Jump to content
punkUser

I tested my dice...

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

If you aren't required to share dice when a player asks, why would it be in the rules?  Come on.

? In a game type where you're generaly expected to bring and use your own legal materials? Usually not doing so is grounds for ejection from a tournament baring a judge making a specific exemption. This rule permits otherwise in the case of templates and dice for X-Wing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

? In a game type where you're generaly expected to bring and use your own legal materials? Usually not doing so is grounds for ejection from a tournament baring a judge making a specific exemption. This rule permits otherwise in the case of templates and dice for X-Wing...

I'm fairly sure that that is not the reason for the rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's not in the rules that I can share tokens with my opponent, therefore I can't. 

Page 5 of the rule book, sub 6 of "Setup"...

6. Prepare Other Components: Shuffle
the damage deck and place it facedown outside
the play area. If the players have more than one
damage deck, each player uses their own deck.

Then the supply of range rulers, templates, dice,
and tokens is created near the play area.

Edited by Hiemfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

Page 5 of the rule book, sub 6 of "Setup"...

Oh, I think the hypothetical was missed.

 

I can request anything of my opponent.  I can request they set their dials upside, or play without pants.  The only reason the rules would state that I can request something from my opponent is if they have to comply with that request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jokerkd said:

I'm fairly sure that that is not the reason for the rule

Maybe, maybe not. @Wazat has put the question to FFG directly, hopefully they answer. Sharing dice is still the best method for mitigating any "gaming" of the dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Oh, I think the hypothetical was missed.

 

I can request anything of my opponent.  I can request they set their dials upside, or play without pants.  The only reason the rules would state that I can request something from my opponent is if they have to comply with that request.

Going to need to present something that backs that up. If they intended it to be mandatory for someone asked to share components to do so it would have more likely been written as "require" instead of "request".

Edit: The very fact that this clause exists, "Any decisions are subject to review by a marshal.", says to me that it can be refused or agreed to by the person asked with the tournament marshal being able to over rule either decision.

"The marshal may mandate that players must share a single range ruler, set of maneuver templates, and/or set of dice during a round." = Marshal can have it as a requirement for that tournament period if they choose.

Edited by Hiemfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jokerkd said:

You can technically say no, but all that does is delay the start of the game while you wait for a judge to come over and tell you that you're going to share

1. Judge can't make that call. Marshal only (in smaller events there could be just the event Marshal, it is larger events where the difference matters).

2. I sense an assumption that I have an issue with sharing dice. I don't. I have an issue with requests being considered to be equitable to "demands" in level of compulsion...

@GreenDragoon If a Law Enforcement  Officer makes a "request" that results in repercussion if refused then it is not a request, it is a demand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really differentiate between judge and marshall. Anyone I ask to help run an event of mine is made a marshall

And I didn't mean "you" personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jokerkd said:

And I didn't mean "you" personally

My apologies for assuming you did. I'm admittedly (and probably very obviously) irked right now so that could be coloring my interpretation of what I'm reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @punkUser

Not to detract from the discussion about what is and is not cheating/legal, but have you tried using your ML model to recognize multiple results in a view field?  I’m not really sure what the application would be but maybe there could be something cool done with interpreting results during streams from raw dice box footage.

 

Also, I didn’t see a segment on this in your article so I wanted to see if I am interpreting this correctly.

 

 I, being a learned man of refinement and taste, decide to scour the globe for X-Wing dice that are positively biased.  In so doing I assemble a set that is positively biased by 5 percent.  Knowing that the best way to lean into this advantage is to roll more dice more often that my opponent so I bring Howlrunner and six academy ties.  

 

As a learned man who only plays x-wing with other learned men of panache, I engage my opponent in a joust on the edge of the board.

 

With all of the exposition and “what about this” out of the way, it seems to me that the player that wins this is, largely speaking, the player that rolls the most positive results on red dice, as opposed to the most positive results on green dice since extra damage is always useful while extra evades may not be.

 

If you have attack dice that are positively biased by 5 percent the expected damage of 1 die is 0.8 if you have a focus result. With  howlrunner in play that goes up to 0.96.  Assuming everyone gets to shoot at range 2 that nets out to 14*0.96, or 13.44 damage results vs 14 * 0.75 (12.25)  (I know these estimates are high, but as a learned man on mobile I don’t have access to the binomial distribution function right now). 1.2 extra damage per round seems like a pretty distinct advantage and also seems likely to snowball (the more hits you roll over time the more likely it is that your opponent are rolling fewer red dice)

Other than my fudging the binomial distribution, are my conclusions sound? I figured you would probably be the best person to bounce this hypothetical off of.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

"Before or during a tournament round, any player may request that a single
range ruler, or set of range rulers, a set of maneuver templates, and/or set
of dice be shared for the duration of the round."

