Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

> >
> > I don't remember when or where, but I've definitely had opponents
> > who didn't seem to understand the concept or purpose of
generating a
> > random factor. One guy, for every important roll, would hold his
> > rolling hand palm up and place the dice in it in a very specific
> > configuration (like up 4) and then very carefully and gently flip
> > them like one would a pancake. It was miraculous how well that
guy
> > rolled when he had to.
> > Greek

As I thought about this, I remebered a few situations that have
caused problems from the other side.

First I bought a bronze d6 at a junk shop that someone had apparently
made at home. I cost me like .50. I used to use it because of the
heavy thump it made on the table. It usually rolled no better than
any other dice. In one DBM tournament, I guy actually accused me of
using a loaded dice (the bronze one) when I rolled 3 or 4 "6" in a
row. Now I looked at him in disbelief that he considered it possible
to "weight" a solid metal object on one side; it astounded me more
than the accusation of cheating. I welcomed the ref over who
promptly rolled as ramdomly as you expect. Still the ref, another
budding physicist apparently, asked me to use a different dice. I
then proceeded to roll the best dice of my life crushing the whiner
completely with SUNG chinese of all things.

Another problem I've encountered was that for awhile I would spin the
dice rather than roll them. I would hold the dice in my thumb and
finger about 12" from the table and snap them out of my hand. Again,
because apparently I wasn't just rolling them across the table I was
accused of cheating. Once again, over comes the ref, the rolls are
all random (they both even try it). I'm asked to roll the "regular"
way. Fine. I let my then 3 year old roll for me and we cleaned the
guy's clock. Both of these types of *ssh)les are typical of the
feavored tournament retentive types that turned me back to
napoleonics for a while.

I'm not one to much care who rolls which way, but there needs to be
some level of common sense when it comes to accusations of cheating.
Cheating to win a tournament is in my book somewhat like trying to
cheat at masterbation, since you get no additional pleasure. There
are those who may need this for their egos, but I doubt the cheating
by-and-large takes place in the dice we roll. I would wager that
most cheating comes in troop calculations. And most of that is
mistake rather than intentional. I would also point out that most
accusers of cheating are just loosers looking for excuses for their
own incompetence. I just don't see cheating as a large issue, and
certainly not one in the dice we roll.

Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

Please, Boyd, put a 'u' in masturbate .

Other than spelling flame, I did actually have a comment or two...

Wanax Andron wrote:
> As I thought about this, I remebered a few situations that have
> caused problems from the other side.
>
> First I bought a bronze d6 at a junk shop that someone had apparently
> made at home. I cost me like .50. I used to use it because of the
> heavy thump it made on the table. It usually rolled no better than
> any other dice. In one DBM tournament, I guy actually accused me of
> using a loaded dice (the bronze one) when I rolled 3 or 4 "6" in a
> row. Now I looked at him in disbelief that he considered it possible
> to "weight" a solid metal object on one side; it astounded me more
> than the accusation of cheating. I welcomed the ref over who
> promptly rolled as ramdomly as you expect. Still the ref, another
> budding physicist apparently, asked me to use a different dice. I
> then proceeded to roll the best dice of my life crushing the whiner
> completely with SUNG chinese of all things.

It's quite possible to weight something that would look like a
solid lump of bronze. Hell, it's quite possible (if difficult)
to weight a clear die. that latter is probably beyond most of
our capabilities, but they can easily be bought.

See e.g. http://www.halfpast.demon.co.uk/dd.html for an example
of what is easily available.

> I'm not one to much care who rolls which way, but there needs to be
> some level of common sense when it comes to accusations of cheating.

Well, yes. But the examples which started this thread lead to a
polite request for alteration, I would suggest - as would the
couple you describe. It seems that it's only if such produces
refusal or over-embrassment that one would begin to be suspicious.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by [incompetence] .

[Phil Gardocki]

Someday, I am going to bring a motorized dice crusher, for those 1 in 36 down
4's.
Think of the crowd that would materialize around the table.

