Todd,
I visited the Dynastar website and below is a link to the description, with diagram, of the "All Snow" rocker. Dynastar also has 3 other rocker profiles, (all mountain, trail and twin tip). I must admit, the various configurations of rocker and tip rise confuses the hell out of me.
http://www.dynastar.com/index.php?_lang=US&_cnt=US&alias=dynastar-technologies&alias=dynastar-technologies&function=showTechno&insidefile=technoDetails.html&oidtech=PRDTECH:d6td82rqh6ditFor what it's worth, this profile is used in the Cham series of Dynastar skis, and, I did get to demo both the 97 and 107 during my Tahoe trip last year. In soft new snow conditions, I did enjoy skiing them as they were lighter and easier turning than my Dynastar Sultan 94's. The Cham series is not universally well received in the Epic forums.
If I were to make a guess as to the claim of increased fore/aft balance, if the tip rocker floats more than traditional camber, the skier may not have to get forward as much to engage the tip, so standing simply over center and rotating should work. But, what do I know, eastern hard pack oriented fool that I am? I still struggle with marketing that suggests a fat ski is good in normal trail conditions.
Personally, it's all marketing hype - reminds me of the disclaimer issued on many food supplement claims stating "these claims have not been evaluated and approved...."