I think the current process is fine. It restores the game state to what it would be if everything was done correctly. I'm pretty sure that in the overwhelming majority of cases rolling the wrong number of dice is simply an accident. If you think someone is doing it deliberately, refer it to a judge, as you would for other forms of cheating.

Saying that giving the opponent the choice of allowing the result to stand or forcing the dice to be rolled correctly "protects newer players from experienced players" seems bizarre to me. The players who are mostly likely to roll the incorrect number of dice are new players who forget unusual changes in dice numbers, like Weapons Failure, S-Foils, or pilot abilities, or who don't know what their opponent's list or upgrades do, e.g. Wedge, Outmaneuver or Intimidation. This then gives the more experienced player the choice of whether the result stands or not, allowing them to punish the new player for the error, and giving them an incentive to not actually explain what their list does or rush over what upgrades they have in the hope that the other player will forget. One could also make the argument that in the case of abilities like Wedge, it's the attacker's responsibility to point them out as much as the defender's, so the defender shouldn't be punished for not remembering them.

Another thing that strikes about both this thread and the previous one is that the alleged cheating which needs to be addressed seems to be largely theoretical. It's either "My opponent rolled too many dice by accident, but they rolled all blanks and then I felt bad when they had to roll again because I got excited for a moment" or "It is possible that this kind of cheating could occur, but I haven't actually witnessed it". Is it worth penalising one player for the large majority of cases which are honest mistakes to protect against some hypothetical amount of deliberate cheating which may or may not occur? Perhaps it would be beneficial by encouraging people to be more careful? (But of course this would also lead to slower pace of play, which people also complain about...)

6 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

When I envision changes to rules, my suggestions are pretty much always from this perspective: "Who does the current rules, as it exists, hurt ... competitive and experienced players, or newer players?" If the answer is "newer players," I suggest the change. The current rule here -- obviously, I think? -- would much more easily allow competitive players to take advantage of newer players than my rule would.

I don't know that I'd agree that "if too many dice are rolled, the non-rolling player decides whether they are re-rolled" really does benefit the newer player.

• Newer players are the ones more likely to roll the wrong number of dice by accident, so a more experienced player will have a chance to see a bunch of blanks rolled, then say "keep the incorrect dice pool." Now, that's kind of a **** move to pull on a new player, but it's fully legal, and it's the most beneficial thing a competitive player can do.
• Flipside: newer players are probably more susceptible to social pressure from more established players to defer. I'm sure there's bloodthirsty new players out there, but folks who are newer to the group, trying to fit in, will probably be more willing to let an opponent keep a good misroll, or reroll a bad misroll.

I grok the idea behind the different rule, but I see it more as an anti-cheat rule, than a pro-new-player rule. I kinda prefer the status quo.

I'm hurt. I don't even get tagged? You make me so sad @GreenDragoon . I'm the one who pointed out to you in the first place. I'm so sad now 😟 😒 🥺

Edit: Not to mention my fix isn't even in the op

When I played against my brother too many years ago, if we rolled more dice, the opponent chose the extra die and removes from the roll.

There aren't problems with that house rule.

We had another, if we did not agree if a ship was in arc/range, the attack resolves anyway. We thought that more attacks, better games.

I can't believe this thread took off. Can we all stop for a second and ask ourselves a question:

Do you know someone that will intentionally cheat? Simple question. All this talk about this and I can't name a single person who would actually intentionally roll too many dice.

We are overcomplicating something that doesn't happen. And don't say it could happen, I'm saying did anyone actually confirm a cheater that did this.

Its like saying we need rules in case someone poisons the drinks at the venue so all the other players will go home. Yes it COULD happen but DOES it?

And there is a negative to overly specific anti cheat rules, it gives out the perspective that this game is full of cheaters and we need to cover all the bases, a perspective that doesn't look good towards new players.

Personally I roll wrong dice once every couple of games, I grab a red dice instead of green or I get lost in the flowchart that is Kaz dice rolling. I say **** and reroll everything. Don't even take the time to see what I rolled.

@Flurpy well, just check the record. Always use data right? Have there been cheaters in X-wing? Sadly, yes.

Sad, but true.

55 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Have there been cheaters in X-wing? Sadly, yes.

EVERYONE invokes this ONE example. And out of how many games that are streamed?

