a discussion on the RAI vs RAW discussion. The RAI is perfectly clear on this matter. The verbosity required to produce a rules text that covers/excludes every possible misinterpretation would be excessive. So I guess if enough people really end up pushing this point and trying to use die-shaped objects with numbers on them as counters because they feel they don't qualify as dice ... the only rules change this could lead to would be, that they ultimately change their mind and simply require people to use the official cardboard tokens provided with the starter set.

The debate about RAI v. RAW is which one takes priority, not what the actual intent is.

You could also argue, that picking up a spindown die and moving it to a desired side is still rolling as well.

Even in it's "intended" use a spindown is a polyhedral shape that is rolled (between your fingers) to produce a result. In this case, you pick it up and turn it over to produce the result you wish rather than a random result. It's a die and always has been.

6 minutes ago, ImhotepMagi said:

He's not misunderstanding, he's willfully ignoring intent and focusing on black and white "legality" to prove to everyone how smart he is. He is, however, producing the opposite effect.

That’s an awfully negative assumption. Frankly I don’t care what you think of me, but it does say something about your own character if you feel the need to cast aspersions here. It’s just a game.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

The debate about RAI v. RAW is which one takes priority, not what the actual intent is.

Well, if you want to go so far as to completely ignore RAI and strictly stick to RAW I guess you wouldn't have to go for a spin down counter, but could use any D8, D10, D12, D20 or whatever, since the definition of dice in reputable dictionaries only covers the classical D6. (It does NOT however cover how the numbers or pips are distributed across it.)

What's wrong with using normal tokens anyway?

And with regards to RAI vs RAW, shouldn't we always play games as the designers intended? Feels like a jerk move to try and find the smallest loopholes that the designers may have missed.

6 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

What's wrong with using normal tokens anyway?

And with regards to RAI vs RAW, shouldn't we always play games as the designers intended? Feels like a jerk move to try and find the smallest loopholes that the designers may have missed.

People are mistaking the intent of my thread. I was really elated to find a “loophole” that let’s me use the tools I want, that’s all.

4 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

That’s an awfully negative assumption. Frankly I don’t care what you think of me, but it does say something about your own character if you feel the need to cast aspersions here. It’s just a game.

There's no other reason to argue this hard over a line of text in a tournament document. 99% of people will see that and just assume they can bring any dice or dice-like object. In practice, bringing a spindown will 99% of the time will have it nixed by the TO. It is a functionally moot point.

The only reason to work this hard on this is because you own stock in spindown dice or you want to prove you've beaten FFG at it's own game.

There's also the rush of winning a debate, which proves you are better capable of forming an argument which can be perceived as being "smarter". That's the only reason I'm doing this and fully admit it. There's no aspersion here, just calling it like I see it.

1 minute ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

What's wrong with using normal tokens anyway?

And with regards to RAI vs RAW, shouldn't we always play games as the designers intended? Feels like a jerk move to try and find the smallest loopholes that the designers may have missed.

I guess if games become ultra-competitive things end up being that way. If you take it to the extremes you end up with something like Magic the Gathering, where the full rules document has ... I think it's around 220 pages of game rules PLUS 50something pages of tournament rules PLUS some other documents I don't have access to PLUS there being a certification program that helps people to study for and get certified as official judges ... because there is no other way to actually have people who know all that stuff.

Well, in MtG you have a lot more content 'and' there's a lot of money on the table, which isn't the case here, but I guess if it comes to it and they have to be 100% verbose, as I've mentioned before, they'll just pick the easy way: Instead of allowing people to use their own counters they might just end up limiting organized play to the official tokes from the starter.

9 minutes ago, ImhotepMagi said:

There's no other reason to argue this hard over a line of text in a tournament document.

You have something better to do on a forum? Aside from belittling others, that is.

If you need the recognition of others to feel good about yourself, you’re in the wrong place. But I tell you what, come visit my LGS and I’ll take you out for a beer, and after I show you my long list of personal accolades you can change your mind. Or not. I genuinely don’t care, because I know who I am and what I’ve accomplished, and your opinion of me will never change that.

2 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

In short, the fact that you’re doing it wrong with the tacit acceptance of those around you does not make it okay.

Pot.....meet kettle.

You really are clueless.

5 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

People are mistaking the intent of my thread. I was really elated to find a “loophole” that let’s me use the tools I want, that’s all.

Except it won't let you use the tools you want. As said before the counter is seen by many, in fact most it would seem if this thread is any indication, as a dice and even if one was to grant that it wasn't I cant possibly any TO or Marshall looking at it and being ok with it given it has the exact same effect as using a D20 and thus would be illegal to use for the same reason. You're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, it's about as appealing as a munchkin in a DnD campaign and all it's going to earn you is some scorn from those frustrated with trying to talk to you and frustration on your own end when the TO/Marshall almost guaranteed rules the same way everyone here is fairly certain they will... but if you intend to waste your and your officials time by bringing one then... have fun?

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

You have something better to do on a forum? Aside from belittling others, that is.

It's not belittling. I didn't say it was good or bad, simply that you were achieving the opposite of what I perceived as your goal. If your goal is not to prove you are smarter than the rules document or the people that disagree with you, then I apologize. For the offense I have caused, I apologize. I would very much like to know what your goal is.

However, I do notice you have not refuted any of my legitimate arguments and have focused on this instead. Do you have any thoughts on those?

I’m on my phone, friend. Can’t do your arguments justice at present, I’m afraid.