This thread is to see the community's opinion of the new driver variant rule. It is also to present in a single place, both the new rule and the proposed changes from several of the community members. The new rule in question is:

“For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of a Driver is permitted in deck format.”

Please vote on an option so that Staff can better gauge the community's opinion of this rule. The options are:

The new rule is fine- If you agree with the rule as is.
Use the proposed variant- The variant rule  thread can be found here. The complete proposal is:

1. Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (eg. MDr and Br’ would be eligible to be limited to one variation per deck by 12-4-2021)
   
2. Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  ( under the WBO deck/Final stage format, I propose adding a section of “part variants that are not repeatable” in which the non-repeatable variants are listed)
   

Drivers should not be limited - Drivers should not be limited at all, the old rule "Including any combination of regular/Dash/SlingShock/HyperSphere versions of a Driver is permitted." is fine.



You do not have to give a reason for your vote but feel free to if you want.

---

aka The Competitive Gamer

I agree with the rule, but I don’t think you should make it a rule for all drivers. Just make a list of specific drivers which you can’t have variants of, anything that’s not on the list can be allowed to use 2 times or maybe even 3 times? 3 times is rare, but some drivers can have 3 versions like hold, hold’, high hold’ or xtreme, xtreme’, and xtreme Metal

My proposal:
Ban only specific drivers from having variants in a deck (eg: MDR/Dr, Br’/Br), any driver not in this list can be used as much a up to 3 times (eg:xt, xt’, mxt’) sorry if I got the xtreme abbreviation wrong

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

I agree with the rule, but I don’t think you should make it a rule for all drivers. Just make a list of specific drivers which you can’t have variants of, anything that’s not on the list can be allowed to use 2 times or maybe even 3 times? 3 times is rare, but some drivers can have 3 versions like hold, hold’, high hold’ or xtreme, xtreme’, and xtreme Metal

My proposal:
Ban only specific drivers from having variants in a deck (eg: MDR/Dr, Br’/Br), any driver not in this list can be used as much a up to 3 times (egt, xt’, mxt’) sorry if I got the xtreme abbreviation wrong

That would be option 2 above I believe. TheRogueBlader have you seen decks that use 2-3 variants of other drivers?

---

aka The Competitive Gamer

This thread is to see the community's opinion of the new driver variant rule. It is also to present in a single place, both the new rule and the proposed changes from several of the community members. The new rule in question is:

“For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of a Driver is permitted in deck format.”

Please vote on an option so that Staff can better gauge the community's opinion of this rule. The options are:

Yes - If you agree with the rule as is.
No use proposed variant- The variant rule  thread can be found here. The complete proposal is:

1. Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (eg. MDr and Br’ would be eligible to be limited to one variation per deck by 12-4-2021)
   
2. Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  ( under the WBO deck/Final stage format, I propose adding a section of “part variants that are not repeatable” in which the non-repeatable variants are listed)
   

No - Drivers should not be limited at all, the old rule "Including any combination of regular/Dash/SlingShock/HyperSphere versions of a Driver is permitted." is fine.



You do not have to give a reason for your vote but feel free to if you want.

E: I have removed a mild overreaction here. While I don't like the poll setup, as long as it is being measured appropriately, so be it.

Anyway, I've already made my point extensively - it is utterly wrong to ban things or restrict them when we haven't seen them in action, we do not have a precedent for how this will go re double dr and br. Whether admitted or not, this is obviously aimed at those parts but by restricting X variants you actually help such combos more than you hurt them. Be sensible and target things appropriately rather than taking a sledgehammer to the game as a whole.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

This thread is to see the community's opinion of the new driver variant rule. It is also to present in a single place, both the new rule and the proposed changes from several of the community members. The new rule in question is:

“For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of a Driver is permitted in deck format.”

Please vote on an option so that Staff can better gauge the community's opinion of this rule. The options are:

Yes - If you agree with the rule as is.
No use proposed variant- The variant rule  thread can be found here. The complete proposal is:

1. Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (eg. MDr and Br’ would be eligible to be limited to one variation per deck by 12-4-2021)
   
2. Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  ( under the WBO deck/Final stage format, I propose adding a section of “part variants that are not repeatable” in which the non-repeatable variants are listed)
   

No - Drivers should not be limited at all, the old rule "Including any combination of regular/Dash/SlingShock/HyperSphere versions of a Driver is permitted." is fine.



You do not have to give a reason for your vote but feel free to if you want.

I think for drift and bearing only 1 is permitted in a deck and then other drivers you can have up to 2 in a deck but not 3 due to overuse and over spamming the part in a deck example is savior on x' and guilty on mx and rage on xtreme

Mkay, I voted the 2nd one, but I’m sorta confused. Does it mean that if multiple variants cause an unprecedented change in the meta up to 10 weeks after release, it’ll be banned? Is there any criteria? That sorta seems vague to me. How big of a change is necessary? There’s a difference between Smth being good and unfair, so how will you measure that? A certain amount of wins or Smth? From my point of view, it seems like this is basically either option a or c, as it really depends on what the majority of the staff believes about having variants. If most think that there shouldn’t be variants, the criteria will be pretty low and every variant will be banned, and vice versa. Ig wut I’m saying is is there an unbiased way to make this not based on opinion, but a set few rules that apply to every driver, regardless of the will of the staff or the users?

---

emotional DaMAgE

Mkay, I voted the 2nd one, but I’m sorta confused. Does it mean that if multiple variants cause an unprecedented change in the meta up to 10 weeks after release, it’ll be banned? Is there any criteria? That sorta seems vague to me. How big of a change is necessary? There’s a difference between Smth being good and unfair, so how will you measure that? A certain amount of wins or Smth? From my point of view, it seems like this is basically either option a or c, as it really depends on what the majority of the staff believes about having variants. If most think that there shouldn’t be variants, the criteria will be pretty low and every variant will be banned, and vice versa. Ig wut I’m saying is is there an unbiased way to make this not based on opinion, but a set few rules that apply to every driver, regardless of the will of the staff or the users?

