I try to accommodate people who dwell on the dice thing. Usually I let them pick my dice or I use theirs, whatever they want. I just want to get on with it and play ASL, not a biggie.
Fair enough.
I have no problem with having people using any dice they want - including super-duper-hyper-atomic-clock-lasered-precision thingies.
I believe, though, acceptance of dice preferences should be reciprocal.
Were the difference of outcomes in a game resulting from different types of dice in any way coming close to statistical relevance, I would see the point.
But as it is, the given rule seems not to serve the purpose of balance.
Instead it serves the purpose of "I can only play with my mind at rest, if hyper-precision dice are used, even if it does not make any statistical difference to the outcome of a game." At the same time I wonder what is on the mind of such people when he (or heaven forbid) his opponent inadvertedly topples a stack during a game. If statistical relevance on the outcome of a game would be at the heart of the matter, that running game would be dead in that instant then and there.
As you do, one could just roll one's eyes, let them have their way and get on with it.
But what if the next one - sarcasm intended - can only play with his mind at rest if his opponent has dyed his hair pink?
My approach would be to keep Pandora's Box shut, including the example of "normal precision dice are not precision enough if you come across someone with dice Angst".
It is the respective TDs which set the rules for their tournaments, no question about that.
But I believe it is fair enough to question the sense of a particular rule.
If there were a poll amongst the tournament's participants if they feel that this dice rule is
necessary or not, I am sure on what outcome I would place my bet.
Anyway, I will not further dwell on this matter because I believe the nudge to think about it has been made.
von Marwitz
