Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally I think using a substance as toxic as mercury and then soaking one's die in it is quite foolhardy too.

He's hoping it'll give him super powers.

Eric

Glad someone else is taking dice seriously! I cant believe people can defend chessex dice honesty, why would you want to play a game where your chances of losing are drastically increased due to a known design flaw

Ive found simple larger full cube dice to be more than sufficient. A lot cheaper and within acceptable levels of variance

Personally I have yet to see compelling evidence that low rolling is any more prevalent than high rolling for any particular style of dice. If you have a big bag full of dice and each of them is randomly skewed toward a different number, this is exactly the same thing as having a bag full of perfectly random dice.

asmith wrote:Personally I have yet to see compelling evidence that low rolling is any more prevalent than high rolling for any particular style of dice. If you have a big bag full of dice and each of them is randomly skewed toward a different number, this is exactly the same thing as having a bag full of perfectly random dice.

Only for a statistically significant number of die rolls, using the entire set of dice.

For that matter, your statement is equally valid if you "have a big bag full of dice and each of them" has only one number.

asmith wrote:Personally I have yet to see compelling evidence that low rolling is any more prevalent than high rolling for any particular style of dice. If you have a big bag full of dice and each of them is randomly skewed toward a different number, this is exactly the same thing as having a bag full of perfectly random dice.

I'm not sure you understand how randomness works, and you're using the wrong definition of random here....which has come up several times in this thread.
---------------------------
Statistical randomness: of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

IE, a 6 sided die has an equal chance (16.6%) of any particular side being represented by each toss. If this is not the case, the die is not random, and thereby flawed.

---------------------------

As a noun:: in a purposeless fashion; not following any prearranged order

IE, you grab a handful of die and put them into a bag. This is a *different* definition of random.
----------------------------

In short, you can have a random assortment of die that are not accurately random. To accentuate the point, you could take a bunch of loaded die that only roll 3s, grab a handful of them, put them into a bag, and have a random assortment of die. That are not random.

That's the issue. Not that one die has any chance of rolling better than a different die (IE, having random die), but rather that EACH die is not random in itself.

@ janthkin: Yes it is that's pretty much the point I was making. If you can't show that the dice are definately skewed towards one result in particular, and you are using a large quantity of dice (like most 40k players are) than there is no use taking special pains to see that each individual dice rolls perfectly random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ dashofpepper: but the result of each is the same. If you grabbed a few dice from the bag, and a few dice from a bag of "perfectly random" dice, you could roll them and the results would be indistiguishable.

If you start sorting the dice by result that is a different kettle of fish.

You're still assuming that you're using all your dice. If you do things like roll, and then pick up the hits and roll again, your system breaks down.

Plus, you're also assuming that there is an equal number of dice that are biased towards any one number. What If all the die are biased towards 1 and 3?

As for "evidence", you've got to remember that objectivity really isn't more than the illusion created by sufficient subjectivity. Each "anecdote" is also known as a "data point". So far, there have been several people presenting several data points about how awful Chessex dice are, and how they tend to roll 1's.

At what point you feel that there are enough data points to be sufficient is up to you. For people like Dash, Eric and myself, we've seen enough.

Just because our tolerance is lower on this particular issue with this particular set of data points doesn't mean we're relying on witchcraft or are delusional or something.

Woe to the positivist world...

You have a persecution complex or something? When have I said anything like that?

Just because our tolerance is lower on this particular issue with this particular set of data points doesn't mean we're relying on witchcraft...

I rely on voodoo.

1) Before every game, sacrifice a bucket of extra crispy chicken.
2) Greasy-paw my opponents models.
3) He gets grossed out & quits.
4) Win!

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Just because our tolerance is lower on this particular issue with this particular set of data points doesn't mean we're relying on witchcraft...

I rely on voodoo.

1) Before every game, sacrifice a bucket of extra crispy chicken.
2) Greasy-paw my opponents models.
3) He gets grossed out & quits.
4) Win!

Eric

I wonder what would happen if we played. I carry a bottle of lysol, and if anyone touches my models, I spray them in the eyes with it to disinfect them.

