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.

@Tyrolean
I can't tell if it's just a horrible image or if I'm truly seeing it right, but those red dice don't look NEAR prpperly squared to me.

Also, there's something "shenanigany" about dice whose numbers aren't filled in. They're a lot harder to read and thus, easier to cheat with.

Eric

I think the idea is that people will paint the numbers themselves. However, I've tried this with Dakka Dice that came with the wrong fill color in the explosion (a test set) and it was Much more difficult than I imagined. I'd say nearly impossible the way I was trying it.

And I was trying it with the exact paint that Chessex uses, following guidelines that they talked me over the phone with (as I'd called to let them know they'd used the wrong fill color, and didn't want them to have to replace them).

So even though that's the intention, I doubt many people are actually able to color in the numbers themselves. If they are, I'd love to hear how they did it.

MagickalMemories wrote:@Tyrolean
I can't tell if it's just a horrible image or if I'm truly seeing it right, but those red dice don't look NEAR prpperly squared to me.

Also, there's something "shenanigany" about dice whose numbers aren't filled in. They're a lot harder to read and thus, easier to cheat with.

Eric

They do look off, I think it's the bad angle and lighting of the shot. Looking/feeling my d6 it has very slight dimples on all the faces but they all seem to be equal. I think that comes from the nature of the material shrinking ever so slightly as it cools.

Buying the dice un-inked saves you several bucks so it's worth it to me It does look uncanny though. I painted mine in but I'll be using a sharpie next time

Gamescience has a good rep----but they come with spru clips (Like resin gates from FW) that require cutting/sanding. That is the one thing that stopped me from purchasing them----as I wondered how precise a die can be after I'm forced to cut/sand on it. Although, I don't have personal experience on how big the gates are.

@AgeOfEgos- they're not too bad 2-3mm gates, I just used my mini files to get the worst of it off then a very fine sand paper, just mind the edges and try not to take off much material and you should be good. I don't even see them anymore, roll great in D&D

Amazon.com sells the casino style dice (square corners, no depressions) in purple, red, green and blue.

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B00157YFJE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1300929847&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B000RQ0GLU/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_img_b

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Serialized-Casino-Purple/dp/B0013SIY1A/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1300929847&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B000XTF3RI/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_img_c

BrassScorpion wrote:Amazon.com sells the casino style dice (square corners, no depressions) in purple, red, green and blue.

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B00157YFJE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1300929847&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B000RQ0GLU/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_img_b

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Serialized-Casino-Purple/dp/B0013SIY1A/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1300929847&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B000XTF3RI/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_img_c

Did you even read Dash's post? He HAS casino dice but they're too large to roll in higher amounts.

@Tyrolean
Those look awesome, gonna check them out as well.

Did you even read Dash's post? He HAS casino dice but they're too large to roll in higher amounts.

Nope, I only read the title of the topic and added my bit of info. If it helps great, if not, no harm done. Either way I have no interest in reading the thread, don't need to for any reason I can think of. Your response to my post is the only post I've read in this thread other than mine.

I ordered one set of the green dice from Amazon. Too expensive to order in large quantities, but for all the rolls requiring small amounts of dice and there are plenty of those I'll surely be giving them a try and mixing them in with the rolls requiring many dice too.

BrassScorpion wrote:

Did you even read Dash's post? He HAS casino dice but they're too large to roll in higher amounts.

Nope, I only read the title of the topic and added my bit of info. If it helps great, if not, no harm done. Either way I have no interest in reading the thread, don't need to for any reason I can think of. Your response to my post is the only post I've read in this thread other than mine.

I ordered one set of the green dice from Amazon. Too expensive to order in large quantities, but for all the rolls requiring small amounts of dice and there are plenty of those I'll surely be giving them a try and mixing them in with the rolls requiring many dice too.

I have them as well, 3 sets of different colors, got them for a bit cheaper than amazon on eBay so you might want to check there.

They work GREAT for when you only have to roll a few dice.

Skelly wrote:

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.

They haven't been "shown to" favor 1's at a much higher percentage. That was the result of one non-peer reviewed self released forum posting. One whose results were so skewed as to be easily reproducible with a relatively small number of rolls by others, yet no confirmation of this has been done. Even giving the guy the benefit of the doubt as being honest, you basically have are one step up from anecdotal evidence.

asmith, you're mistaken.
They have been shown to favor ones. Unfortunately, some people refuse to ever honor anecdotal evidence as data.

One guy goes through the trouble to run a simulation and confirms the anecdotes of hundreds of individuals. IMO, that lends a lot of creedence to those anecdotes as being a bit more than stories.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to defend chessex dice so much. It's as if they're personally and morally offended that people claim to have rolled a higher percentage of 1's with them.

Eric

no I'm not mistaken... in fact you have it the wrong way around. One guy came up with a forum post,showing a huge percentage of 1's, and now everyone "notices" wow I am also rolling a lot of ones. It's called confirmation bias as mentioned earlier. This is why anecdotes are not data.