If a cheating streak will ever show up in someone, of course it would be when the world championship title is on the line.

Got any other significant examples? Out of how many X-wing games that are streamed?

Statistically, this seems to compare with making all airline passengers inflate their life vests once every flight “just in case” a crash happens. There’s already a procedure and it works when needed (which is very very rare). No reason to ruin everyone else’s life just to account for an obscenely unlikely circumstance.

If you’re that worried about it, count your dice better. If you’re bad at counting dice, it seems most people here would prefer to brand you a cheater and make you suffer for your inability.

To me it seems ironic that the only people who would benefit from the proposed change in the fringe case of an intentional cheater (the people who are bad at counting their opponents’ dice) are actually much, much more likely to suffer for it in general (because it means they’re also bad at counting their own dice).

I also don’t buy the argument of “re-roll is an advantage if the first roll is bad.” First, that’s much less likely than the converse, second, it doesn’t matter because the first roll doesn’t count and never could. If you roll 3 paint with your R1 X-wing, you’d better believe I’ll notice and make you fix it.

Here’s a relevant question: how often do you or your opponent roll too many dice and not realize it until after damage is dealt? And of those times how much less is it at OP events?

9 hours ago, Flurpy said:

Do you know someone that will intentionally cheat? Simple question. All this talk about this and I can't name a single person who would actually intentionally roll too many dice.

Yes. I know someone who has gotten themselves banned from our gaming circle because of his constant cheating. Sweeping the dice before they finished rolling was his particular modus operandi, amongst other things.

I would think its not too far of a stretch to think a few other people on these forums know a "that guy" who happens to bump obstacles with a hand or template a little too often and then, "oh look, I cleared it by a millimeter" or otherwise plays sloppy enough that while you cannot prove intent, you dislike playing with them. I've played with a ton of great people, and handful of "that guys".

Consider yourself blessed.

4 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

EVERYONE invokes this ONE example. And out of how many games that are streamed?

You can go on almost every stream out there and find people pointing out the mistakes that people are making all the time. The only reason why the dial-change is the big one is because it is so blatantly obvious and it happened at an event that had so many people watching what was happening. Hundreds of pairs of eyes were watching them. There is no believable excuse why anyone would pick up a dial and do that with it, other than cheating. The intent is clear, there is no argument that it wasn't a case of cheating.

Intent is not always clear in other cases, such as the "oops, I rolled too many dice". I can appreciate that FFG left intent out of the floor rules for cheating as proving it is so difficult that its rendered irrelevant to the discussion.

Hint, hint, guys.

4 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

If you’re that worried about it, count your dice better.

This actually goes both ways. If you are so worried about the proposed change to the rules... count your dice better.

4 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I also don’t buy the argument of “re-roll is an advantage if the first roll is bad.” First, that’s much less likely than the converse,

Yes, it is more likely that someone is getting away with rolling an extra die for advantage until they are caught, and currently, they suffer no other ill effect for doing so.

4 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

second, it doesn’t matter because the first roll doesn’t count and never could.

Its obvious that you are not grasping the concept. The first roll only doesn't count if you get caught or, and this is the important part if you decide to reveal that you did it allowing you to reroll the correct number of dice for a hopefully better result. If you don't reveal because you like the result and don't get caught, the first roll stands and counts.

The arguments were made as far as I'm concerned. Thanks everyone for the comments. Especially @ForceSensitive for bringing it up in the first place, that was more interesting than I initially expected.

To me, the amount of cheating is low enough and the type I error worse, and as a result I prefer the current rules. I can see that someone who has had more contact with cheaters or - in this case - considers type 2 errors to be worse might prefer the proposed ruling.

It's not actually possible to know the amount of cheating, and as a result the entire topic depends entirely on how people weigh the criteria.

34 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Yes. I know someone who has gotten themselves banned from our gaming circle because of his constant cheating. Sweeping the dice before they finished rolling was his particular modus operandi, amongst other things.

I would think its not too far of a stretch to think a few other people on these forums know a "that guy" who happens to bump obstacles with a hand or template a little too often and then, "oh look, I cleared it by a millimeter" or otherwise plays sloppy enough that while you cannot prove intent, you dislike playing with them. I've played with a ton of great people, and handful of "that guys".

Consider yourself blessed.

