My copy has finally arrived (with a gift)

[AVJax 1]

Well it's finally here and man is it pretty.

Will need to break out the components and start reading for a potential game next week.

When I opened the box there was a little slip of paper which said FFG weren't happy with the quality of the d10's (red and green dice) so they put in an extra set. Which is great, I couldn't see what the issue was so I have double the amount.

By the way I got my copy from a marketplace seller on Amazon.co.uk.

Happy gaming everyone.

[willmanx 38]

AVJax said:

Well it's finally here and man is it pretty.

Will need to break out the components and start reading for a potential game next week.

When I opened the box there was a little slip of paper which said FFG weren't happy with the quality of the d10's (red and green dice) so they put in an extra set. Which is great, I couldn't see what the issue was so I have double the amount.

By the way I got my copy from a marketplace seller on Amazon.co.uk.

Happy gaming everyone.

 

+1 thanks FFG for your concern. I got mine from amazon.com. Maybe this gift has been made with first printing only, FFG might have correct that flaw in the next print.

[Facepalm2 0]

happened to me to, got the box at my local store. =P

[Zengbo1234 0]

I got it in my box from Amazon too. I know it's a small thing, but it's nice to see that they care enough to do it.  It's the small things like that that keep me coming back to FFG, small investments from them lead to greater trust on my side. The extra dice are really nice too!

[Llanwyre2 0]

I didn't look that hard and haven't looked again, but I think we concluded that they didn't like the way the hourglasses printed. Still, it's nice to see that they care enough to put in additional material when something isn't up to snuff!

[Dramatic Exit2 0]

Aye I had the same little note and extra set of d10 I took a look at the other (bad) d10 and in some places the quality difference is enormous, almost to the point of the dice being unusable.

[HedgeWizard 60]

My "bad" dice were largely okay, but a few of the imperial eagle/bird thingies that denote a boon were pretty poorly shaped in comparison with the extra dice.  

[mac40k 1]

The hourglass symbol on the old dice had the vertical lines on the sides representing wooden dowels like you would see on a large hourglass, rather than the more basic design on the newer dice that has a more simple design that appears to be the glass only. The details of the Imperial eagle symbol, especially when reduced to fit two on a single face or on the same face with a success tended to blur together to form an ugly blob. The symbol on the new(er) dice has much less detail, so it looks nicer. However, we've found that the newer design is more easily confused/mistaken for a success symbol when viewed from a distance. The detail may not have transferred correctly with the old design, but at least there's no mistaking the squarish blob for an axe head.

[player110486 0]

Before reading the rules the 'bad' dice looked like garbage and made me scratch my head wondering what the heck they were.  After playing a couple times I went back to look at them to see if they were usable or not, and I decided they were perfectly clear once you knew what the possibilities were.  I keep them and use them as my own personal stance dice so the players can use the other set between them.

 

 

[Llanwyre2 0]

imanfasil said:

I decided they were perfectly clear once you knew what the possibilities were.  I keep them and use them as my own personal stance dice so the players can use the other set between them.

 

 

 

Exactly what I did.

[CMtheGM 15]

The original stance dice in my set didn't roll an even distribution. 3 or 4 faces per die showed up far more often than anything else. No problems with the markings though.

The replacement dice roll quite well though.

[mac40k 1]

CMtheGM said:

The original stance dice in my set didn't roll an even distribution. 3 or 4 faces per die showed up far more often than anything else. No problems with the markings though.

The replacement dice roll quite well though.

Interesting and something I never thought of. I'm curious as to how many test rolls you made to arrive at this conclusion? If what you are saying is true, we should all just get rid of the "bad" dice rather than treating them as a bonus.

[CMtheGM 15]

mac40k said:

CMtheGM said:

 

The original stance dice in my set didn't roll an even distribution. 3 or 4 faces per die showed up far more often than anything else. No problems with the markings though.

The replacement dice roll quite well though.

 

 

Interesting and something I never thought of. I'm curious as to how many test rolls you made to arrive at this conclusion? If what you are saying is true, we should all just get rid of the "bad" dice rather than treating them as a bonus.

It was actually the first reason I thought of, only a couple markings were barely "smudged". I made 100 rolls, not a huge sample size, but it should have been large enough to at least hint at any bias in the dice. I got a far wider distribution varience than I expected.  I'll post the numbers when I find them (or redo the sample).

[gruntl 3]

My feeling is that 100 rolls might be too low to actually be certain. But that depends on your results of course. Would be interested to see your numbers.

Approximating the binomial distribution as a normal distribution (which should be valid for 100 rolls) for a 10 sided die I get that the 99% confidence limits on getting one particular outcome is 2.3%-17.7% with 100 rolls. So if your numbers are outside this range the dice should really be scrapped. This site has a good c.l. calculator (saving me from having to actually do any calculating )