Just now, Faerie1979 said:

It is a backfire however when instead they blank out with the reroll.

Die rolls are not pre-programed by fate. A player is not "wasting a good roll" if they roll too many dice, roll well, but are forced to re-roll.

True. But it is quite possible that if you roll 3 crits, you might well have rolled 2 crits if you had rolled the correct number of dice. There's also the opportunity cost of becoming known as "that guy that nobody wants to play against".

20 minutes ago, markrivett said:

A “free roll” with too many dice or otherwise is always beneficial. If a player attempts to cheat in this way, and is successful then they acquire a decision tree that provides an advantage.

If a player attempts to cheat in this way, and rolls well, it isn’t a “backfire” when they are then called out for failing to roll the correct number of dice. They’re just back to a position of no advantage.

This is true but I do not believe there is any way to fully negate this advantage without imposing unnecessary penalties on the players that actually just forget. I personally believe that the best approach to take would be to implement a policy that minimizes the paths on the decision tree that lead to a beneficial reroll. For example, you could:

1. Only reroll the correct number of dice if all of the original results were NOT exactly the same. If a player rolled exactly 3 blanks when they should have rolled 2 dice then simply cancel one and move on. The problem with rolling too many dice is you don't know which result was "extra" but when they are all the same then it's a moot point. The same would of course go for rolling 3 evades/hits.

2. Only reroll the correct number of dice if the roll included more than 0 "usable" results but was not part of #1 above. If a person rolled blank, blank, focus and they don't have a focus token then you would let the roll stand as picking and choosing which result was "extra" would not change the outcome. This policy would be much more difficult to police as a "usable" result is very different between ships depending on abilities and interactions.

I think implementing #1 would be very easy and it help to marginally reduce the decision tree advantage. #2 would help significantly more but as I said it would be difficult to police.

On 11/16/2019 at 7:00 PM, markrivett said:

I appreciate this perspective, and as emeraldbeacon referenced, it does appear to the the unofficial ruling. I would still love for a tournament judge to weight in, but I will add my view with an added level of complexity.

I tend to believe that the individual who makes the play error should accept the worse outcome, and this is why:

Although I know my opponent was not playing this angle, it is entirely conceivable that an unscrupulous player might engage in this behavior: Imagine my opponent was well aware that I had Outmaneuver and that he was only supposed to roll 2 defense dice. He instead rolled 3 dice hoping that I would not remember my upgrade. If the results were in his favor, and I failed to notice he rolled too many dice, he receives an advantage. If the results were NOT in his favor, he could then state: “Oh! Your Outmaneuver applies here. I should have only rolled two dice. Time to re-roll.” Which is also an advantage. If I notice the 3 die roll, and my opponent had rolled all evades or all focus (provided he had a focus, calculate, or force), he could even appeal to my “sportsmanship” and just say: “Oh, well it was all the same result anyway. What do you say we just take a die away.”

In the above scenario it is always to my opponents advantage to “get a free roll” with all dice hoping I will forget my upgrade, and then strategically remember it based on the results. Even if I always remember, an appeal to sportsmanship can still create advantage.

Outmanoeuvre isn’t a MAY, it’s a must - and BOTH players are responsible for the game state!

...and I was pretty sure that the 'reroll if too many, ad the missing if too fee' was somewhere in the current rules...

it’s a staple in our games anyway.

I can’t imagine another fair theory how this could be solved any other way!

ESPECIALLY because both players are responsible for the game state.

5 minutes ago, Faerie1979 said:

True. But it is quite possible that if you roll 3 crits, you might well have rolled 2 crits if you had rolled the correct number of dice.

That's not how randomness works. It's better to look at it this way: A cheater who rolls too many dice is attempting to substitute 3 crits (or any other favorable roll) for whatever result 2 dice would have otherwise produced. Failing at the substitution (being forced to re-roll the correct number of dice) is not putting that player at a disadvantage, it's just putting that player where they were statistically before their attempted substitution. Furthermore, they can "self-correct" if their roll is a bad one in order to put them self back to where they were before their attempted substitution resulted in a roll that they would prefer not to substitute.