Phil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In Australia in my playing life we haven't had dice related
problems. The Warrior players in tournaments tend to use one set of
dice for the game, which may belong to either player. It tends to be
whoever has got them out first.

I know that the DBM players have dice put on the tables for their
use, presumably because of some sort of problems in the past

Adrian Williams
Barbarians Wargaming Club
Sydney, Australia

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> Isn't that something both players should decide on
> before they play?
>
> --- JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> In a message dated 5/26/2004 2:50:07 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time, ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > I agree with the post that 'cocked' should be
> defined before
> > starting (and indeed in the rules under section 14,
> I would
> > have
> > thought)>>
>
> That is not something I would mandate in a rulebook.
>
> J
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Please, Boyd, put a 'u' in masturbate .

I always put me in masturbate ;)


> It's quite possible to weight something that would look like a
> solid lump of bronze. Hell, it's quite possible (if difficult)
> to weight a clear die. that latter is probably beyond most of
> our capabilities, but they can easily be bought.

I don't think that a cube of bronze 3/4" square can be thusly
weighted sufficiently to generate any deviation from random. If it
were made of aluminum with lead on one side yes, but for the mass the
difference in density between bronze and lead would not lend itself
to a successful effort. Not to mention how different one side would
look ;)

> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
> by [incompetence] .

My point exactly. I find more incopetence amongst wargamers than the
mental dexterity required for malice. :)

Wanax

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> it's only if such produces
> refusal or over-embrassment that one would begin to be suspicious.

Now wait just a minute, why should I be forced to succumb to some
Bobby Fisher-esque nit-picking about the mechanics of how I roll
dice or what dice I use if all is fair and random - just because
some overly anal person is uncomfortable with it or, more likely,
simply wishes to make me less comfortable with my own dang dice-
rolling?

This opens up a whole range of annoyance tactics. Especially when
playing someone with thinner skin that Boyd it should be possible to
keep making little accusations/suggestions which the opponent has to
agree to to avoid "refusal or over-embarrassment" to the point they
are totally unable to concentrate on the game.

What is next, we start playing obnoxious music and shining bright
lights in our opponent's eyes?

And it sounds like the ump in the cases Boyd described probably went
too far - _if_ the test is made and _if_ it doesn't support any
accusation of cheating then I think it unreasonable to make such a
request.

And in fact, like frivilous lawsuits, probably the accuser should be
punished at some point.

Cheating is cheating, and if the accusation is made and results
indicate that is what going on, especially intentionally (which
would be a first - even at the recent IWF sham the poor guy had
apparently inadvertently bought loaded dice) then action should be
taken.

But I think simply not liking the way an opponent rolls dice, still
producing random results, is just another cheesy way of getting
under someone's skin.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/27/2004 15:14:20 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Geesh, this getting waaay more anal than the DBM loaded dice
discussion. Come on folks, I though Warrior was supposed to be the
laid back bunch.>>
I am letting this thread run as a theortical exercise. No one has accused
anyone of cheating. If you don't want to participate in this thread in the
spirit of dice theory, then it would be better to just leave it alone than to
worry that something draconian is going to happen in Warrior because of it.
As far as NASAMW is concerned, the 'atmosphere' has completely turned around
over the years and I think we have some of the most gentlemanly (and
-womanly) tourneys around. I think NASAMW should balance any perception that
players of any rulesset might include scurrilous types with the fact that
players
can be very personal about their dice and dice rolling. Yes, I have seen
cheating in my 31 years of gaming, some with dice, and some in ancients
tourneys.
But that does not require any kind of overreaction here.
Everyone relax. Roll your dice the way you like, so long as it is random,
and everything will be fine.
J





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/27/2004 15:37:40 Central Daylight Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

