.I appreciate people looking into this running actual experiments as it is interesting to look over. If the bias is very big, you can see it with a smaller sample size, if it is very small your tests would need to be powered (Enough samples) adequately.

So, this is an eight sided die, so each face should have a 1/8 chance on any given roll in theory or 12.5%X 2 (25%) of the time we get blank on red. How can we then tell if our die is biased? That is the question ehh? Obviously, the more samples we take, we should approach the mean- 12.5% for each side, so if we keep it simple and only look at blanks, to have a nice normal distribution and get 30 samples for each side, I would like to see the results for 240 random rolls in a dice tower and set you alpha error (significance) at 5%- meaning if after the rolls, we can possibly show a significant difference or 95% confidence that we have a nonrandom die. The thing is you have to set up your experiment and run and see if you prove or disprove your null (You have a random die).

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating. Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done. This is where we disagree They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself Well, I would disagree. If it is required and you notice it, you are technically obligated to keep the correct game state as per the gamesmanship maturity rules in the tournament doc. If you are interested in playing correctly, you should say something. Having said that, and as people have seen in actual tournaments, it is impossible to distinguish if you are intentionally ignoring the rules to gain an advantage, so the ultimate responsibility usually falls on the controlling player. . . So, yes, you can gain an 'unfair' advantage by not saying anything but it is still wrong since it is required. But we dont punish this player because it may have been an honest oversight... better to let a 'cheater' go then punish a new player or someone wrapped up in one's own strategy. Personally, I think all positive abilities should say 'may' to make this entire argument moot and force the controlling player to play optimally but that is not what is says unfortunately and clarified by the OP question to the designers. You use such negative language. I'm not saying a player in good manners shouldn't say anything but they should not be held responsible for it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because no matter how many times I state my argument you just splash in my face that I' a dirty cheater but you wouldn't hold it against me in the kindness of your heart. Good thing we have such saints as you to forgive my sins. I've read the tournament document again and I see where it says you need to maintain a clear game state. I don't see how this applies to triggering abilities FOR YOUR OPPONENT. Dude, it's not me that is the rules. If you want to take advantage of it that is your business. It is clear cut and dry, not me being negative or something to disagree with, it is the rules. Havent said that, I would personally just FAQ these triggers as 'may'. Question: In a competitive tournament setting, am I required to remind my opponent about certain abilities that the cards do not suggest are optional. For example, the Trandoshan Hunters and IG88 have the Relentless ability that says when you declare an attack on a target within 3 spaces, the target takes 1 strain. If the opponent declares an attack and does not mention the relentless ability, am I forced to remind him according to the rules since it is not optional. Same question for Royal Guards Vengeance ability. If the answer is no for these, are there any abilities where I am required to remind the opponent? Answer: The answer is yes, both players are responsible for maintaining the game state. Mandatory triggers are both players responsibility to recognize, both positive and negative. Optional triggers however, while it is polite to ask your opponent if they want to complete a trigger that says “may” or is otherwise optional it is not required of the players to complete optional triggers. So, if you recognize a trigger but choose to ignore it, what do you think you are doing?

If they forget a mandatory trigger, and you spot this and don't correct them then you are breaking the game rules intentionally.Breaking the game rules intentionally is the very definition of cheating. Mandatory trigger is not a decision. It's not a choice to be made. It has to be done. This is where we disagree They are breaking the game rules not me. I have no action to take otherwise I may as well just play the game saints myself Well, I would disagree. If it is required and you notice it, you are technically obligated to keep the correct game state as per the gamesmanship maturity rules in the tournament doc. If you are interested in playing correctly, you should say something. Having said that, and as people have seen in actual tournaments, it is impossible to distinguish if you are intentionally ignoring the rules to gain an advantage, so the ultimate responsibility usually falls on the controlling player. . . So, yes, you can gain an 'unfair' advantage by not saying anything but it is still wrong since it is required. But we dont punish this player because it may have been an honest oversight... better to let a 'cheater' go then punish a new player or someone wrapped up in one's own strategy. Personally, I think all positive abilities should say 'may' to make this entire argument moot and force the controlling player to play optimally but that is not what is says unfortunately and clarified by the OP question to the designers.

Because there are a lot of command cards (> 100?) and text in the game and shocker, maybe not everyone has every detail minute detail memorized and can recall everything at any given time in a pressure stressful environment. Seems reasonable that the person who brings the list has slightly more responsibility to make sure it is played without missing triggers since the player actually brought the list and had time to prep, read, plan and heck write it down. I played in a tourney and forgot most the whole day to play my elite stormtrooper focus ability. Would I would say my opponents were 1/2 as responsible for letting me forget this? No it is my error, as I was not prepared and it cost me; I needed practice and was playing the elites for the first time. Failure to properly plan and practice and familiarize yourself with your own list should be tactically punished by not playing optimally. You're mistaking playing optimally with playing correctly. Last Stand is not an optional ability. When an elite stormtrooper dies, another in the squad becomes focused. Period. That is just what elite stormtroopers do when they die. You're suggesting it is okay to let your opponent miss the Last Stand trigger. It is not okay to do that, because that is breaking the rules. There is nothing that says this is somehow less mandatory than other rule in the game just because it benefits your opponent. You can't keep initiative unless your opponent remembers to take it. You can't attack with your stunned guy unless your opponent reminds you he is stunned. You can't make impossible line of sight attacks unless your opponent calls you out on it. Similarly, you can't ignore Last Stand unless your opponent remembers to apply it. At a high competitive level of play, just because something is on your opponent's card does not mean you are free to ignore it if your opponent doesn't remember it. I am suggesting it is okay to let your opponent miss last stand? Where? I think you are missing the intent part verses a missed trigger due to an error. Everyone already agrees mal-intent (letting missed trigger, ignoring etc.) is wrong and we get that. You keep answering the same question we already know. Moving on, if a triggered is simply missed due to error then what? That is the more interesting question. Some say it is impossible to distinguish between the two absent a mind reader so is there much one can do?

