1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

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.

And a player who simply made an error and was allowed to make that error by his opponent so the error-maker might get stuck with two blanks since he'd be allowed to remove the good result from the pool while getting to justify it by calling the error-maker a cheater? That's certainly going to keep things friendly.

5 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

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.

Nice . Great minds think alike!

21 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

And a player who simply made an error and was allowed to make that error by his opponent so the error-maker might get stuck with two blanks since he'd be allowed to remove the good result from the pool while getting to justify it by calling the error-maker a cheater? That's certainly going to keep things friendly.

Ah well.

Mostly, it just points out why I don't play anytime there is more on the line than to kill a few hours having fun.

5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Ah well.

Mostly, it just points out why I don't play anytime there is more on the line than to kill a few hours having fun.

If the operative attitude is going to be that any mistake is considered cheating and should be punished you're going to up the ante even in a game with nothing on the line.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

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.

I will point out that the above scenario is possible regardless of the outcome of this discussion. If the ruling is “always re-reroll if too many dice”, that doesn’t protect against players who deliberately omit information to allow their opponents to roll too many dice – it incentivizes that behavior. However, “remove one die if all have same result” does mitigate it somewhat.

There are also some real-time practical challenges with attempting to cheat by deliberately obfuscating the game state with the hope that an opponent will roll too many dice. In this scenario, the attacking player might remain silent about the effects of their Outmaneuver and wait for their opponent to roll defense dice. After the defense roll, if the results favor the defender, the attacker might then remind their opponent that they rolled the incorrect number of dice and request a reroll. If the results favored the attacker, the attacker might remain silent about the Outmaneuver penalty.

This is (in part) why I’m not advocating for removing the best result. I’m advocating for stating that one die does not count in the event that all dice have the same results (or similar, say blanks and focuses if ship has no focus, calculate, or force). I'm also advocating for clarity on the best course of action when too many dice are rolled, with focus on the subject that "always reroll" may not be the ideal method.

20 minutes ago, markrivett said:

In this scenario, the attacking player might remain silent about the effects of their Outmaneuver and wait for their opponent to roll defense dice.

Which would be a missed opportunity for determing the number of defense die.

1 minute ago, Singulativ said:

Which would be a missed opportunity for modifying the defense die.

Setting the correct number of dice to roll does not fall under dice modification.

18 minutes ago, markrivett said:

This is (in part) why I’m not advocating for removing the best result. I’m advocating for stating that one die does not count in the event that all dice have the same results (or similar, say blanks and focuses if ship has no focus, calculate, or force). I'm also advocating for clarity on the best course of action when too many dice are rolled, with focus on the subject that "always reroll" may not be the ideal method.

You're not advocating for clarity with that. You're advocating for the course of action be determined differently depending on the roll and available tokens. You just want to be sure someone who blanks out on incorrectly rolling three evade dice when they should have rolled two stays blanked out.

I have no reason not to try and get away with throwing three dice every time if you're just going to take one away. Unless you are gonna let the cheater keep two evades when they threw three dice instead of two? Pretty sure you're not going to allow that are you? Because even the statistically challenged understand that if three evade dice and two evade dice were the same ships wouldn't have different agility values and Wedge or Outmaneuver wouldn't be worth using.

Otherwise you are suggesting being able to tell someone who made a mistake what their result now is on the justification they are a cheater.

Reroll all always or reroll all when two many and roll another when to few even if sometimes they let some dirty cheater get away with something. Sometimes you have to be the bigger person and leave the petty to think they're pulling one over on you.

12 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

You just want to be sure someone who blanks out on incorrectly rolling three evade dice when they should have rolled two stays blanked out.

Unless you are gonna let the cheater keep two evades when they threw three dice instead of two? Pretty sure you're not going to allow that are you?

I originally advocated for favoring the player who did not make the play error, but others have pointed out that both sides can make play errors (deliberately or otherwise), and therefore I would be perfectly fine with a player who rolled 3 evades (or 3 focus) keeping 2 of their results. This line of discussion is quite accusatory of my motives, and I’m not sure why.

17 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Otherwise you are suggesting being able to tell someone who made a mistake what their result now is on the justification they are a cheater.

Rulings that prevent the opportunity for cheating through sloppy play are not the same as inferring that a person who makes a genuine mistake is a cheater.