Why does it matter to you "how" your dice are rolled? >>
Again, gamers can be very particular - even superstitious - about their
dice. Let's not have any judging of anyone's method of dice rolling or other
such preferences. Please return this thread to 'theory' or let it end for you.
J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/27/2004 16:46:45 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Sorry for any language, or over-reaction, deemed inappropriate.>>
no apologies necessary, John. everything is cool. it's just that gamers
are particular about their dice and cheating is a hot-button issue and we need
to all keep separate what is Warrior and what is not.
i do think there should be a hjgher level of awareness as to stats and
probability among gamers - too many are under some significant misunderstandings
about dice and expected value and random events, etc. I let this thread go
because parts of it were helping to dispel some of that, which I think is always
good.
J





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> This opens up a whole range of annoyance tactics. Especially when
> playing someone with thinner skin that Boyd it should be possible
to
> keep making little accusations/suggestions which the opponent has
to
> agree to to avoid "refusal or over-embarrassment" to the point they
> are totally unable to concentrate on the game.

I have stood up at a DBA tournament recently because the opponant
didn't know the rules, so accused me of cheating repeatedly when his
elements were kills. I smiled, stood up, and forfeted in round 1. I
am not the thickest skinned guy, but I am usually plesant and
foregiving. As I get older I've noticed I have less tolerance of the
immature.

>
> What is next, we start playing obnoxious music and shining bright
> lights in our opponent's eyes?

So you've played some of my opponants? The high volumne walkman
playing disco tunes and silently mouthing the words (but you can here
them). I love playing that guy ;)

>
> And it sounds like the ump in the cases Boyd described probably
went
> too far - _if_ the test is made and _if_ it doesn't support any
> accusation of cheating then I think it unreasonable to make such a
> request.

Well I will say it wasn't Scott Holder. Scott would more likely roll
his eyes and bitch about having to investigate such an allogation
(humor scott ). This ump is no longer around I think, though he
did do DBM for some time. In both of the cases I described, I went
to the complete opposite end of the spectrum to turn it back on the
accuser. For example, I would roll the dice with large grand
jestures from as high as 3 feet, then request that he "examin" the
results before I looked. Talk about irratating someone. Hey, you
reap what you sew. ;)

>
> And in fact, like frivilous lawsuits, probably the accuser should
be
> punished at some point.

In both cases my accuser eneded up getting thrashed. The one guy was
so pissed that my son was rolling 6s all over the place that I was
affraid he would emplode.


> But I think simply not liking the way an opponent rolls dice, still
> producing random results, is just another cheesy way of getting
> under someone's skin.

I tend to agree. In fact, I left ancients for about ten years
because of the absolute insanity some poeple bring with them. I am
hyper competitive, but I prefer friendly games. For awhile, in DBM
in my experience, you couldn't go to a tournament without have some
BS at every game. This was mostly because of the 1.2 to 1.3 version
transgression where half knew the rules and half didn't have internet
access in order to get them. That sort of crap, and the ever present
maniacs.

I think I'm like most when I say to play in a tournament should be
about 50% competitive atmostphere and 50% relaxation. Without the
second the first sucks like work.

Wanax

[John Garlic]

Just getting into tail end of this very lonnnnng thread. But I do agree with
sharing dice. I play boardgames, and prefer it. It eliminates another
variable. Of course I still like to set them on table with number I desire
facing
up and wave my fingers over them sometimes!

John garlic

> As "Bob" from Knights of the Dinner Table would say, "No one should ever
> touch another man's dice!"
>
> kelly
>
> Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
> >(1) I think the loaded dice problem is a moot point. I had an opponent some
> >years ago in the NICT (not someone I knew), who brought no dice to the
> >tournament. He explained, very politely at the beginning of the game, that
> it
> >was simply his policy to use the same dice as his opponent. I thought he
> was
> >being overly paranoid, but I wasn't offended, and we had a very pleasant
> game.
> >So I think in general anyone should feel free to share dice with an
> opponent,
> >and any opponent who believes he has fair dice should not be offended by
> such a
> >request.
>
> I agree with this; I would note that at least one boardgamer, and
> a couple of wargamers, I know do this precisely because they have
> previously been involved in accusations of loaded dice. Which
> seems a sensible response.
>
> [And as I noted, I don't think Mark's being contrarian in his
> (lack of) experience of dice problems]
>
> E



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Cheating is cheating, and if the accusation is made and results
> indicate that is what going on, especially intentionally (which
> would be a first - even at the recent IWF sham the poor guy had
> apparently inadvertently bought loaded dice) then action should be
> taken.
>
> But I think simply not liking the way an opponent rolls dice, still
> producing random results, is just another cheesy way of getting
> under someone's skin.
>


The point is that "dice rolling skill" is not part of the game, and that
the die rolling techniques Scott and I, among others, are alluding to DO
NOT PRODUCE RANDOM RESULTS (even without loaded dice) as Don's excellent
post documented.