Humm I hope people can see Vegas is a tad bit different then a table top miniature game. I am sure there are much higher tolerances and much more regulation then the plastic FFG uses. If FFG thought it would be a problem, I am sure they would have higher tolerances, but they dont so this should be a clue to significance of slightly off die to the game. Maybe is is simple not worth the extra cost to make the 99% of produced die perform statistically correct at 1/10000 level vs 1/1000 level. We are taking about statistics and results being skewed from expected results. Some shocker, some die are not perfect, so what? Does this affect the odds in 1/10 die rolls for an extra blank on black? or 1/100? 1/1,000? 1/10,000? 1/1,000,000 Makes a bit of a difference dont you think rather then simply showing the die are not perfect. Suggesting your testing would have practical relevance to your results would be inaccurate without the data. You may confuse or alarm people needlessly.

He's not rolling the dice, he's checking the weight distribution. If he was rolling the dice he'd roll them on a table thousands of times. He's checking the weight by floating the die. If the die is heavier on one side (more likely to be on the bottom) that side will roll to the bottom of a floating die. An unbalanced die will have a tendency, however small, to roll with the heavy side on the bottom, which can skew dice results significantly. Oh really, can skew dice results significantly? I'll repeat, "Without any performance data, there is not enough to be concerned about your results. "

Because there are a lot of command cards (> 100?) and text in the game and shocker, maybe not everyone has every detail minute detail memorized and can recall everything at any given time in a pressure stressful environment. Seems reasonable that the person who brings the list has slightly more responsibility to make sure it is played without missing triggers since the player actually brought the list and had time to prep, read, plan and heck write it down. I played in a tourney and forgot most the whole day to play my elite stormtrooper focus ability. Would I would say my opponents were 1/2 as responsible for letting me forget this? No it is my error, as I was not prepared and it cost me; I needed practice and was playing the elites for the first time. Failure to properly plan and practice and familiarize yourself with your own list should be tactically punished by not playing optimally.

Ignoring rules is not the same from missing rules. 2 different concepts. Ignoring rules explicitly implies intent. I am sure the mandatory stress from rebel captive in Xwing was ruled as a missed opportunity. Basically, the same long discussion. Of course, both players are responsible, no one is saying otherwise, but I would expect the player who brings Blaise would have a better grasp of how the character works and is familiar with him since he is on your list, so logic follows the player thus would have a greater responsibility to ensure it is played correctly think of it as a 60-40%.

Not sure if your experiment has any relevance other then saying it is not perfectly balanced- we know the paint and die cut outs may change the symmetric properties. Roll it a thousand times and record the results- that would be interesting and a natural progression of your experiment. Will a slight mis-weight effect performance? meh. Without any performance data, there is not enough to be concerned about your results.