Over the years, i've heard MANY a horror story about groups having to kick someone out cause of cheating..

I just want to point out one other thing. Well, at least I'll restrain myself and only do this one. 🙄 😅 Having investigated many cheat methods while in my M:tG days, I found a few interesting Mechanical things about this exploit. Indulge me if you will. There's way more to this one that I find fascinating, but let's just check out this one really weird one.

This is the only exploit that I can think of off the top of my head that you can have a judge tell you to use. Which is one way it makes it really insidious. If someone intentionally did roll too many hoping to pull a fast one and whiff, they can play dumb, 'notice' and call a judge to ask how to proceed. Then the judge tells them. If you point out that you think the roll was intentionally flawed while the judge is over, a cheat, the judge is in an interesting boat. Because the cheater themselves called the judge over. And the rule they'll have to give them is the reroll clause. He can give a warning but now the warning is debatable. Because the hack gets to claim, hey, I called you over to help fix the mistake, why am I getting a warning? That's an odd conundrum.

Okay I lied, two things.

It is very odd to me that the defense of the current rule is being held in spite of full knowledge that it is in fact flawed once we get to the bottom line. Like, the argument is it's 99% unintentional when you see it in the wild. True or not, we don't have a way to really test that, so sure, I'll just accept that as a value to continue for our purpose. I imagine it's not far off anyway, so whatever. (Even if one of the entries to the exploit is when it starts as an honest mistake, but who's counting)

But Jeff has offered you a fix that's simple and easy, it's not even my fav but it should work... Yet you refuse it? Logically, with the knowledge that you now are aware that you can exploit the rule, it follows that your motives are suspect if you claim you don't want to have the rule changed as it would be inconvenient at worst, an improvement and insurance at best. I would like to believe that you all are in this forum to enjoy, and via feedback improve, a game you are interested in. So even if it only protects one in a million, with no downside, why aren't you jumping on it?

Just saying. That's not a logical stance. In the end though I guess it doesn't matter. The only ones who need convinced are the folks at FFG. The question is to them whether they want to change the rule now knowing it exists.

Also, @ClassicalMoser , as memory serves that's one of the more public ones so of course it gets shared more. Note there were two other players banned as I recall. AND even in the current rules the artifacts from when folks first started stacking damage decks are in there. I remember being actually impressed when the one guy got caught for building his own damage deck with no direct hits. That was clever. Now you have random, and "*cough* random *cough*" deck checks to help find and punish that.

Okay I'm done for now I promise lol 😅 😂

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

it would be inconvenient at worst

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

with no downside

If those were true, I absolutely wouldn't be against it.

My problem is that punishing people for mistakes seems wrong in principle, especially when the game state is that easy to fix and the problem is that easy to prevent. I'll concede that the situation is rare enough that it isn't that punishing, but keep in mind who's most likely to commit the mistake: New players. It just comes across as mean to me and mostly unnecessary.

It also kind of skews accurate-game-state in a way that seems more or less outside the intent of the rules, so I doubt the devs would be likely to buy it. There's an argument to be made for it akin to the 2-white-straight penalty for revealing a red while stressed, but that's a rule proposition pretty entrenched in the hands of the devs. There are only so many tractor-changes and ability-queue-updates that this game can bear before it becomes far more bloated and complex than the simple casual game we all know and love.

That said, if the devs decide they like it, I won't put up a fuss.

Easy fix the opponent decides what must be done.. re-roll all, some,or none....

Personally, I prefer the idea of the opponent of math challenged dice roller gets to cancel results of their choice down to the correct number rolled.

I’ve seen the scenario happen when observing other games. While I don’t think they were intentional, it is impossible to know. Additionally, they’re always feels-bad-man moments when 5 blanks “reroll” in to 4 natties.

When I’m playing, I tend to watch how many dice my opponent is about to roll like a hawk, and innocently ask, “Hey isn’t it supposed to to be 4 dice?”

@ClassicalMoser it's a weird position isn't it? But often times the rule only works when it is just a flat punishment. Like you point out, the red-while-stressed rules. It's just a flat penalty slap on the wrist. In casual, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't just let you set a new dial depending on where in your round it happened. Like first activation, easy fix, just change it right? But the rule is not there for that mistake and fix. It's there to hopefully prevent any chance at all of an exploit. Mostly it succeeded. I've still seen a rewind on that though.

