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.

 Zagman wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


No, according to the supplied data Chessex style dice roll below average. Knowingly trying to gain an advantage over your opponents buy buying dice that are known to roll better is cheating,just as using a cube weighted to roll better would be.

Level playing field is fair, by trying to garner an advantage over the vast majority of opponents through dice is wrong.

Call me crazy, but I'm happy playing with the same, likely imaginary, handicap as everyone else. Plus, I've already postulated that this difference is almost nonexistent in a non clinical setting which has been backed up by AllSeeingSkinks data of over one thousand rolls.

It is fun when you take the data that supplies your opinion to be true and others as needs more study. And i am not accepting that rolling lower then average results is fair play for anybody in a game where stuff should be designed on average outcome. We should not be playing with non average outcoming dice because it's "fair". We should all be playing average outcoming dice, period.

Wow, please reread my posts with understanding, either you have misread much of what I have posted or have simply failed to grasp it.

My hypothesis, which now has some support, is that the surface and dice rolling technique has a large impact on the outcome of the roll. Rolled in a clinical setting it has been demonstrated that cheaper dice such as Chessex can show an extreme bias towards 1. But, that is only in a clinical setting. I have postulated, and AllSeeingSkink supported it with 2000 rolls, is that much more expected results can be achieved when large numbers of dice are rolled together on softer less precise surfaces.

The fact that precision dice are not required aside, if there truly existed such a difference, it would be garnering an unfair advantage over opponents to play with precision dice while they used Chessex and would be akin to cheating, especially if they were unaware and you were aware of the difference in dice and its outcome on the average die rolls.

Of course it doesn't matter, because cheap awesome looking Chessex dice roll extremely close to average under normal gaming conditions which differ wild from the clinical Dakka study rendering it a moot poitn.

You are thinking some imaginary world that people know that some dice is bad and dont tell people. After that they play with their average outcoming dice in order to get an advantage or "cheating" as you put it.

That place doesn't/ shouldn't exist. We need to stop playing with bad dice at all . If try to play with average outcoming dice and tell my opponent that i am playing with said dice and offer him the dice yet he doesn't take it, i am not cheating he is. He doesn't need to take advantage from it.

 pizzaguardian wrote:


That place doesn't/ shouldn't exist. We need to stop playing with bad dice at all . If try to play with average outcoming dice and tell my opponent that i am playing with said dice and offer him the dice yet he doesn't take it, i am not cheating he is. He doesn't need to take advantage from it.

No, he isn't. In order to do this, you would have to prove that his dice are giving him a considerable advantage. Very minor differences from a perfect result (as is the case with Chessex) aren't enough. Not to mention that in any game, you would never be able to claim someone is cheating just because he uses the brand of a certain dice producer.

No, what I am saying is that if there really was such an advantage for using precision dice, taking advantage of your competition who did not know this would be akin to cheating.

It doesn't matter though, because such a massive difference as proposed by the Dakka study does not exist in the real world on a real gaming table.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Couple of questions...

How do people feel about custom dice? I've got custom Chessex for both my Sisters and Emperor's Children, with symbols and words instead of 6s. I always get stick for them from my gaming group, with people suggesting they are unfairly weighted after a couple of decent rolls in a row. They always seem to balance out overall though - some good rolls, some bad, very occasionally awesome and very occasionally terrible.

Secondly, I always give my dice a really good shake before I throw them to increase the randomness [dunno if this works but I'm applying the same principle as shuffling cards really well]. A friend of mine lets them kind of drop out of his hand, which always annoys me a little [he is a pretty lucky with his dice too]. Is there a certain amount of time people should shake?

In the internet age, as soon as someone sees a thread like this, 100 people suddenly DECIDE they dont trust a company. Not cause its true. Just cause they like to distrust things.

Custom dice are cool. keep using them. Tell people to blow it out their ear. Custom dice make 6's a lot more STANDOUTish and maybe they dont like enemy dice shoving victory in their faces. Lol.

tyrannosaurus wrote:Couple of questions...

How do people feel about custom dice? I've got custom Chessex for both my Sisters and Emperor's Children, with symbols and words instead of 6s. I always get stick for them from my gaming group, with people suggesting they are unfairly weighted after a couple of decent rolls in a row. They always seem to balance out overall though - some good rolls, some bad, very occasionally awesome and very occasionally terrible.

I have no problem with custom dice as long as it's clear what the special symbol is and that's consistent on all your dice.