17 minutes ago, Faerie1979 said:

There's also the opportunity cost of becoming known as "that guy that nobody wants to play against".

Cheaters do not believe they will be caught. There are cheaters at the highest level of all competitive gaming from Poker to X-Wing. The 2019 World Series of Poker had a player disqualified from a multi-million dollar shot at a prize. If you would have drilled into his thoughts regarding the "opportunity cost" of his cheating, you would have found not a hint of concern.

There's an old saying. "Cheaters never win, and winners never cheat." And in the long term, I find it to be rather true. Even if someone gets away with cheating once or twice, they will be caught. It's inevitable, and many times it's because they start believing they are so clever that nobody can catch them. So they cheat more and more often, and start getting careless while doing so. I've seen it happen time and again.

15 minutes ago, Tellonius said:

Outmanoeuvre isn’t a MAY, it’s a must - and BOTH players are responsible for the game state!

...and I was pretty sure that the 'reroll if too many, ad the missing if too fee' was somewhere in the current rules...

it’s a staple in our games anyway.

I can’t imagine another fair theory how this could be solved any other way!

ESPECIALLY because both players are responsible for the game state.

Both players responsibility for game state is true, but the way players conduct themselves in real time leaves a lot of room for mistakes – deliberate or otherwise.

Usually player 1 determines range, and then states something like “range 2 attack, 3 dice.” And then rolls. Player 2 likely already has the number of dice equal to their agility in-hand (+1 if at range 3 or obstructed) and ready to roll almost instantly in response.

Defense dice hit the table so quickly after an attack, there often isn’t time for Player 1 to remind Player 2 to subtract based on Outmaneuver or other modifications. In fact, an unscrupulous player might roll particularly quickly in this circumstance in order to achieve advantage.

In the original scenario I corrected my opponent who had rolled too many dice. The result was literally my 6-point upgrade providing my opponent an advantage due to their own sloppy play.

2 hours ago, markrivett said:

Defense dice hit the table so quickly after an attack, there often isn’t time for Player 1 to remind Player 2 to subtract based on Outmaneuver or other modifications.

Defense dice should not even be hitting that quick. Both players need time to modify the attack dice before defense dice are rolled. Tell him to slow down.

I might be gathering up any dice needed right away, but I do so after taking in all the conditions. Including things which reduce how many dice I get to roll. Wont say I never make mistakes, that would be a bald faced lie. However I may not be able to read what cards you have equipped to a given ship. Especially if your list is a computer printout. My distance vision isn't that good after all. As such if you have something which modifies how many dice I can roll for defense or offense, it is kind of up to you to inform me of that when it applies too.

3 hours ago, MadTownXWing said:

This is true but I do not believe there is any way to fully negate this advantage without imposing unnecessary penalties on the players that actually just forget. I personally believe that the best approach to take would be to implement a policy that minimizes the paths on the decision tree that lead to a beneficial reroll. For example, you could:

1. Only reroll the correct number of dice if all of the original results were NOT exactly the same. If a player rolled exactly 3 blanks when they should have rolled 2 dice then simply cancel one and move on. The problem with rolling too many dice is you don't know which result was "extra" but when they are all the same then it's a moot point. The same would of course go for rolling 3 evades/hits.

2. Only reroll the correct number of dice if the roll included more than 0 "usable" results but was not part of #1 above. If a person rolled blank, blank, focus and they don't have a focus token then you would let the roll stand as picking and choosing which result was "extra" would not change the outcome. This policy would be much more difficult to police as a "usable" result is very different between ships depending on abilities and interactions.

I think implementing #1 would be very easy and it help to marginally reduce the decision tree advantage. #2 would help significantly more but as I said it would be difficult to police.