Consider if you will though another more common mistake/cheat and punishment. Speeding tickets. They can just as easily be honest mistakes. Not paying attention and the cruise control on and Bam. Ticket. No harm is actually done, and the mistake is essentially correctible for the rest of the stretch of road. But we give the ticket regardless, which in rule terms is both a punishment (fine) and warning (points on license). We still use that system because it works. You can argue that it's unfair, but that's from a selfish perspective. The societal perspective is that the group is more likely to obey the limit because the penalty for even the accidental speed is high.

Consider too another game, Magic, and drawing too many cards. If it's caught, automatic game loss. I know because I accidentally did it once. Mulliganed a hand and so distracted chatting muscle memory drew 7. Opponent was shiesty and caught it but cleverly didn't say anything to the end of my first turn, and called judge. I had honestly not even realized until then. Lost the game, and whole round because of it. But it was the right rule to have. I watched very carefully every mulliganed hand after that. Mine AND opponents.

Back to @all another fascinating thing to me is that this conversation hasn't extended to what do you use as a corrective action say a turn after it happens? Or after the mistake/exploit destroys a ship or barely lands a crit and the game had continued. Personally,I most often see a damage penalty, that cards are taken off to reflect the overage.

If your experience is the same, then I'd ask do you find it weird that the 'in the moment' fix is a random reroll, but the 'after the fact' fix is a definitive number? I would like to see it at least consistent. After the fact can essentially only be a linear number, so I feel the in the moment fix should be the same. Which is why I was originally of the idea that @Phelan Boots just brought to this thread. The opponent just cancels choice results (realistically one result most of the time) until the roll is at it's correct size. I prefer this idea for two reasons, first, the aforementioned consistency to a post action game state fix of removing a set number of damage proportional to the mistake/exploit (either removing cards, turning down a crit, or returning Shields). No matter when it's caught, you just lose the back end. The other reason I like it is simple expedience. Rerolls and going through mod trees again can take time, another potential exploit is you are trying to use the exploit to grind the clock.

So that's why I too like the opponent just taking out their choice of dice. It's fast, it's congruent with the post mistake fix, and it is dirt simple.

I have to ask, @ForceSensitive , whether I am wrong or unclear with this:

21 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

The arguments were made as far as I'm concerned. Thanks everyone for the comments. Especially @ForceSensitive for bringing it up in the first place, that was more interesting than I initially expected.

To me, the amount of cheating is low enough and the type I error worse, and as a result I prefer the current rules. I can see that someone who has had more contact with cheaters or - in this case - considers type 2 errors to be worse might prefer the proposed ruling.

It's not actually possible to know the amount of cheating, and as a result the entire topic depends entirely on how people weigh the criteria.

Radical solution for rolling too many dices (because it doesnt happen regularly that people are cheating by not rolling enough dices):

1st time: reroll the good number

2nd time: keep blanks, reroll the good number of painted

3rd time: all blanks and a focus ( to do not have heroic )

harsh, but the other will learn the pain in cheating

and honestly, when it's the 3rd time in a tournament, you're doing it pratically on purpose...

On 3/7/2020 at 5:32 PM, ForceSensitive said:

But Jeff has offered you a fix that's simple and easy, it's not even my fav but it should work... Yet you refuse it? Logically, with the knowledge that you now are aware that you can exploit the rule, it follows that your motives are suspect if you claim you don't want to have the rule changed as it would be inconvenient at worst, an improvement and insurance at best. I would like to believe that you all are in this forum to enjoy, and via feedback improve, a game you are interested in. So even if it only protects one in a million, with no downside, why aren't you jumping on it?

Because I never got an answer to my question.

If I accidentally roll 5 dice on a 4 dice attack, they come up all blanks, we notice and my opponent accepts the dice roll, can I spend a target lock to re-roll the 5 dice?

The "obvious" answer is, No, but we've got a situation where 5 blanks is now a legit roll, and a lot of triggers and effects need to be considered.

13 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

...But often times the rule only works when it is just a flat punishment. Like you point out, the red-while-stressed rules. It's just a flat penalty slap on the wrist. In casual, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't just let you set a new dial depending on where in your round it happened. Like first activation, easy fix, just change it right? But the rule is not there for that mistake and fix. It's there to hopefully prevent any chance at all of an exploit. Mostly it succeeded. I've still seen a rewind on that though.