How will allowing someone who rolls three dice instead of two getting three evades being allowed to keep two reduce sloppy play?

17 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

How will allowing someone who rolls three dice instead of two getting three evades being allowed to keep two reduce sloppy play?

Rolling three dice and keeping two if they are all the same does not reduce sloppy play. It helps to reduce the advantage a player gains when leveraging sloppy play (deliberate or otherwise) for re-rolls.

As stated previously, if I am a deliberately sloppy player and roll too many dice and the results are favorable, I can use the pace of the game against my opponent to keep the result. If the result is not favorable, I can self-correct into a re-roll. If I must keep two of my three identical results I lose my decision tree a significant percentage of the time. Conversely, if I am a player who deliberately omits information to allow my opponent to roll more dice and force a re-roll after the fact, I lose my advantage when my opponent gets to keep two of the same three results.

12 minutes ago, markrivett said:

It helps to reduce the advantage a player gains when leveraging sloppy play (deliberate or otherwise) for re-rolls.

It isn't a re-roll. It is a done correctly roll. A re-roll is a second chance. Having one die rolling one die and then re-rolling one die if you don't like the result is a re-roll: a second chance. Throwing too many die and being made to then roll the proper number of dice is being made to do it properly. It isn't a second chance. You do understand how random events work right?

Until there is a pattern of not rolling the correct number of dice attributing ill intent to a mistake makes you the malicious one acting in bad faith. That's the point of the re-roll all method. You are able to let the charming cheater think he's got one over on you. But not being statistically challenged you are not phased.

You think any one is going to side with you when you call the charming charismatic guy everyone likes better than you a cheater as you decide which of their rolls they get to keep?

The key to reducing sloppy play is not being sloppy. Stand up for yourself when people are going to fast for you. Do not create some elaborate method prone to double-standards and not being able to be blown off as a way to reduce sloppy play. Scumbags are going to be scummy. Some people just want to take from you and getting under your skin is part of the reward of their hustle.

You're just asking for trouble if you don't simply... roll with it.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

Setting the correct number of dice to roll does not fall under dice modification.

But your opponent is oblidged to tell you if he modifies the number of defense die (and you should ask to make sure of it).

If he forgets or lies about it then it's his fault for missing this opportunity and the game should proceed.

8 minutes ago, Singulativ said:

But your opponent is oblidged to tell you if he modifies the number of defense die (and you should ask to make sure of it).

If he forgets or lies about it then it's his fault for missing this opportunity and the game should proceed.

So just roll more defense dice than you're allowed and if they hit the table before the other player notices tough cookies for them since they missed the opportunity to say it was too many?

1 minute ago, Frimmel said:

So just roll more defense dice than you're allowed and if they hit the table before the other player notices tough cookies for them since they missed the opportunity to say it was too many?

That is not what I wrote.

You, as defender, are determing the number of defense dice by also asking your opponent if any of his abilities modify the number of dice (besides all the rest of calculation). That of course means he gets alle the necessary time to check, but also ensures he doesn‘t cheat by „suddenly“ remembering after a favorable roll some ability forcing you to reroll the correct number of dice.

18 minutes ago, Singulativ said:

That is not what I wrote.

You, as defender, are determing the number of defense dice by also asking your opponent if any of his abilities modify the number of dice (besides all the rest of calculation). That of course means he gets alle the necessary time to check, but also ensures he doesn‘t cheat by „suddenly“ remembering after a favorable roll some ability forcing you to reroll the correct number of dice.

So you're suggesting that you don't have any responsibility to remember any effects except your own? You are free to just ignore the ones you don't like unless reminded? And if not reminded fast enough or within however long it is you've decided is the necessary time to check you're good? You gonna keep it if your roll was awful or are you free to remind them you rolled too many and roll correctly?

What am I asking? Of course you're gonna keep it. You're not the one cheating. He's cheating by "forgetting" and then taking away your good roll.

The DARVO is strong in this thread.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

It isn't a re-roll. It is a done correctly roll. A re-roll is a second chance. Having one die rolling one die and then re-rolling one die if you don't like the result is a re-roll: a second chance. Throwing too many die and being made to then roll the proper number of dice is being made to do it properly. It isn't a second chance.

