| |
BGonline.org Forums
Why we should publicize our illegal moves
Posted By: Jason Lee In Response To: Why we should publicize our illegal moves (Phil Simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 25 February 2015, at 5:32 p.m.
They simply didn't like change.
In general this is true, but I don't really think that's the main objection to the dice tube. While elegant in design, the dice tube does not meet the sniff test.
- UBK points out how an angle shooting player could hang onto the tube a little longer and try to affect the outcomes.
- The method of tapping the tube to indicate the end of a turn is flawed. There is no "switch" to indicate that the turn has ended. When I'm playing with a clock, and I glance away from the board briefly, I can still be alerted to the fact that it's my turn because the clock has been pressed. The tapping method has no memory -- there's no display to indicate that my opponent has ended his turn.
- The tubes that are sealed up give me no way to inspect the dice.
Ultimately, I think dice tubes are clumsy.
It doesn't help my attitude about tubes that the first dice tube guy, Brett Meyer, persisted in saying that "randomness was achieved" when he ran tests of his tubes. This is a mathematically nonsensical statement and I told him so many times. Either he didn't understand or didn't care.
Now, I contrast this with baffle boxes. I have a baffle box, but I don't know where it is right now, because I never bring it to a tournament. Between my board, clock, cubes, dice, flip scoreboard, tripod, camera, notebooks, pens, cell phone, iPad, headphones, and my lucky stuffed animal, I have more than enough crap to haul along. I'm fine with playing with a baffle box, but I'm not going to initiate its use. I get enough stink eye for pulling out a clock in a clocks preferred match.
I would be fine with entering a tournament where it was baffle boxes on demand, but not dice tubes on demand.
JLee
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.