I'm not sure that's the best analogy. If I recall correctly, the current red-while-stressed rule was actually introduced to be a more neutral "default" maneuver rather than a punishment, due to the difficulties of actually resolving this situation in a fair way.

The original resolution for revealing an illegal red maneuver while stressed was to allow the opponent to choose the ship's maneuver. "Rewinding" and allowing the offending player to select a new maneuver was not an option because they may have gained additional information between the dial being set and revealed, which could give them an advantage. This is different to the situation with rolling dice, because the player rolling them isn't making a decision about what results they should roll (and typically hasn't gained any information from rolling the wrong number of dice anyway). You can rewind and roll the correct number of dice and this restores the game state to what it should be in an entirely neutral way, assuming that the error is caught.

Anyway, the original rule for illegal red maneuvers was changed as it was deemed too punishing, in large part because in first edition it was possible to assign a ship a stress token before it activated and thus make the maneuver invalid after it was set. So you could argue that this rule was introduced to protect people from being pushed into a rules "breach" by their opponent, rather than being designed to punish people who dial in red maneuvers when they're stressed and think they can get away with it. The white 2-straight was chosen as an alternative because every ship in the game has a 2-straight maneuver. This makes it a relatively neutral option which doesn't allow ships to perform a maneuver they normally couldn't. However, there were still some issues, e.g. whether the U-Wing's Pivot Wing ability allowed you to perform the 2-straight and rotate, or niche builds where you could dial in one maneuver then deliberately stress yourself to change it if you didn't like it. So it didn't necessarily do a good job of preventing exploits either!

14 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Back to @all another fascinating thing to me is that this conversation hasn't extended to what do you use as a corrective action say a turn after it happens? Or after the mistake/exploit destroys a ship or barely lands a crit and the game had continued. Personally,I most often see a damage penalty, that cards are taken off to reflect the overage.

If your experience is the same, then I'd ask do you find it weird that the 'in the moment' fix is a random reroll, but the 'after the fact' fix is a definitive number?

No, not really. If you've gone far enough forwards it can be difficult to remember exactly what the gamestate should have been at the time the error was made (what was the position of all the ships, who had what tokens and charges, who took what damage, etc.), and it can also be very time-consuming and disruptive to fix it (have to move all the ships back to a position from previous turn, do multiple attacks again, shuffle revealed crits back into the deck, etc.). In contrast, if you catch it when dice are rolled, it's quick and easy to just roll the correct number.

2 hours ago, Koing907 said:

If I accidentally roll 5 dice on a 4 dice attack, they come up all blanks, we notice and my opponent accepts the dice roll, can I spend a target lock to re-roll the 5 dice?

The "obvious" answer is, No, but we've got a situation where 5 blanks is now a legit roll, and a lot of triggers and effects need to be considered.

Another fun one is Viktor Hel's ability:

If you illegally roll 3 defence dice and blank out, and your opponent chooses to keep it, does the attacker take a stress?

We had this happen just yesterday due to a few players forgetting strain and deplete conditions. If the incorrect roll didn't affect the play state, we ignored the goof and continued (things like all blanks or the Defender would have been destroyed no matter what).

In the few cases where play state was affected, if the attacker was at fault, they re-rolled using the correct number of dice and after, the defender was given the option to keep their results or reroll. If the defender rolled incorrectly, the attacker was given the choice to allow the defender to reroll or not.

4 hours ago, Koing907 said:

Because I never got an answer to my question.

If I accidentally roll 5 dice on a 4 dice attack, they come up all blanks, we notice and my opponent accepts the dice roll, can I spend a target lock to re-roll the 5 dice?

The "obvious" answer is, No, but we've got a situation where 5 blanks is now a legit roll, and a lot of triggers and effects need to be considered.

The five blanks wouldn't be a legit role, it still needs reduced before mods. I think you answered that yourself. But giving you a roll again on four before we let you go on to mods rerolls is exactly how the exploit functions in the first place.

Another great reason why mine and Phelans idea could possibly be better, opponent picks a die and pitches it, or just pick the highest as rule of thumb. If their all blanks whatever, it's already at the bottom of the possible outcome, so no penalty would matter anyway..