Also, you have to be happy with me using them because I distrust people who want to use their own special dice and won't let me use them. I also distrust people who have separate pools for leadership tests and stuff (maybe it's just a superstition thing or maybe those dice genuinely are biased).

So yeah, as long as you accept me using the same dice and don't have separate pools depending on whether you want a high roll or a low roll, I don't mind.

Secondly, I always give my dice a really good shake before I throw them to increase the randomness [dunno if this works but I'm applying the same principle as shuffling cards really well]. A friend of mine lets them kind of drop out of his hand, which always annoys me a little [he is a pretty lucky with his dice too]. Is there a certain amount of time people should shake?

Can't really know that without just testing it.

Jancoran wrote:In the internet age, as soon as someone sees a thread like this, 100 people suddenly DECIDE they dont trust a company. Not cause its true. Just cause they like to distrust things.

Or it might be because this thread linked an article that supposedly demonstrated Chessex dice have a 29% bias to 1?

Toofast wrote:
I have a rare talent of being able to make any dice from any manufacturer consistently roll far more 1s than it should. Oh yea, except on leadership tests and casting psychic powers, I get plenty of 6s there.

I feel your pain, as I suffer from the same affliction.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Jancoran wrote:In the internet age, as soon as someone sees a thread like this, 100 people suddenly DECIDE they dont trust a company. Not cause its true. Just cause they like to distrust things.

Or it might be because this thread linked an article that supposedly demonstrated Chessex dice have a 29% bias to 1?

Its wierd but when im winning my opponents wonder about all the 6's I roll and when I lose they wonder about all the 1's I rolled.

Weird right?

 Jancoran wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Jancoran wrote:In the internet age, as soon as someone sees a thread like this, 100 people suddenly DECIDE they dont trust a company. Not cause its true. Just cause they like to distrust things.

Or it might be because this thread linked an article that supposedly demonstrated Chessex dice have a 29% bias to 1?

Its wierd but when im winning my opponents wonder about all the 6's I roll and when I lose they wonder about all the 1's I rolled.

Weird right?

I can't speak for the ignorance, knowledge and weirdness of your opponents. But it's hardly "Just cause they like to distrust things" when they actually reference an page that has tested it.

Also, dice can be biased either intentionally or not, which is why I am wary of anyone who won't let me use their dice or people who like to use different dice for leadership tests as they use for armour saves/hitting/wounding.

 Zagman wrote:
People testing their dice...... That made my night, I needed a good laugh.

Do you know how many thousands and thousands of rolls would be required to determine if even one was out of balance? How many different throw styles would need to be tested? How consistent and meticulous it would have to be?

Then to do it with any decree of confidence..... Sheer hilarity.

This!

After reading the last thread like this about dice, claiming that slight imperfections on the dice affect the outcome in a significant way, I decided to experiment for myself.

Claims of things that hurt randomness were:
* Rounded edges
* Slightly larger Surface Area of a given side leads to the opposite facing showing up more
* Heavier Facing gravitates down and leads to the opposite facing showing up more
* Heavier Facing keeps dice from rolling off of it and leads to the heavier facing remaining on top

I have a ton of dice, so I figured I could spare a few if I ruined them.

1.) Using a nail file I sanded down and then polished the 1 facing to create a larger surface area, on 3 dice.
2.) I drllled out the 1 pip and replaced it with a bead of lead shot.
3.) Glued the lead bead in place, and covered it with paint
4.) I got bored with the project after rolling them 50 or so times, and realised I don't have a college kid to pay $10 an hour to roll them and record the results, like the proffessionals do.

Results ?

Nothing noticeable.

When I was a kid, my friend had weighted "character builder" dice for D&D and those almost always rolled 6. These dice still roll 1-6, without the noticeable wobble of Character builders.

My modifcation are way beyond slight imperfection

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Jancoran wrote:In the internet age, as soon as someone sees a thread like this, 100 people suddenly DECIDE they dont trust a company. Not cause its true. Just cause they like to distrust things.

Or it might be because this thread linked an article that supposedly demonstrated Chessex dice have a 29% bias to 1?

Its wierd but when im winning my opponents wonder about all the 6's I roll and when I lose they wonder about all the 1's I rolled.

Weird right?

I can't speak for the ignorance, knowledge and weirdness of your opponents. But it's hardly "Just cause they like to distrust things" when they actually reference an page that has tested it.

Also, dice can be biased either intentionally or not, which is why I am wary of anyone who won't let me use their dice or people who like to use different dice for leadership tests as they use for armour saves/hitting/wounding.