This will be the last time I repeat this argument. If you still have difficulty understanding it after having had it repeated numerous times throughout the thread, I cannot help you. A player can deliberately roll too many dice, hope to put one over on their opponent, and then self-correct for a re-roll if their first roll is not advantageous.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

You do understand how random events work right?

I understand precisely how random events work. You understand that rolling too many dice and self-correction into a re-roll of an initial bad roll provides two avenues for unfair advantage, correct?

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

Until there is a pattern of not rolling the correct number of dice attributing ill intent to a mistake makes you the malicious one acting in bad faith. That's the point of the re-roll all method. You are able to let the charming cheater think he's got one over on you. But not being statistically challenged you are not phased.

Instituting rules rulings designed to insulate against bad actors is not bad faith. The assertion that it is, suggests that you are personally bothered by protecting the community from cheaters.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

You think any one is going to side with you when you call the charming charismatic guy everyone likes better than you a cheater as you decide which of their rolls they get to keep?

I’m not asking to decide which rolls they get to keep. I’m asking for a tournament judge to weigh in so I can reference the ruling in future games until FFG makes an official ruling.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

The key to reducing sloppy play is not being sloppy. Stand up for yourself when people are going to fast for you. Do not create some elaborate method prone to double-standards and not being able to be blown off as a way to reduce sloppy play. Scumbags are going to be scummy. Some people just want to take from you and getting under your skin is part of the reward of their hustle.

There isn’t anything elaborate to the merely keeping two of the three dice that all had the same result. It’s extremely strange to me that this seems too complex for you. I will no longer respond to your input in this discussion until your tone become more civil and you are able to wrestle your accusatory rhetoric under control. You are not advancing this discussion constructively, you are being provocative and your input does not contain value.

Quote

Players are expected to follow the game’s rules, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. It is each player’s responsibility to maintain a proper game state, and to ensure that all mandatory abilities and game steps are acknowledged. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, that player cannot retroactively use it without the consent of their opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity.

8 hours ago, Frimmel said:

And a player who simply made an error and was allowed to make that error by his opponent so the error-maker might get stuck with two blanks since he'd be allowed to remove the good result from the pool while getting to justify it by calling the error-maker a cheater? That's certainly going to keep things friendly.

But how many times a game, is it 'just being a mistake/error', before one starts questioning it?

On 11/21/2019 at 2:34 PM, markrivett said:

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?

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.

i will apologize, since i mean no disrespect to you. despite my somewhat harsh words, i respect you and think i can understand where you're coming from with what you're saying.

i can not only imagine you disagreeing with my assessment, but i can see it happening and accept it. i still think your argument has no solid ground what so ever, though. there are too many opportunities to cheat during a game of x-wing to take into consideration when determining which is the best possible solution to a problem that may occur while playing the game. your buts and ifs about players intentions and what benefits can be gained by using the most straight forward and rational solution of redoing the roll with the correct number of dice has little to no basis in reality what so ever. there will always be opportunities to cheat. keeping track of the game state will always be both players responsibility. there should always be a marshal available at all tournaments who can help players settle disputes, hand out warnings, make calls on measurements etcetera.

when a play error is made, it should be corrected. if it's not possible to roll back the game state easily, the players should try and agree on a solution or call on a marshal to settle the dispute. play errors should never provide an advantage to anyone or a disadvantage to anyone. in most cases, play errors and how they are settled will be more beneficial to one player than his or her opponent, even when both players agree to a solution, roll dice to determine a close call or when a marshal makes a ruling. it's important to remember, when a play error is made, what it results in is irrelevant, since it's an error. if it is discovered and rectified properly, only the rectified result is relevant, since that's the result that is in accordance with the rules, which is essential to playing the game.

it is difficult, yes. people don't use their real name here. even if they did and they had credentials, it would be difficult to verify that it's really them or that their credentials are any good. even famous tournament organizers don't have more credibility when interpreting the rules of the game than you or me, or any of our regular users. in fact, i dare say we as a community, in particular people who are regular posters on the rules forums, have slightly more credibility than anyone else, since we at least spend time and energy on interpreting the rules to the best of our abilities. FFG themselves always has the final word, of course. if you need their guidance, please spam the **** out of them from here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

for all intents and purposes, the closest thing you'll get to an answer from a "good judge" is some kind of consensus from the rules forums. meaning, reroll all if you roll too many, as far as i can tell.

this discussion has been held many times - and your math is really off if you think removing a result is good enough as long as all results are the same. a player has given himself or herself probabilities they were not supposed to have and gained a result they were not supposed to have. thus, the results are invalid and the probabilities needs to be tested in the circumstances described by the rules. it is not a reroll. it is a correct roll.