1 hour ago, Ysenhal said:

PART ONE

I'm not sure that's the best analogy. If I recall correctly, the current red-while-stressed rule was actually introduced to be a more neutral "default" maneuver rather than a punishment, due to the difficulties of actually resolving this situation in a fair way.

The original resolution for revealing an illegal red maneuver while stressed was to allow the opponent to choose the ship's maneuver. "Rewinding" and allowing the offending player to select a new maneuver was not an option because they may have gained additional information between the dial being set and revealed, which could give them an advantage. This is different to the situation with rolling dice, because the player rolling them isn't making a decision about what results they should roll (and typically hasn't gained any information from rolling the wrong number of dice anyway). You can rewind and roll the correct number of dice and this restores the game state to what it should be in an entirely neutral way, assuming that the error is caught.

Anyway, the original rule for illegal red maneuvers was changed as it was deemed too punishing, in large part because in first edition it was possible to assign a ship a stress token before it activated and thus make the maneuver invalid after it was set. So you could argue that this rule was introduced to protect people from being pushed into a rules "breach" by their opponent, rather than being designed to punish people who dial in red maneuvers when they're stressed and think they can get away with it. The white 2-straight was chosen as an alternative because every ship in the game has a 2-straight maneuver. This makes it a relatively neutral option which doesn't allow ships to perform a maneuver they normally couldn't. However, there were still some issues, e.g. whether the U-Wing's Pivot Wing ability allowed you to perform the 2-straight and rotate, or niche builds where you could dial in one maneuver then deliberately stress yourself to change it if you didn't like it. So it didn't necessarily do a good job of preventing exploits either!

PART TWO

No, not really. If you've gone far enough forwards it can be difficult to remember exactly what the gamestate should have been at the time the error was made (what was the position of all the ships, who had what tokens and charges, who took what damage, etc.), and it can also be very time-consuming and disruptive to fix it (have to move all the ships back to a position from previous turn, do multiple attacks again, shuffle revealed crits back into the deck, etc.). In contrast, if you catch it when dice are rolled, it's quick and easy to just roll the correct number.

Another fun one is Viktor Hel's ability:

If you illegally roll 3 defence dice and blank out, and your opponent chooses to keep it, does the attacker take a stress?

Part one: oh the good old days of dial fixing. How I remember the gut wrenching feeling of a mistake, and the PTL/AdvSen shenanigans so fondly. Classic B-wing, how I miss thee 😎 As I pointed out as well in the quoted text, I've seen rewinds even on the current rule. Another reason the rule got changed was because of agency loss and the fact that it could give an opponent too many options to mess up more than just the ship the mistake occurred on. But your memory is right on everything else. At the end of the day though, it's still one dictated, flat, penalty. Which is my point. No choice is granted to anyone to just do whatever with. Part of why I feel that if you roll too many, pick the highest die.

Part two: Respectfully, you may have misinterpreted the post. I wasn't saying you should rewind the game state at all. It's practically impossible for all the reasons you mention. To clarify, and please reference the original, because the board has advanced so far the only real solution is to assume one of the dice could not have been rolled in retrospect, and return/refund the health back to the damaged ship proportional to the overage. If you realize a turn later that you should not have been able to suffer 3 damage from what should have been a two die attack, the defender of the illegal attack in a large majority of cases I've seen just gets ruled to be quick fixed by discarding the damage card or getting back a shield as appropriate.

Again, to my point, discarding the highest die would be more alike to the common post mistake fix. Make it a single proportional adjustment. Rerolls and mod trees are quick and easy, granted, applying a single discard mod is even faster and easier.

To your Khizraxz bit, I think we both should reference back to the goal of any proposed fix: returning the game to a correct state, and as the instructions of card text apply. So while you would keep the roll under that version of applied fix(opponent chooses you to keep or not) , which is not my personal fav for the record, the caveat in this corrective action would be a note saying for Hels ability you check for trigger off of what the correct number of dice should have been anyways. So the stress would get applied as it is 'correct' to the games eyes. For instance Heroic would be another caveat.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Part two: Respectfully, you may have misinterpreted the post. I wasn't saying you should rewind the game state at all. It's practically impossible for all the reasons you mention. To clarify, and please reference the original, because the board has advanced so far the only real solution is to assume one of the dice could not have been rolled in retrospect, and return/refund the health back to the damaged ship proportional to the overage. If you realize a turn later that you should not have been able to suffer 3 damage from what should have been a two die attack, the defender of the illegal attack in a large majority of cases I've seen just gets ruled to be quick fixed by discarding the damage card or getting back a shield as appropriate.