Not sure what "request" means in your neck of the woods, but here in the US it means "ask". So "may request" means that the regulations permit someone to ask without being in violation of the rules.

I'm in the US and I disagree.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Must be that I'm a non native speaker, so I'm aware that I get nuances wrong and I'm happy for corrections of misunderstandings. Requests are generally granted, or at least that's the apparently wrong understanding I have.

It's not just native English or not.

I'd also view the use of request in this context as more than just asking.  For example, there's this, step 3 of Game Setup on page 5: "Each player may request to examine their opponent’s damage deck to validate its contents."  There isn't choice here.  If your opponent wants to count your damage deck, make sure it's intact, they can.

Or the section on Lost and Damaged components: "Damaged Dice, Range Ruler, or Maneuver Template: The player keeps the original component near the rest of their squad and requests to share the opponent’s component for each remaining round of the tournament."  From both of these, I think it's pretty clear that if a player requests to share components, it takes a marshal to overrule it, rather than to force it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I'm in the US and I disagree.

It's not just native English or not.

I'd also view the use of request in this context as more than just asking.  For example, there's this, step 3 of Game Setup on page 5: "Each player may request to examine their opponent’s damage deck to validate its contents."  There isn't choice here.  If your opponent wants to count your damage deck, make sure it's intact, they can.

Or the section on Lost and Damaged components: "Damaged Dice, Range Ruler, or Maneuver Template: The player keeps the original component near the rest of their squad and requests to share the opponent’s component for each remaining round of the tournament."  From both of these, I think it's pretty clear that if a player requests to share components, it takes a marshal to overrule it, rather than to force it.

If a request cannot be refused it is not a request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

A "request" that cannot be refused is either an order or a demand.

I think the point in this case is that it can be refused, by calling over a marshal and asking them to deny it.

Reading the contexts in which the word is used, it seems like it was placed there to encourage a positive environment where something can be asked with the expectation that it would be granted unless there is exceptional reason to deny it. Using words like order or demand makes the desired interaction sound more aggressive than FFG would probably like, hence using request when in reality it's closer to a demand (though it still can technically be denied).

Edit: Also, while I am not a linguist, in most cases where I hear the word "request" used, it's only optional in the sense that if you plan on refusing you better have a **** good argument on your side or be prepared for consequences.

Edited by GeneralVryth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A request that cannot be refused is a more polite demand as noted by @GeneralVryth

I use them all the time when I send requests to regulated entities to provide my employer, the federal regulator, with information. A request is a very polite way of saying "you have a choice, but expect to be forced to if you don't comply willingly." 

FFG often attempts to use light weight legalese in their documents, not always successfully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the intent behind the sharing rule is u-n-k-n-o-w-a-b-l-e, I can say with a good degree of certainty that if you deny your opponent's request to share dice/templates, a judge/marshal is going to tell you that you are, in fact, going to share dice/templates. No amount of arguing of the definition of "request' is going to change this, so the exercise is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

A "request" that cannot be refused is either an order or a demand.

I love that you'd rather argue semantics than just accept how the rules work, and that you know work, and you know will actually be in force at worlds.

Are you saying that you'd tell a worlds marshall, Frank brooks or Max Brooks, about the nuances of english language and that your opponent cannot inspect your damage deck or share dice?

Edited by Tlfj200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

A "request" that cannot be refused is either an order or a demand.

And yet, the word request is often in reality used when there is not an option to refuse.

I'm sure some things would be more convenient for some people if language only worked the way you want it to work, but then language would suck.  The fact that we can express so much is beautiful, and there's glory for you.

 

5 minutes ago, miguelj said:

Even if the intent behind the sharing rule is u-n-k-n-o-w-a-b-l-e, I can say with a good degree of certainty that if you deny your opponent's request to share dice/templates, a judge/marshal is going to tell you that you are, in fact, going to share dice/templates. No amount of arguing of the definition of "request' is going to change this, so the exercise is pointless.

In truth, correct.

Practically speaking, maybe not.  Under one interpretive scheme, the requesting player would have to hassle not just any judge, but the full marshal.  This is probably untenable in a larger tournament, and essentially eliminates the rule entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...