Dashofpepper wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

Just because our tolerance is lower on this particular issue with this particular set of data points doesn't mean we're relying on witchcraft...

I rely on voodoo.

1) Before every game, sacrifice a bucket of extra crispy chicken.
2) Greasy-paw my opponents models.
3) He gets grossed out & quits.
4) Win!

Eric

I wonder what would happen if we played. I carry a bottle of lysol, and if anyone touches my models, I spray them in the eyes with it to disinfect them.

This also probably helps with Best Sportsman and Best Painting categories too!

(totally cracked me up).



Keep fighting the good fight, Dash.

It's dismaying that dice companies are so completely uninterested in producing (or even evaluating) their product for the primary reason their product exists. It would be like making calculators that didn't generate correct results, but came in thousands of pretty, sparkly colors. I'm frustrated that there is such a wide gap in price between casino dice (which are rigorously manufactured to particular tolerances) and gaming dice, which are dunked in paint and tossed in a rock tumbler. I don't want to pay casino dice prices (and I understand that the tolerances would be less stringent), but it seems like someone would aim for the market between them and "gaming dice".

How many rolls of an individual die would it take to evaluate a trend? I'm not talking lab standards but say 1000 rolls with 250 of one result. I'd be tempted to call it at that myself. Personally I've got one scatter dice in my collection that appears to roll more hits than it should but then again I could just be remembering the hit and forgetting the scatter results. Perhaps the others are like it but this one stands out being non-white. I guess what I'm trying to say is how far from perfection do we need to go before it signifficantly alters the outcome of games?

Good God people! You guys want to perform 1000s of tests on these things, when are you ever going to get around to playing the game?

BTW, bought a new set of dice this weekend, played in a tournament. First game: couldn't stop rolling sixes. Second game: dice went cold. Third game: dice weren't bad, but strategy sucked.

Stop trying to blame your dice and just play!

I have some lovely dice here. They have four sides. Why not use them to make all of your rolls? After all, you should stop blaming your dice and just play! Meanwhile, I will be using these lovely dice with twenty sides for all of my rolls. Stop blaming my dice and just play!

It's not like Dash set out to investigate the randomness of his dice. He noticed that his rolls were statistically low, and decided to do something about it. Maybe he's wrong about that perception, but unless someone ELSE wants to investigate Dash's lousy dice, they are going to have to trust his assertion. They haven't provided any evidence that Dash's observations of his dice are wrong. He observed his die rolls and feels that his observations show that they are "rolling low". You could perform tests on Dash's dice, or you could even examine his powers of observation, but it doesn't make any sense to leave his assertions alone, and tell him to continue to use those dice.

If you think he's wrong, point out his errors. If you think he's right, why the heck would you tell him to continue playing with those dice?

Finally, I don't think Dash has ever talked about performing thousands of test rolls. If you look at his original post, he was looking for square edged, painted pip dice. Both polished edges (since the edges are usually polished haphazardly) and drilled pips (since the removed material can vary by side) are known features which can bias dice towards particular results.

You don't have to do bacterial testing on every steak in the meat department just so you can know to avoid the one that is several weeks old, and unwrapped.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Good God people! You guys want to perform 1000s of tests on these things, when are you ever going to get around to playing the game?

BTW, bought a new set of dice this weekend, played in a tournament. First game: couldn't stop rolling sixes. Second game: dice went cold. Third game: dice weren't bad, but strategy sucked.

Stop trying to blame your dice and just play!

Pretty sure Dash has played in more tournament games than you have.

No offense, but in higher levels of tournament play having dice that statistically roll higher on ANY side is unacceptable.

In casual tournaments and games at your local store, sure who cares if 1's (for example) show up a couple percent more of the time than they should.

Warhammer is becoming more and more competitive. Things like this in other competitive games wouldn't be looked down upon or ridiculed, but viewed as a necessity.

There's enough evidence that the chessex and other rounded dice with indented pips are flawed. If you don't want to spend money to get statistically random dice then so be it. But don't criticize others for doing so.

Skelly wrote:Pretty sure Dash has played in more tournament games than you have.

The e-peens are really swinging today...