I've been around a long time. Not just on Dakka... In general.
I've been a gamer for 30 years.

There's ONE thing I've consistently heard for as far back as I can remember, and that is that Chessex d6's were junk; that they rolled a lot of 1's.

The test you're referring to was run in response to the large amount of gamers (including, IIRC, the guy who ran the experiment) complaining about the 1's, and not the opposite.

Eric

Still the same thing... people will note times when exceptional events occur filtered through their own bias and ignore times when the events don't occur. Rolling a lot of ones is a memorable experience during a wargame. Rolling a lot of 3's isn't.

MagickalMemories wrote:asmith, you're mistaken.
They have been shown to favor ones. Unfortunately, some people refuse to ever honor anecdotal evidence as data.

One guy goes through the trouble to run a simulation and confirms the anecdotes of hundreds of individuals. IMO, that lends a lot of creedence to those anecdotes as being a bit more than stories.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to defend chessex dice so much. It's as if they're personally and morally offended that people claim to have rolled a higher percentage of 1's with them.

Eric

LOL seriously... some people just really love their chessex dice ahaha.

How hard is it to see that a rounded dice with drilled in pips will not be truly random in comparison to a perfectly square non-pip casino dice? Chessex are cheaply mass produced, but due to the way they're made, they have flaws.

Dude you just missed the point by a mile. Nobody is defending chessex dice. We are rather pointing out that some are jumping to some rather large conclusions based on almost no actual data. See the difference?

I don't suppose it's possible that Chessex dice are widely maligned because they are the most commonly used.

asmith wrote:Still the same thing... people will note times when exceptional events occur filtered through their own bias and ignore times when the events don't occur. Rolling a lot of ones is a memorable experience during a wargame. Rolling a lot of 3's isn't.

You're making a lot of presumptions about things you know nothing about.
You're purporting to know what WE experienced. You're claiming that you know what we did and did not go through.

Let me be clear.

I (me, myself, in person) have NEVER played a game of 40K where I used Chessex dice that the Chessex dice did not roll a LOT on ones.
Never.
Ever.
Nil.
Zip.
Zero.
Nada.

I've got 4 cubes of the things at home that haven't seen use in years because they ALL roll like that.
All.
Every.
En toto.
In full.

Every experience with Chessex dice are like that for me.
I am not the only one.

asmith wrote:Dude you just missed the point by a mile. Nobody is defending chessex dice. We are rather pointing out that some are jumping to some rather large conclusions based on almost no actual data. See the difference?

Seems pretty clear that you are.
By pointing out how mistaken we all are about the dice, you're taking the defensive position.

Eric



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it's possible that Chessex dice are widely maligned because they are the most commonly used.

Possble, but not likely in my experience.
As stated above, I've got my own personal expereinces with them that have proven true. The same goes for watching other people use them in game. Of course, I cannot use their experiences, beacuse I don't play every game with all the people I've seen roll horribly. It' *is* one HECK of a coincidence, however, that all of the Chessex 12mm dice I've seen rolled are crap.

I believe they're widely maligned because, well, they deserve it.

Eric

Yes you are right. I'm defending logic, reason, statistics and the scientific method.

You are putting your hands in your ears and saying "I KNOW WHAT I KNOW NAH NAH"

That being said I'm done here. You are either lying or deluding yourself.

So how about putting a little science into it. If you take a block of 36 Chessex dice and roll them 100 times a day for a week. Comes out to 25200 individual rolls with each result appearing 4200 times statistically. No need for lab conditions or individual rolls in my mind as that's not how there used in game. Just roll them on a table like you would in game. Worth a shot?

fredox wrote:So how about putting a little science into it. If you take a block of 36 Chessex dice and roll them 100 times a day for a week. Comes out to 25200 individual rolls with each result appearing 4200 times statistically. No need for lab conditions or individual rolls in my mind as that's not how there used in game. Just roll them on a table like you would in game. Worth a shot?

A little science has already been put into it. Multiple multiple blocks of 36 dice were rolled by multiple people and the total number of rolls were a bit under 200,000. If that's not a large enough sample to prove chessex dice are flawed, than I don't know what is.
You can find the article where they did these tests here on dakka.

It's not emough for asmith, apparently. Anyone who disagrees with him is, apparently a liar or moron.

Eric

There was a good article in this thread, it just isn't the crap one that's hosted on Dakka. It shows that dice can be prone to bias among an axis (not just a single number(1) that happens to be bad in a wargame full of superstitious gamers) and that the difference in geometries would have to be large and immediately noticeable to get anything remotely close to a result as statistically significant as 30% ones. Half of the people here that think Chessex dice are magical 1 machines don't even understand the factors that could cause a die to roll a particular side more often than another (hint:it's not the fact that the corners are round, or that the pips are hollow)

The other article is just a guy rolling and telling you what he got. Gamers have latched onto this one because it a) is on dakkadakka, has alot of paragraphs, and has the word ''science'' in the title and b) it feeds their confirmation bias.

asmith wrote:
Yes you are right. I'm defending logic, reason, statistics and the scientific method.

