Yes, I see the ambiguity. Read the first sentence as: "I've often seen people comment that they "get bad rolls", and use it as an explanation why they lose all their games."

Well, I played in a tournament where I fielded the new GSX Magneto and for all three rounds, managed to only make a total of 1 successfull attack roll with him....typical Parker luck, if of course my last name was Parker... :knockedou

But if dice are truly random, would not some people actually get more low rolls, and others get more high rolls? Randomness would not necessarily equal a perfectly even distribution.

Out of 100 rolls, one person bight get 40 good rolls and 60 bad rolls. Another might get 60 good rolls and 40 bad rolls.

I'm not saying this is usually the case, but it is possible.

You can do everything right.
Use the best pieces with tons of prob and outwit.
You can be the best player in the WORLD.
But if you suddenly can't roll above a 5, you won't win.

But if you claim that the reason you, as the best player in the world, *never* win any tournaments or championships is because you *never* roll above a 5, then you seriously need a reality check (and a refresher course in probability math!)

Another factor to consider is that the player can affect how much "luck" he needs in order to be successful. Powers such as perplex and probability control can alter the odds of hitting the target of an attack. One big difference in how I play now compared to my earlier days of clix is my use of perplex. I used to put it on the damage most of the time; now I almost always use it to increase my attack or decrease the target's defense unless I already need a 5 or less to hit. There's certainly something to be said for stacking the odds in your favor.

Isn't he the guy that won with that craptastic SIF team?

Wizkids dice seem to just roll really low for the most part. I know gurps players that use them, since lower rolls are good in that game.

I'll have to test that in Axis & Allies.

...now that you mention this I wish I hadnt obliterated 4 of them for failing to roll a 7+ in 3 games...would have saved them for champions

This reminds me of the sports headline: Realistic Announcer Shouting How Kevin Durant Making His Last 4 Shots Has No Bearing On Whether He Will Make Next ShotAnd the article:

Gotta love the onion. So much truth in their nonsense. Good to remember next time you say: "these dice are really hot tonight!" after your 4th successful attack.

But yeah, as has been mentioned above, probablility is probability, and therefore, rolling a 2 is just as likely as rolling a 12. Either one you get, you've basically beaten the odds. It's just that one number in heroclix represents something really good, and the other represents something sucky.

yea its all luck. which is why i only have on pair of dice. dont see the point in having a crap load on hand

I've heard the same from my friend. In his case, though, it seems to be partly true; in some 10 casual games we've played one-on-one, he's had trouble rolling better than 5 while I've had trouble ever rolling below 8.

However, there is a gap in the way we play our games that I think exacerbates the problem for him. He has a tendency to rely on a chief character who must make an alpha strike (say, a Hulk carrying a Meteorite) while I play more conservatively and don't rely on any single character. If he misses that must-hit attack, he's typically in trouble.

Yeah, I know what you mean. If you're losing because of rolls, change your strategy.

I said to my friend, slightly dickishly, "Why do you always perplex damage instead of attack if you're convinced you get bad rolls?". No reply.