Well distrusting people is basically a waste of my time. I don't blame losses on anyone but me. So I say cheat if you want to. I'll still beat you. But Im not paying that much money just so YOU can feel "assured" that I'm not. No way. I don't owe anyone that and if they are tending towards 1's too often then what has anyone got to complain about?

 Zagman wrote:
People testing their dice...... That made my night, I needed a good laugh.
Do you know how many thousands and thousands of rolls would be required to determine if even one was out of balance? How many different throw styles would need to be tested? How consistent and meticulous it would have to be?
Then to do it with any decree of confidence..... Sheer hilarity.

The number of rolls would depend on how soon a consistent bias could be detected (how strong the defect or unbalance the die has).

An old tried and true method of detecting loaded dice is to drop them in a glass of water and see if it appears to "right itself".

Getting into all the details of height and surface means precious little unless there is sufficient distance for the imbalance to make itself felt.
Gauge R&R studies were designed to detect bias in a measuring process.
The bias of the individual can be removed by having three "operators" throw the dice and we could verify the consistency of the spread.
<edit> Dice towers have been used for quite some time so that can be used for reduction of environment variation.

The glass of water method could help leverage conditions to amplify detection of the bias (give it time to roll to the favored side).<edit> Mind you, not real world applicable!

Confidence in the method can be evaluated by comparing outcomes from varying conditions with the only constant being the dice itself.
Similar distribution = higher confidence.

The list of "noise" conditions and guess of "thousands" of rolls and the "hilarity" found in smug false knowledge seems to indicate a need for superiority rather than outlining a correct test method.

I have to perform statistical analysis of manufacturing processes on a daily basis, rolling dice is just another "repeatable" process that can be logically analyzed.
What I find truly fun is the analysis of rolling two dice together, the dynamics are much more interesting (two interacting processes combining to one outcome). <edit>The ability to "knuckle" the dice (so they only spin on the one axis) requires some means of controlling that, hence why a "good" craps throw requires a bounce off the back wall.

<edit> Found a few cool articles, did not think of variation of "flatness" of each face, neat stuff (if you want a 6 make sure it is curved!):
http://dicephysics.info/0107.htm
Quick rule of thumb of detecting bias not needing "thousands" of rolls.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?399916-Spreadsheet-to-Determine-Dice-Bias
Interactive simulator:
http://www3.stats.govt.nz/games/Dice-duels-find-the-bias/index.html

 Talizvar wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
People testing their dice...... That made my night, I needed a good laugh.
Do you know how many thousands and thousands of rolls would be required to determine if even one was out of balance? How many different throw styles would need to be tested? How consistent and meticulous it would have to be?
Then to do it with any decree of confidence..... Sheer hilarity.

The number of rolls would depend on how soon a consistent bias could be detected (how strong the defect or unbalance the die has).

An old tried and true method of detecting loaded dice is to drop them in a glass of water and see if it appears to "right itself".

Getting into all the details of height and surface means precious little unless there is sufficient distance for the imbalance to make itself felt.
Gauge R&R studies were designed to detect bias in a measuring process.
The bias of the individual can be removed by having three "operators" throw the dice and we could verify the consistency of the spread.
<edit> Dice towers have been used for quite some time so that can be used for reduction of environment variation.

The glass of water method could help leverage conditions to amplify detection of the bias (give it time to roll to the favored side).<edit> Mind you, not real world applicable!

Confidence in the method can be evaluated by comparing outcomes from varying conditions with the only constant being the dice itself.
Similar distribution = higher confidence.

The list of "noise" conditions and guess of "thousands" of rolls and the "hilarity" found in smug false knowledge seems to indicate a need for superiority rather than outlining a correct test method.

I have to perform statistical analysis of manufacturing processes on a daily basis, rolling dice is just another "repeatable" process that can be logically analyzed.
What I find truly fun is the analysis of rolling two dice together, the dynamics are much more interesting (two interacting processes combining to one outcome). <edit>The ability to "knuckle" the dice (so they only spin on the one axis) requires some means of controlling that, hence why a "good" craps throw requires a bounce off the back wall.

<edit> Found a few cool articles, did not think of variation of "flatness" of each face, neat stuff (if you want a 6 make sure it is curved!):
http://dicephysics.info/0107.htm
Quick rule of thumb of detecting bias not needing "thousands" of rolls.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?399916-Spreadsheet-to-Determine-Dice-Bias
Interactive simulator:
http://www3.stats.govt.nz/games/Dice-duels-find-the-bias/index.html

Maybe it isn't thousands and thousands of rolls, but it would at the least require hundreds and likely at least a thousand total rolls total and should be tested under differing circumstances as evidenced the by dakka study which produce results and a conclusion that is not replicated under normal gaming conditions. To test an entire cube would certainly require thousands of rolls. Testing a single condition of balance and testing the multitude of variable required for a high degree of confidence are very different. Looked at your links, it does take roughly a hundred rolls with a single dice to detect a large degree of bias, though with smaller margins of error it would require more rolls under testing condicitons.

