| |
BGonline.org Forums
USBGF rule for dice-on-checkers - opinion of Ken Larsen
Posted By: Albert Steg In Response To: USBGF rule for dice-on-checkers - opinion of Ken Larsen (Ken Larsen)
Date: Thursday, 9 February 2017, at 2:58 p.m.
I asked Bill for 2 of the 'rulings' last weekend, and really, as he mentions, they were more like 'confirmations' --- just wanting to make sure that my understanding of the rules was accurate, since this was my first experience using them -- not genuinely difficult cases at all.
The principle that I think helps to clarify matters is that the plane of the die surface needs to be parallel to the plane of the playing surface. If one side of the die is depending on a neighboring object (checker, bumper) such that one corner of the die is lifted off the plane, then the die is not "flat" and the roll is not valid. So from what I can see from the pictures, the first one is clearly cocked and the second one is clearly not. In the latter case, merely having the die touch the side wall doesn't make it cocked any more than it would be if it were on the playing surface touch ing the wall.
If one is using 'dipped' checkers, the 'flat plane' principle goes a little out the window - - but the idea is that if the die is off-plane due merely to the shape of the checker -- as opposed to depending on a second object -- then it is still considered flat. (Applies also to 'rimmed' checkers like in the P-40 / Parker boards.)
It might also help to think of "cocked" dice requiring the die to be cocked *against* something -- if it's not resting wholly on the plane of the surface, it must be depending on some second object -- another checker, or the wall. (With the exception of when a die balances on its corner, trivially obvious).
On my board (a Zavoral with flat checkers) I found that a "flat die" scenario arose only about once every 2 games. So for me, this rule is not a meaningful time-saver. For every time a die landed flat on checkers, I'd say I rolled "over the bar" 10 times, so changing that rule instead of the checker rule would make more sense to me. But it's within my power to roll more gently or use a baffle box, or get a board with higher walls so that didn't happen so often.
I wouldn't dream of proposing a major rule change just because my equipment and rolling style led to a lot of re-rolls.
Albert
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.