On 11/21/2019 at 9:02 PM, markrivett said:

This will be the last time I repeat this argument. If you still have difficulty understanding it after having had it repeated numerous times throughout the thread, I cannot help you. A player can deliberately roll too many dice, hope to put one over on their opponent, and then self-correct for a re-roll if their first roll is not advantageous.

I understand precisely how random events work. You understand that rolling too many dice and self-correction into a re-roll of an initial bad roll provides two avenues for unfair advantage, correct?

Instituting rules rulings designed to insulate against bad actors is not bad faith. The assertion that it is, suggests that you are personally bothered by protecting the community from cheaters.

I’m not asking to decide which rolls they get to keep. I’m asking for a tournament judge to weigh in so I can reference the ruling in future games until FFG makes an official ruling.

There isn’t anything elaborate to the merely keeping two of the three dice that all had the same result. It’s extremely strange to me that this seems too complex for you. I will no longer respond to your input in this discussion until your tone become more civil and you are able to wrestle your accusatory rhetoric under control. You are not advancing this discussion constructively, you are being provocative and your input does not contain value.

yes, they can. that has nothing to do with the question of what's the best course of action when too many dice have been rolled though. it is you, your opponent and any marshals, judges and/or tournament organizers present that has a responsibility to keep the game state clear, fair and by the rules.

i don't think you do. removing a result from a roll of too many dice is not a correction of any kind, it's changing the circumstances of the random event and the probability of the outcome significantly. rolling too many dice of course provides an avenue for unfair advantage, yes. if a player keeps doing it, it would be fair for a marshal to hand out a warning to that player, or even disqualify him or her after it's been discovered too many times. there are many other behaviours a player can adopt that could provide a great number or avenues for unfair advantages. that's why it's important to be clear, honest, attentive and never hesitate to ask for a judge during tournament play.

it is bad faith, yes. it is lack of faith and trust in a community and player base. if it's done right, it's still a good thing to do, since clarity and fairness are very desirable properties of game rules. the institution of the rule "roll too many, reroll all. roll too few, add rolls until correct number has been rolled" seems fair and desirable. if you have a different suggestion i would love to read it.

i can assure you, tournament judges have already weighed in. any reference you make is as good as nothing, though. only FFG offical rules apply to all events.

so your suggestion is simply adding a clause to the "if you roll too many", that is something along the lines of "if all the results are all the same, remove results until you have the correct amount"? ok, that seems reasonable. except, it's not mathematically correct. you may have a result that seems reasonable, but you didn't reach it by using the probabilities that you were provided with by the rules.

what the result actually is and to which player it's advantageous is irrelevant, since it will vary wildly from situation to situation. it's not fair, since the result was not gained by resolving the game state correctly. if the dice were just rolled, rewinding the game state is very simple and does not cause problems. it seems like a better solution.

14 hours ago, markrivett said:

As stated previously, if I am a deliberately sloppy player and roll too many dice and the results are favorable, I can use the pace of the game against my opponent to keep the result. If the result is not favorable, I can self-correct into a re-roll. If I must keep two of my three identical results I lose my decision tree a significant percentage of the time. Conversely, if I am a player who deliberately omits information to allow my opponent to roll more dice and force a re-roll after the fact, I lose my advantage when my opponent gets to keep two of the same three results.

This just creates a new decision tree which can also be exploited.

Removing a dice if you roll all blanks, focuses or evades and rolling again if you don't is more likely to give an extreme result than if you had rolled the dice correctly, because you are keeping the result only if it is extreme.

E.g. Your probability of rolling two evades on two dice normally is (3/8)^2 = 9/64 = 0.140625.

If you follow the "remove a dice if they match" method, it is (chance of rolling 3 evades on 3 dice) + (chance of not rolling 3 matching results * chance of 2 evades from 2 dice on second roll)

= (3/8)^3 + [1 - ((3/8)^3 + (3^8)^3 + (2/8)^3)] * (3/8)^2

= 27/512 + (1 - (27/512 + 27/512 + 8/512))*(9/64)

=27/512 + (512/512 - (62/512))*(9/64)

=27/512 +(450/512)*(9/64) = 27/512 + 4050/32768 = 1728/32768 + 4050/32768 = 5778/32768

= 0.176 plus some change.