My original comment was made very late and right before bed, the image of people rolling their dice over and over again to see if they were balanced was and is hilarious.


I don't doubt your knowledge of testing methods in a manufacturing process and I have no doubt it exceeds my own. Despite my need for "superiority" I am not wrong, it would take hundreds if not thousands of rolls to successfully test a single die. The Dakka study indeed used one thousand rolls per die and proved nothing useful, except that under those certain circumstance the dice favored 1, which is not reproducible on the tabletop.

"details of height and surface means precious little unless there is sufficient distance for the imbalance to make itself felt." That is the least intelligent thing you have said. Of course those variables matter, especially as the conclusions of the Dakka study were dependent of them and other data using other variables shows much more expected results. The smaller data sets, which you have demonstrated contain enough rolls to be valid and useful, directly refute the Dakka findings. The biggest differences are those exact variables.

 Jancoran wrote:
Well distrusting people is basically a waste of my time. I don't blame losses on anyone but me. So I say cheat if you want to. I'll still beat you. But Im not paying that much money just so YOU can feel "assured" that I'm not. No way. I don't owe anyone that and if they are tending towards 1's too often then what has anyone got to complain about?

I feel like you are just going off on tangents. We've jumped from distrust of companies to distrust of people now. I'm not saying you have to pay much more money so I can feel assured or anything of the sort.

The distrust (of people) thing would only come up if you are using a set of dice and refuse to let me use the same dice and/or if you are picky about which dice you are using for leadership tests vs other rolls.

If I did believe Chessex dice were massively unbalanced as to affect my chances of winning (say if I thought they rolled 1's more frequently and I had a Terminator army), then I'd bring dice that I believe are more balanced and I'd let you use the same dice.

The distrust thing only comes up when it's warranted. You seem to have this idea that everyone wants to distrust everything regardless of anything. I distrust companies when I'm given reason to distrust them. I distrust people when those people give me reason to distrust them.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


No, according to the supplied data Chessex style dice roll below average. Knowingly trying to gain an advantage over your opponents buy buying dice that are known to roll better is cheating,just as using a cube weighted to roll better would be.

Level playing field is fair, by trying to garner an advantage over the vast majority of opponents through dice is wrong.

Call me crazy, but I'm happy playing with the same, likely imaginary, handicap as everyone else. Plus, I've already postulated that this difference is almost nonexistent in a non clinical setting which has been backed up by AllSeeingSkinks data of over one thousand rolls.

It is fun when you take the data that supplies your opinion to be true and others as needs more study. And i am not accepting that rolling lower then average results is fair play for anybody in a game where stuff should be designed on average outcome. We should not be playing with non average outcoming dice because it's "fair". We should all be playing average outcoming dice, period.

I believe his point is that if you know your dice are going to roll (assuming cheap dice roll more 1s) better than your opponents, then you must share your dice and that information with them.

To find a middle ground with what Zagman is pointing out with the detection of dice bias:
The degree of bias may not be significant enough to effect the comparatively low number of rolls during a game so it may be a less than most concern.

I would suspect that a solid die with uniform material weight will have less bias than the various specialty types that have holes drilled for their pips or engraved designs over it.
It would be an interesting exercise to conduct.

Anyone have any links of a well controlled bias test for dice?
At worst, just record all the conditions to allow some duplication of the experiment.

I still find "in the field" people do "natural rolling" where they turn the single die up a certain way (die is in a controlled initial state), throw just so (distance and speed of rotation controlled), on their favored book/box (degree of bounce/stick a set amount) and glory be a 6!
This is where "luck" gets managed the most in a game that I see and call people on it (die needs to rattle around at least).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The distrust (of people) thing would only come up if you are using a set of dice and refuse to let me use the same dice and/or if you are picky about which dice you are using for leadership tests vs other rolls.

If I did believe Chessex dice were massively unbalanced as to affect my chances of winning (say if I thought they rolled 1's more frequently and I had a Terminator army), then I'd bring dice that I believe are more balanced and I'd let you use the same dice.