You are putting your hands in your ears and saying "I KNOW WHAT I KNOW NAH NAH"

That being said I'm done here. You are either lying or deluding yourself.

QFT.

MikeMcSomething wrote:There was a good article in this thread, it just isn't the crap one that's hosted on Dakka. It shows that dice can be prone to bias among an axis (not just a single number(1) that happens to be bad in a wargame full of superstitious gamers) and that the difference in geometries would have to be large and immediately noticeable to get anything remotely close to a result as statistically significant as 30% ones. Half of the people here that think Chessex dice are magical 1 machines don't even understand the factors that could cause a die to roll a particular side more often than another (hint:it's not the fact that the corners are round, or that the pips are hollow)

The other article is just a guy rolling and telling you what he got. Gamers have latched onto this one because it a) is on dakkadakka, has alot of paragraphs, and has the word ''science'' in the title and b) it feeds their confirmation bias.

asmith wrote:
Yes you are right. I'm defending logic, reason, statistics and the scientific method.

You are putting your hands in your ears and saying "I KNOW WHAT I KNOW NAH NAH"

That being said I'm done here. You are either lying or deluding yourself.

QFT.

Cool well thanks for the link backing your statement mike, GREAT READ.

I paged back a couple of pages but didn't see anything. Has anyone found non rounded edged 16mm dice somewhere yet?

Skelly wrote:They've been shown to favor 1's at a much higher percentage.

Where? What test(s) have been made? What were the parameters of the test(s)? Was it in a controlled environment or just some dude on a forum saying he rolled a bunch and seemed to get a bunch of ones?

If multiple sets of dice were rolled the same amount of times and documented, on varying rolling/playing surfaces (carpeted, felt, wood, loose material, attached material, linoleum, etc.), with various extraneous parameters (in a box, against some sort of edge, nothing to stop them at all, etc.) and the findings were published someplace, maybe I'll be prone to buying in to that claim. Until I see this, I'm not drinking your kool-aid, sorry. "My dice always roll low" is one of the most ridiculous claims in this hobby. I've seen so many people get frustrated when they're losing a game that blame dice for rolling and go spend $12 buying a new box on the spot. That is just ridiculous to me.

In a debate about a topic, one shouldn't post a comment as 'fact' and not supply supporting evidence. Just saying, "They've been shown to favor 1's..." is hardly a proper factual statement worthy of making a point in a debate.



King Ghidorah

MagickalMemories wrote:asmith, you're mistaken.
They have been shown to favor ones. Unfortunately, some people refuse to ever honor anecdotal evidence as data.

One guy goes through the trouble to run a simulation and confirms the anecdotes of hundreds of individuals. IMO, that lends a lot of creedence to those anecdotes as being a bit more than stories.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to defend chessex dice so much. It's as if they're personally and morally offended that people claim to have rolled a higher percentage of 1's with them.

Eric

I agree with MM here. We bought one of those big ol bricks of chessex because the size is perfect. The problem is they roll horribly. In 1 game, against my nephew these results happened. After he rolled his Necrons saves, I still scored 12 wounds, from a mob of 20 shoota boyz shooting. So that was a metric crap ton of 5s/6s and then immediately a metric crap ton of 1s and 2s. Then my son brought in a small army of SM and the crazy rolling continued. My nephew shot his tactical squad and killed off the entire squad, my son just couldnt roll enough 1s and 2s apparently lol. But then his commander went and curb stomped necrons on his own. The chessex are very lopsided. Infact Ive been looking for new dice to use ever since. I think Im going to give these game science fellas a chance, those dice look nice, and a local D&D group uses them and swear by them.

My chessex dice from 10+ years ago seemed to roll average for a long time. They were square edged.

Only recently - within the last year or so - did they start to seem to be weighted to the One side. I have retired them.

I suspect that years and years of beating them up finally skewed them.

Well I can tell ya dont waste your money on newer ones. Mine a brand new and I will be letting my daughter play/throw them around because they arnt worth a damn. That is, unless you want to go through them and find the ones the roll high constantly and basically cheat your way to a victory lol.

I was looking on the warstore for the pack of dice I picked up a while ago that serves me pretty well (bulk small square edged d6 with pips) I know they aren't want the OP wanted, but they are useful for mass rolling and they don't seem biased to roll any particular way.

While poking around over on TWS however, I found that now Chessex is selling cheating dice themselves. sets with 2 20s on a d20 (no 1) 2 6's on a d6 (no 1) and 2 0's on a D10, again, no 0's that made me lose any respect I had for their dice. I don't want to have to worry in a game if my opponent is using manufactured cheating dice for a game. Putting them out and matching them to existing lines of your dice is just a really scummy thing to do.

Someone else mentioned how to fill in the numbers on dice, way back in the day, I used crayon to rub wax into the the depressions and then polished off the excess with a rag. You can also do the same with model paint as long as the raised surface is nice and smooth, it will rub off of the raised surface.