Now, you might think the chance of rolling all blanks or focuses balances this out, but if you do the maths it actually changes the expected average outcome as well as the expected value of different kinds of token (though only by a small amount). More importantly, it changes the distribution of outcomes significantly (see chart below), which can be gamed in some circumstances. E.g. if your ship will be destroyed unless you roll 2 evades on 2 dice, deliberately rolling too many dice increases your chance of surviving from (approximately) 14% to 18%.

So basically you now have the same problem but worse, because your opponent can manipulate the dice in their favour even if you are alert and call out the incorrect dice roll.

18 hours ago, markrivett said:

As stated previously, if I am a deliberately sloppy player and roll too many dice and the results are favorable, I can use the pace of the game against my opponent to keep the result.

How?

If the other player is aware and is going to say "no, you rolled the wrong number of dice, reroll it" then it's a fresh roll and your deliberately sloppy roll, favourable or not, is irrelevant.

It the other player doesn't notice because you didn't tell them (assuming it was something mandatory and not a missed opportunity), then that is you deliberately rolling too many green dice and hoping to be allowed to keep them.

Frankly I see the 1st edition as more fair; simply because when an incorrect roll is made, it is 'scrubbed' and has no effect on the game, whilst keeping any element of the previous role biases the results

3 hours ago, Ysenhal said:

Removing a dice if you roll all blanks, focuses or evades and rolling again if you don't is more likely to give an extreme result than if you had rolled the dice correctly, because you are keeping the result only if it is extreme.

Succinctly put, thank you. It's much the same as the target lock vs focus argument; yes, spending one or the other the average damage per dice is the same, but the proportion of critical hits in the latter is slightly higher.

14 hours ago, LTuser said:

But how many times a game, is it 'just being a mistake/error', before one starts questioning it?

The heuristic I was taught is the first time is an accident, the second time is a coincidence, the third time is enemy action. So until the third time I do not typically consider it anything other than an accident.

There is a lot going on in these games. A lot players are thinking about. My experience with these sorts of games is the people who are drawn to them do not always have the best social skills. This can all be intimidating. Strangers in a strange land as it were.

I do not play much Armada but have gone to some tourneys. All of those guys were good players who played a lot and played a lot together. They played fast. So for me I have a difficult unfamiliar game, a difficult circumstance in being an outsider, I'm used to being the one who knows the most, and play moving fast enough that I would struggle with feeling they were trying to get one over on me. It made for some less than smooth situations. Part of it is on me. Part of it isn't.

Take into account the guy across from you. Are they shy? New to the club or store? Is it a big intimidating event? New-ish player? Did some TO come over and bust their chops about their list? Has the player done this every time you play with them?

Consider your own behavior.

If you got somebody who keeps making an error the first thing you need to do is slow down and ask yourself if you're conducting your portion of the game in such a way that makes it easy for them to make errors. If you want to rail against sloppy play then you bear the burden of not being sloppy yourself. Do you have some complicated timing of effects you are not going through with deliberation? (If your opponent isn't following it isn't enough deliberation.) When it is your turn to choose an attacker are you clear on who is attacking, who they are attacking, what the range is, where the dice come from, how many defense dice they will get before you even roll?

There is time pressure. Is someone just going to fast? Slow them down. If you are the shy one you might need to find the brass to speak up a bit. Keep in mind that if you don't take the time to do it right you'll have to take the time to do it over and it is the doing it over that has created this discussion.

If you are being deliberate and making your opponent be deliberate, depending on your own social acumen, whether you're dealing with genuine errors or genuine ill intent should become pretty clear. But never accuse them. Be charming yourself. If you are deliberate and do things consistently it becomes easy to go back through what you did if something comes up. It is easy to find mistakes.

You'll always be better off and things will go smoother if you do not start with an assumption of ill intent and make clear with others and especially with yourself that you are just trying to make sure the game is played correctly and fairly for each player.

On 11/16/2019 at 12:00 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.

There are a myriad ways to cheat in this game already by “accidentally” doing something on purpose. This is just another one, and it’s not even very good because it requires your opponent forget his own cards.