Skelly wrote:No offense, but in higher levels of tournament play having dice that statistically roll higher on ANY side is unacceptable.

But since everyone is using some form of gakky dice it's probably a wash.

Skelly wrote:There's enough evidence that the chessex and other rounded dice with indented pips are flawed.

Not according to people who know something about statistics there isn't.

Selective reading^.

I wasn't implying anything about e-peen, I was merely commenting on the fact that some guy asked "When are you ever going to get around to playing the game?" which somehow inferred that searching for square dice hindered ones ability to play games.

If everyone was using flawed dice, and you had perfectly square random dice, would your results be different? Sure. It doesn't matter that everyone is using chessex dice, they're still flawed.

As for the legitimacy of said article, I won't get into that. I don't know enough on the subject nor do I care to argue about it, but it looks reasonable to me.

I remember *playing* with mercury as a kid... (stupid kid). Neat stuff, to bad it gets absorbed into your skin if you handle it. Though... that may explain a few things.

I think I'd rather buy expensive dice than play with mercury...
knowing the health risks.

Skelly wrote:

If everyone was using flawed dice, and you had perfectly square random dice, would your results be different? Sure. It doesn't matter that everyone is using chessex dice, they're still flawed.

It depends on how the dice were flawed. If they are randomly flawed and thus don't favor any number systematically (IMO the most likely scenario) then it doesn't make any difference.

ITT math still continues to lose the battle to confirmation bias among the unwashed masses!

MikeMcSomething wrote:ITT math still continues to lose the battle to confirmation bias among the unwashed masses!

See the OT forum about the T-Rex eating coconuts. It's not limited to math!

Are those Koplow dice actually square cut in real life? They certainly aren't in the advertising photos.

They aren't prefect razor sharp edges like you get with casino dice but, yeah. They're squared edge. About the same as the dice you get with most board games (Monopoly, etc.).
Which pictures did you see?

Was it one like this?
http://godboma.com/12mm-Opaque-Dice-Set-of-36.html

Eric

I'm using Koplow 16mm dice. I'm guessing on size. They are about 3/4 of an inch. 6 sided with pips. been rolling pretty well with them.

I have earned a rep of rolling a lot of 5+ saves with these dice. I'm using two sets. A warlock purple color and black I can't find the purple number, but the black is #08613 in the standard dice area I think. They are square with no rounded corners.

asmith wrote:

Skelly wrote:

If everyone was using flawed dice, and you had perfectly square random dice, would your results be different? Sure. It doesn't matter that everyone is using chessex dice, they're still flawed.

It depends on how the dice were flawed. If they are randomly flawed and thus don't favor any number systematically (IMO the most likely scenario) then it doesn't make any difference.

They've been shown to favor 1's at a much higher percentage. You should take a look at the article in question.

Going to check out those koplow dice, thanks for the info.

I've been playing with the Koplow dice for over a year now and have had a better time with them than the chessex I used to buy all the time.

I always bought new chessex every chance I got since I always was on the hunt for better dice. I was the guy to roll 5 ones out of 6 dice.

Then they had a box of Koplow dice where you could buy one for $.25. So I bought a few and started using them for my Eldar army which I hadn't won a game with using chessex dice. I played my friends and even competed at Ard Boyz using the same tactics and actually started winning. I made it to the semi's of Ard Boyz on those koplow dice. They aren't 6's all the time but I am rolling a lot less 1's. I see more 3's, 4's, 5's and 6's than I ever used to with my chessex.

Chessex big on style, low on substance.

I won a tournament over the weekend with my kaplow dice. Saw very similar results - a much more even spread of roll results than I had previously expereinced with any recent chessex dice.

To be fair - the older chessex dice were awesome. After 15 years of use they finally started to crap out on me though.

I also bought 100 of these dice and keep them in a draw string bag - so i no longer have to obsess over filling my dice brick after every game.

I didn't see anyone post this yet. I've been eying these lustily for some time now.

http://www.frpgames.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=66536

come in all kinds of colors, not a bad price either. Not sure on the size though, the d6 from their RPG set is...14mm

Now knowing this i can have me own secreat weapons..... sweet.