Greek

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> the die rolling techniques Scott and I, among others, are alluding
to DO
> NOT PRODUCE RANDOM RESULTS

Not everyone who rolls dice from "less than 6 inches off the table"
or fails to "show an open palm" is cheating intentionally or even
producing non-random results unintentionally. In some cases
(probably the vast majority actually) it is simply how someone
happens to roll dice AND RANDOM RESULTS ARE OBTAINED.

In the absence of any evidence that non-random results are being
produced, I think someone asking an opponent to change the way they
roll dice just because they do not happen to like it or because some
Vegas guru says you can cheat by doing it that way is being way way
too particular about someone else's personal preferences.

Nor do I desire to have someone "teach" me how to roll
dice "properly". Remember how this is _supposed_ to be fun?

Geesh, this getting waaay more anal than the DBM loaded dice
discussion. Come on folks, I though Warrior was supposed to be the
laid back bunch.

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Not everyone who rolls dice from "less than 6 inches off the
table"
> or fails to "show an open palm" is cheating intentionally or even
> producing non-random results unintentionally. In some cases
> (probably the vast majority actually) it is simply how someone
> happens to roll dice AND RANDOM RESULTS ARE OBTAINED.
>
> In the absence of any evidence that non-random results are being
> produced, I think someone asking an opponent to change the way
they
> roll dice just because they do not happen to like it or because
some
> Vegas guru says you can cheat by doing it that way is being way
way
> too particular about someone else's personal preferences.
>


Why does it matter to you "how" your dice are rolled? Ideally, it
should make no difference how the dice are rolled or WHO rolls them
as long as the results are truly random. This is my point. To
illustrate I will make a couple of statements and ask a couple of
questions.

Statement: Warrior is not a dice rolling game. Skill at rolling dice
should have nothing to do with this game. If you want a game that is
based on how well a player rolls his/her dice, there are plenty of
them out there. Thus, it shouldn't matter to you whether random
factors are produced by your dice, someone else's dice, a ping pong
ball pulled out of a lottery machine, or a computer's random number
generator.


Question: Are you protective of people's constitutional right
to "roll their dice as they see fit" (even though this should have
nothing to do with the game), to the point that you would defend
someone carefully placing dice in a cup so that the roll he wants is
face down, and then carefully flipping the cup lip completely onto
the table top, trapping the dice within? Where do you, personally
draw the line? Where do style and superstition end and cheating
begin? Even if the hypothetical dice roller is not 100% successful
at controlling results, he is still not producing random results. If
his method does truly produce random results, then he should have no
legitimate objection to any other equally random method. See my
point?


Corollary question #1: Why is this person so anal (to use your word)
about how he rolls "his" dice? A person like this should play a game
like Yatzee, Risk, or craps, not a tactical simulation game like
Warrior. You see my point: Why would it matter to someone how his
dice are rolled, or even who rolls them, as long as everyone knows
it's random? Only if he thinks he can "control" or "impact" his dice
by rolling them himself, his way. This is either superstition or
something worse. Either way, in my personal opinion, there is no
reason or justification for tolerating or sanctioning it, given the
design assumptions of the game itself. It is easy enough, as Scott,
Ewan, and others have suggested, to let people have the "fun" of
rolling their own dice while still assuring that the results are
random. What's the big deal?


Corollary question #2:Why would anyone object to any randomizing
system that could be shown to be foolproof?



Greek

[John Murphy]

Sorry for any language, or over-reaction, deemed inappropriate.