Again, to my point, discarding the highest die would be more alike to the common post mistake fix. Make it a single proportional adjustment. Rerolls and mod trees are quick and easy, granted, applying a single discard mod is even faster and easier.

I understand that's not what you're suggesting. I was responding to the question I quoted: I don't find it weird that the "immediate" fix and the "later" fix are different, because there is a logical reason for them being different. The "preferred" method currently is to do the roll again correctly. However, that is not always practical. Therefore in some cases another method is used instead.

Also, two scenarios for those who favour the "always remove the highest result" method:

1. You have a ship with an ability that activates when you take damage or are unshielded (Quickdraw / Fanatical / Hate / Maul / Wullffwarro / etc.). You are defending, and hope that your ship does take damage so the ability triggers. Your opponent rolls too many attack dice.

2. You're making an attack on Quickdraw, who has one shield left, Fanatical, and a shot lined up on a valuable ship. You roll exactly one hit. Your opponent sees this, and then rolls too many defence dice.

Could removing the highest result advantage the wrong player in these scenarios? How do you think they should be resolved?

Man, I thought I was a sore-sport about dice. Some of you guys got me beat by miles and miles. At least I just moan and complain. I'm not here trying to create ways that allow me to pick the results.

There is a solution to this. Slow down. Make everyone get the right number of dice before a single one is rolled. Make everyone look for any effects they are going to be able to apply and point those out. Then roll the dice.

Don't look for ways to call people "Cheater" and that reward you for your virtuousness in catching them. The place to be hard-case about this stuff is before there is a mistake. Be a hard-case when you are actually being virtuous by being aware and in the moment and taking care every time to not create a problem in the first place instead of letting your opponent make an error so you get to pick their dice results.

@Ysenhal I don't see the logic in having two different methods for concurrent and post corrections, when one returns the game to a correct state that can't be gamed, while the other introduced an exploit by riding the attempted fix back to the correct state with a profit by making it a second random chance.

To your scenarios, again we need to consider the game first needs returned to correct state.

For both scenarios, there's a whole tree of possible outcome to this is the fun part. I'm assuming this is why you chose them, a veritable rabbit hole. If they over roll the attack, it's possible they could outright kill Quickdraw. Or get something like two hits that you likely are hoping to roll against to just take the last shield. So depending on the roll, the defender is now in position to attempt the exploit too. You could decide to only 'notice' if they roll crazy and get say 4crits. The defender could also mistake or exploit and try to under roll defense. Fortunately the under roll has a fix, roll an extra to correct the game not having enough inputs in the mistake. Potentially changing if Quickdraw triggers or not if caught. Depending on how any of the dice fall, for either side, there could be gains and losses and advantage realistically passed either way. So again here I would lean on the core intent of any rule designed to fix the game state: making the numbers correct again first and foremost. So assuming it gets caught at any point I'd still prefer the drop a die method, because for either side it could be just as advantageous to overroll, or even reroll depending. And in a post mistake fix rewinding damage that caused a trigger on Quickdraw should also reasonably rewind any damage Quickdraw dealt from an attack if it couldn't have happened.

@Frimmel so we don't misstep again, could you please point us to where you thought we were actively looking for a way to call someone a cheat? I don't recall it in here is all.

But your logic is extremely flawed. While prevention is the best medicine, we still have emergency rooms for a reason 🤣 By your logic of slow down and just don't make a mistake in the first place, well by golly we can just stop putting airbags in cars can't we? 😂 And we'll all live in perfect peace and Harmony. And by jove we can get rid of the current corrective rule too!

I kid, of course. But you get the point.

@GreenDragoon Kind thanks, position, concluding statement. I don't think I missed anything? Why?

4 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Kind thanks, position, concluding statement. I don't think I missed anything? Why?

because you all keep going without saying anything new. So I assumed it was either unclear or wrong. But maybe you guys also enjoy reaching the same conclusions from different angles