#1 is how I handle this in casual settings, and how I would handle it as a TO. I do not have an issue with a forced re-roll of all dice all the time if thats how a group/TO decides thats how they want it done however.

My games have all been casual so far, no competitive play. When playing with my friends, we're pretty easy on each other; rolls involving too many / few dice as as likely to stay as to be re-rolled, depending on whim. In a tournament situation though, I would prefer such rolls to always be re-rolled (if too many) or added to with the correct amount of dice (if not enough). Consistency is a good thing.

If there's suspicion that a cheater is abusing the re-roll system, surely a marshal or judge could be called over to watch a few turns of play?

On 11/16/2019 at 9:31 AM, markrivett said:

My opponent rolls 3 defense dice resulting in all blanks.

In this circumstance, 3 blanks is the same as 2 blanks. Move a die to the side and carry on (if he can mod dice).

On 11/16/2019 at 12:27 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

The "Reroll if too many, add dice if too few" scenario really does make the most sense, in terms of removing any opportunities for impropriety on either side. A set rule like this puts everyone on the same page, and makes every (legal/official) roll of the dice matter.

It seems odd to me that in one circumstance the roll stands (at least in part; add more dice) and in another circumstance, you get a reroll.

On 11/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, Faerie1979 said:

Handling it any other way is creating a double standard, which should be avoided.

So to me, not creating a double standard would be:

If too few dice, roll additional dice.

If too many dice, opponent chooses dice to remove to bring the number down to the legally allowed number of dice. Now you can mod dice.

A bit like when you forget a dial, your opponent chooses you maneuver.

45 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

On 11/16/2019 at 10:31 AM, markrivett said:

My opponent rolls 3 defense dice resulting in all blanks.

In this circumstance, 3 blanks is the same as 2 blanks. Move a die to the side and carry on (if he can mod dice).

I agree on a personal level. However i have seen some that are highly 'dice superstitious' that would argue "the third die affected the results of the other two, so the other two results shouldn't be valid because of that influence" or something to that effect and would argue that point as to why they should reroll the entire pool. Its a bit ridiculous to most of us, but it is out there.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

A bit like when you forget a dial, your opponent chooses you maneuver.

DOH! That must suck in games..

14 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I agree on a personal level. However i have seen some that are highly 'dice superstitious' that would argue "the third die affected the results of the other two, so the other two results shouldn't be valid because of that influence" or something to that effect and would argue that point as to why they should reroll the entire pool. Its a bit ridiculous to most of us, but it is out there.

Not exactly superstitious, though the actual effect of the extra die rattling around with the others during the roll is probably fairly negligible. Now if they'd rolled 1 at a time (thankfully not the outlined permitted procedure in the rules for rolling dice) I'd call bull.

I appreciate that this topic continues to draw attention. There are strong arguments on both sides of the discussion.

I'd still like for a tournament judge or two (or even FFG) to weigh in if at all possible.

4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

"the third die affected the results of the other two, so the other two results shouldn't be valid because of that influence"

Oh FFS.

Next time I move a ship and displace it during play, I'll just blame it on Weak Gravitonic Forces. Never touched it. And totally not my fault I have arc now.

"Never Play With A Theoretical Physicist," that's my motto.

4 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Now if they'd rolled 1 at a time

Well, if they rolled one at a time, you would clearly know which was the last (and extra) die.

10 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

It seems odd to me that in one circumstance the roll stands (at least in part; add more dice) and in another circumstance, you get a reroll.

The difference is because adding a dice to a roll is statistically identical to rolling the correct number of dice, whereas removing one is not. The standard procedure of adding dice if too few are rolled and re-rolling if too many means all outcomes have exactly the same probability as if the correct number were rolled in the first place (although you could also achieve this by rerolling everything in both cases).

I'm not keen on removing a dice and letting the result stand only if all the results are the same, because it doesn't give the same probabilities as rolling correctly.

11 hours ago, markrivett said:

I appreciate that this topic continues to draw attention. There are strong arguments on both sides of the discussion.