What you are saying basically translates to if I find a way to cheat that can't be proven I do not cheat. That's neat! That's not exactly true.What I'm saying is that it's impossible to punish someone for something that can't be proven. And what's worse, OP was suggesting that both players be punished for cheating when they simply forgot. I'm not advocating cheating. I'm just saying that a more lenient and common sense interpretation of the rules is better for everyone. There's a difference between bad sportsmanship and cheating too. Here's an interesting example from a Regionals match last weekend. My opponent had Luke standing next to my RGC. He did a saber strike and then performed a shot at the RGC. I was so excited that he didn't move away from me because I was holding Flurry of Blades and I had initiative next turn. I was already thinking about the next turn. I didn't even realize that he shouldn't have attacked twice until I got home later that evening. On one hand, it as pretty horrible cheating to attack twice. On the other hand I didn't pick up on it at the time, and on the third hand, his lack of movement allowed me to kill Luke with 3 attacks the following turn. I didn't even need all 3 attacks to kill Luke, and would have probably killed him anyway, but that doesn't matter. So who cheated? He attacked twice for clear advantage, and I didn't notice which was to my benefit next turn. We can't take it back because neither of us noticed till hours later. We can't nullify the result or replay it since the tournament is over. Another situation in a different game happened when my opponent declared the use of Reinforcements, he went and placed the figure before I even had a chance to say anything. I used Comm Disruption, to stop Reinforcements and he took his figure back off the board, and started his first activation. But in the confusion, and him subsequently starting his first activation rather quickly, I forgot to play my Reinforcements. When I asked a minute later he said no. Now, that's fair enough but it just shows how easy it can be to make mistakes, especially when someone already has a plan in their head and goes to carry it out very quickly. That's why I usually like to verbalize everything I'm doing (eg, "and now for my second action...."). What I'm trying to say is that 95% of the time, **** like that is just an accident. A mistake. It happens and it's not really fair to somehow magically punish one or both players for a honest mistake. Even more so when you simply can't prove malicious intent. In your Luke/RGC example, you both broke the rules. Obviously if a judge or someone saw it eariler, you could have tried to rewind game state. Potentially you would both get a warning at a high end event. In the situation with Reinforcements, arguably the opponent was breaking the rules by using fast play to try to skip your chance to react. By not saying "Do you have any start of round effects?" and continuing play, he is skipping your opportunity to make a move, which is explicitly against the tournament rules. If I were you, I would have called the judge over in this scenario and argued my case for letting me play Reinforcements. Even if you unintentionally break the rules, you still broke the rules. At the highest level of play, that is grounds for warnings/game loss. The intent of giving warnings to players that do these things is that if you accumulate enough, you get ejected. Normally, making random mistakes that you and your opponent can't fix together won't be enough to get a legitimate player in trouble. For someone that is abusing the system though, that should be enough to trigger some flags that they're causing trouble. None of this negates the objective fact that if you allow mandatory triggers to pass without them occurring, you are breaking the rules. If you think it's okay to break the rules to your advantage by doing things like not telling your opponent to focus his elite stormtrooper or hide a unit with Adapt, well, I guess that's that. Execpt that is not what the judge does, read the role of the judge In the tourney doc. The job is NOT to be sure all rules are applied correctly to all games at all times- it is simply impossible and unrealistic. The players are expected, especially in ffg, to play correctly and act mature to resolve disuptes and are in fact 'running the game'. The judge steps in when there is disagreement of the rules and resolve disputes.

No, the R5K6 has to be resolved before you continue. The 'evade' results does not persist for any other reason other than giving you a TL back. Think of it as a mini side loop that is resolved before you continue. Porkins ability clearly is not during the attack, it is when you receive stress and not part of the attack steps. Again it is only a mechanism to add chance for an ability to trigger. Nothing more.

Ha^3 I also do xwing and Armada!

MTG has a huge fanatical following so they can get away with whatever they want price wise, but really Imperial assault I consider brand new and needs a little nurturing and not really a good comparison. Maybe just my Denver area (example regionals attracted less people then the prior year), how is your guys observations on your local community?

You right, the bottom line is what is the ultimate driver. When I saw the inquisitor announced, I was confused (Couldnt they make a new box set in that time period with all of those characters?) I know there are a lot of complaints on the Armada forums about the slow cycle and stagnation/ lack of diversity but that is much more manageable for now. The slower cycle probably has more to do with infrastructure though and not by design. Diversity is always good, but I think when they release so many small packs separate (Really, no boba fett plastic in the twin shadows?), someone really needs to walk someone new through this process of what to get how to start up. Just image if you are not part of the community boards!

Here's the thing when a rule such as this is made, likely somewhere the developers got word of someone doing exactly this or abusing slow play. They probably have a specific example(s) that showed someone getting an unfair advantage perhaps with sharing a 'scouting report/play style' with another player at a tournament and made this rule explicit.

I'm not sure FFG would agree on that, given that they specifically say that you should maintain a "score pile." I don't know that anyone would care if you're using scratch paper just to take score, but... Wasn't the score pile in the 2015 worlds faq and it was obliviously done at the final table at worlds, so they didnt seem to disagree.

Doesn't work that way. Predator only triggers when attacking. Porkins isn't attacking when rolling for his ability Exactly, the rolling of the die has nothing to do with the attack, on a easy way to throwing chance into getting an ability, such as the scum cloaking device too.

So, hear me out for a second, this applies to skirmish. This game was release late 2014 so we are not even 2 years out and the number of expansions are overwhelming, I count 30 now! Of course, I collect everything, but I think this is really hurting the community. In our area, the skirmish group has been shrinking, citing cost and too much to keep up with. Just think, what will it look like in another 2 years, 60 expansions total? I dont know how a new players could realistic not get overwhelmed to play 'competitively' against someone who has everything. Of course, you can simply 'buy what you want' only, but you do need to know how all of the commands cards/characters work, or you can be rolled over from simply not knowing the mechanics to being constantly surprise what people can do. Just think, if your new to Netrunner, want to jump in competitively or feel a little intimated with the massive library of cards? Personally, a big library is always inevitable given enough time, but just my preference is I like a slower release cycle.

Well, that me mechanic applies to prob. of getting a free tl, not defending so you at not adding a evade when you defend as you are not at the roll defense die step of an attack.

Unless your blind, all of that info is on the table available.

Keeping score is not taking notes. They means writing actual notes- statements, maths, etc.

Seems to make sense, no rush right now why not stagger them?

Time to bit the bullet to satisfy the demand. Take it down to Vegas in a mega convention hall even with a slight bump up in price. After all, November in Minnesota or November in Vegas?

Didnt the R2 not even ft?