I get what you are going for, but I have to say, if someone was constantly wanting to use my dice, I would refuse. You want to roll my dice to make sure they're not loaded? Fine. But if I prefer to roll blue dice over red for wounds or leadership tests, you can't say I'm not allowed. You can usually tell if dice are loaded fairly easily and if someone really is going to go through the trouble of cheating dice at 40k (when there are much easier/more effective ways to cheat), I'd rather just not play.

jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote: The distrust (of people) thing would only come up if you are using a set of dice and refuse to let me use the same dice and/or if you are picky about which dice you are using for leadership tests vs other rolls.

If I did believe Chessex dice were massively unbalanced as to affect my chances of winning (say if I thought they rolled 1's more frequently and I had a Terminator army), then I'd bring dice that I believe are more balanced and I'd let you use the same dice.

I get what you are going for, but I have to say, if someone was constantly wanting to use my dice, I would refuse. You want to roll my dice to make sure they're not loaded? Fine. But if I prefer to roll blue dice over red for wounds or leadership tests, you can't say I'm not allowed. You can usually tell if dice are loaded fairly easily and if someone really is going to go through the trouble of cheating dice at 40k (when there are much easier/more effective ways to cheat), I'd rather just not play.

Honestly, I've never met someone who insists on using their own dice and only their own dice and refuse to let me use them.

The worst I've had is someone who did want to use their own dice and didn't want me to use them, but after saying I'd prefer if they didn't, we just used my dice instead. Another guy used to sort through the store dice in to different colours, but they weren't his dice it was just the store dice, I guess he was a bit OCD, since they were just the store dice I never really thought too much about it.

I have had a couple of occurrences early in my gaming life where people had dice they felt were lucky when it came to rolling either high or low so would use those specific dice when they had to roll single important saves or other dice when they had to roll leadership tests. While I'm sure it may just be superstition that they got some lucky rolls from those dice and now stick with them, I do tend to think that within a set of cheap dice there's a higher chance that a few dice might be biased one way or another while the set as a whole has less chance of being biased... so these days I tend to not like it when people do that (pick out very specific dice for specific important tests).

If you must use specific dice for specific tests and are tremendously insistent (no one I've met has been) then I guess I could just assume you're really OCD rather than cheating. If anything I think a cheater would be more likely to concede than make a fuss about it

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote: The distrust (of people) thing would only come up if you are using a set of dice and refuse to let me use the same dice and/or if you are picky about which dice you are using for leadership tests vs other rolls.

If I did believe Chessex dice were massively unbalanced as to affect my chances of winning (say if I thought they rolled 1's more frequently and I had a Terminator army), then I'd bring dice that I believe are more balanced and I'd let you use the same dice.

I get what you are going for, but I have to say, if someone was constantly wanting to use my dice, I would refuse. You want to roll my dice to make sure they're not loaded? Fine. But if I prefer to roll blue dice over red for wounds or leadership tests, you can't say I'm not allowed. You can usually tell if dice are loaded fairly easily and if someone really is going to go through the trouble of cheating dice at 40k (when there are much easier/more effective ways to cheat), I'd rather just not play.

Honestly, I've never met someone who insists on using their own dice and only their own dice and refuse to let me use them.

The worst I've had is someone who did want to use their own dice and didn't want me to use them, but after saying I'd prefer if they didn't, we just used my dice instead. Another guy used to sort through the store dice in to different colours, but they weren't his dice it was just the store dice, I guess he was a bit OCD, since they were just the store dice I never really thought too much about it.

I have had a couple of occurrences early in my gaming life where people had dice they felt were lucky when it came to rolling either high or low so would use those specific dice when they had to roll single important saves or other dice when they had to roll leadership tests. While I'm sure it may just be superstition that they got some lucky rolls from those dice and now stick with them, I do tend to think that within a set of cheap dice there's a higher chance that a few dice might be biased one way or another while the set as a whole has less chance of being biased... so these days I tend to not like it when people do that (pick out very specific dice for specific important tests).

If you must use specific dice for specific tests and are tremendously insistent (no one I've met has been) then I guess I could just assume you're really OCD rather than cheating. If anything I think a cheater would be more likely to concede than make a fuss about it

Dice are weird, and people are superstitious for sure. I guess it's just my meta, but I've always brought my own dice and my opponents have as well. I've let people use my templates and tape measurers but yeah, most people use their own dice. Again, if you're that paranoid, you can totally check my dice, I just think its weird. Also, definitely some dice could be loaded, but I have a special pair of brass d6's that I like to use for Leadership/important rules not because they seem to help, but because they're heavy and cool