I'd still like for a tournament judge or two (or even FFG) to weigh in if at all possible.

i don't agree. the discussion is pointless, even though it would be good if the best method was described in the rules.

the best method is the simple: roll too few, add what's missing. roll too many, reroll everything.

the arguments for other methods (such as removing a result under certain conditions) are not strong at all, they are mathematically unsound, very impractical and also unnecessarily complex.

FFG does not post in these forum other than in their sticky threads. i'm sure many tournament judges hang out here and post, but what's your definition of a tournament judge? i find it hard to believe they'd try to win merit by describing themselves as tournament judges in these conditions.

anyway, a good tournament judge knows his or her word is not the letter of the law outside of a tournament they're judging in.

4 hours ago, meffo said:

i don't agree. the discussion is pointless, even though it would be good if the best method was described in the rules.

the best method is the simple: roll too few, add what's missing. roll too many, reroll everything.

the arguments for other methods (such as removing a result under certain conditions) are not strong at all, they are mathematically unsound, very impractical and also unnecessarily complex.

As you can imagine, I disagree with your assessment, and see it as somewhat hyperbolic. Furthermore, the argument for re-rolling creates an opportunity to cheat, which should be avoided in all circumstances, but especially competitive events. The discussion we are having is (in part) value based: When a play error is made, should it provide an advantage to the player who made the error (deliberately or otherwise)? If not, what is the best method to handle those situations?

4 hours ago, meffo said:

FFG does not post in these forum other than in their sticky threads. i'm sure many tournament judges hang out here and post, but what's your definition of a tournament judge? i find it hard to believe they'd try to win merit by describing themselves as tournament judges in these conditions.

anyway, a good tournament judge knows his or her word is not the letter of the law outside of a tournament they're judging in.

I think an individual who has been the judge of a hyperspace trial or higher-level tournament would fit this description. Something like “I judged the City-State Hyperspace Trial on XX-YY-2019, and I would rule like this…” is perfectly credible. It’s not difficult to verify who ran a given tournament.

A good judge certainly does know their word is not the letter of the law but it would be the ruling that I (and I think most people) would defer to in the absence of an official FFG ruling.

13 minutes ago, markrivett said:

Furthermore, the argument for re-rolling creates an opportunity to cheat, which should be avoided in all circumstances, but especially competitive events.

But it is not cheating or rerolling if the rolling of too many dice never provides an acceptable result. You never have the choice of keeping the result with the too many dices.

7 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

I'm not keen on removing a dice and letting the result stand only if all the results are the same, because it doesn't give the same probabilities as rolling correctly.

As a whole, no.

But each DIE has the same probability of producing a blank (in this discussion}, and each die will have exactly the same probability of producing a blank on a reroll.

What the player has is a much greater probability of producing a more useful roll than all blanks.

14 minutes ago, Singulativ said:

But it is not cheating or rerolling if the rolling of too many dice never provides an acceptable result. You never have the choice of keeping the result with the too many dices.

This has already been covered in this discussion, but to reiterate: A player can intentionally roll too many dice in the hopes that their opponent will not realize the “mistake”. If they get a favorable result and their opponent does not notice, then they have successfully cheated. If they get an unfavorable result they can call out their mistake and re-roll.

7 minutes ago, markrivett said:

This has already been covered in this discussion, but to reiterate: A player can intentionally roll too many dice in the hopes that their opponent will not realize the “mistake”. If they get a favorable result and their opponent does not notice, then they have successfully cheated. If they get an unfavorable result they can call out their mistake and re-roll.

Hence my suggestion for having the opponent choose a die to remove from the pool. It removes agency from the player who made the error.

So what happens when the opponent purposefully obfuscates penalties to dice, so that they then get the choice to remove their opponent's best result?

Every method is open to cheating, and rules for resolving the situation need to favour neither side.

The 1e method is fine and like so many things, I have no idea why they left it out for 2e.