I'm not sure on the specifics of that proposal but ideally it would be ironed out with criteria prior to being implemented if it were.

---

aka The Competitive Gamer

Mkay, I voted the 2nd one, but I’m sorta confused. Does it mean that if multiple variants cause an unprecedented change in the meta up to 10 weeks after release, it’ll be banned? Is there any criteria? That sorta seems vague to me. How big of a change is necessary? There’s a difference between Smth being good and unfair, so how will you measure that? A certain amount of wins or Smth? From my point of view, it seems like this is basically either option a or c, as it really depends on what the majority of the staff believes about having variants. If most think that there shouldn’t be variants, the criteria will be pretty low and every variant will be banned, and vice versa. Ig wut I’m saying is is there an unbiased way to make this not based on opinion, but a set few rules that apply to every driver, regardless of the will of the staff or the users?

Basically it is a rule to not rush decisions in future, and that things will be reviewed appropriately at that point, when there is enough evidence they will be reviewed. Given how quick the team was to try to stop them altogether I don't imagine we need to worry about it not being swift and decisive.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I agree with the rule, but I don’t think you should make it a rule for all drivers. Just make a list of specific drivers which you can’t have variants of, anything that’s not on the list can be allowed to use 2 times or maybe even 3 times? 3 times is rare, but some drivers can have 3 versions like hold, hold’, high hold’ or xtreme, xtreme’, and xtreme Metal

My proposal:
Ban only specific drivers from having variants in a deck (eg: MDR/Dr, Br’/Br), any driver not in this list can be used as much a up to 3 times (egt, xt’, mxt’) sorry if I got the xtreme abbreviation wrong

That would be option 2 above I believe. TheRogueBlader have you seen decks that use 2-3 variants of other drivers?

Oh, sorry I guess I misread rule number 2. And no I haven’t seen decks that used 2-3 variants of other drivers, or any drivers actually. I just think that maybe some drivers like xtreme, hold, or whatever others that have 3 variants could be used in a deck creatively.

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

Have the people who voted yes seen any HS drivers? Take two random hypersphere drivers and they'll be more similiar to eachother than the parts they share a name with...

Charge/Charge Metal being treated the same way as "driver"/ Metal "driver" is also very weird. They're about as similiar as Accel and Iron.

About double dr/br; people could have been using Mb&Dr or Br&Zn'+Z for a while now and I haven't seen those being complained about (other than the general complaints about double max lad decks).

I'd argue that Br&Zn'+Z is better than double Br since you can use Ov on only one of the Br's so the second Br will either have noticeably worse opposite or same spin stamina depending on whether you use Gg or Tp on it. On the other hand Gg on Zn'+Z is pmuch as good as Ov is.

I think for drift and bearing only 1 is permitted in a deck and then other drivers you can have up to 2 in a deck but not 3 due to overuse and over spamming the part in a deck example is savior on x' and guilty on mx and rage on xtreme

Do you not realize just how bad spamming 3 copies of one driver is for your deck? You lose so much flexibility doing that, as you have no alternative strategies besides "this one driver I'm using". No, I don't think 3 Xtremes makes a good deck either, no matter how good you are at Attack.

No, there's no need to restrict 3 copies because doing that is already a really dumb idea to begin with and there's no particularly strong parts that have a third copy that can't be easily exploited.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Mkay, I voted the 2nd one, but I’m sorta confused. Does it mean that if multiple variants cause an unprecedented change in the meta up to 10 weeks after release, it’ll be banned? Is there any criteria? That sorta seems vague to me. How big of a change is necessary? There’s a difference between Smth being good and unfair, so how will you measure that? A certain amount of wins or Smth? From my point of view, it seems like this is basically either option a or c, as it really depends on what the majority of the staff believes about having variants. If most think that there shouldn’t be variants, the criteria will be pretty low and every variant will be banned, and vice versa. Ig wut I’m saying is is there an unbiased way to make this not based on opinion, but a set few rules that apply to every driver, regardless of the will of the staff or the users?

Basically it is a rule to not rush decisions in future, and that things will be reviewed appropriately at that point, when there is enough evidence they will be reviewed. Given how quick the team was to try to stop them altogether I don't imagine we need to worry about it not being swift and decisive.

My problem is it being swift and decisive. Ig im worried about the staff making decisions based on their personal thoughts on the rule and not their thoughts on the driver.

---

emotional DaMAgE

As a reminder, this is not a democracy. The staff is going to vote on the rules changes. But they're going to take your opinions into account.
There is Zero risk that having two no answers are going to detract from each other, because these results aren't going to be directly used for anything. If you don't like the current rule, you may choose either no answer without fear of causing "No" to lose to "Yes". Two no answers are provided so that they can get better clarity on the reasons for no; they will both be weighed together as one against the yes answer, and then if people seem to vote no over yes, then they will further dig into the reasons why using those answers.

As an example, the current standings are four yes, nine no proposed, four no bans. So if the final tally were taken now, it would be read as 13 against 4, with people being mostly against the new rule.

This isn't at all like a 3rd party political candidate functioning as a spoiler.

---

-----
Hey, parents! Here are all the answers to any questions about WBO Tournaments you might have! Thread-Guide-Hey-Parents-Answers-to-your-WBO-Tournament-questions

Please consult this guide linked below on how to arrive at tournaments before they start! https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-How-to-arrive-at-tournaments-and-other-events-on-time

Oh, sorry I guess I misread rule number 2. And no I haven’t seen decks that used 2-3 variants of other drivers, or any drivers actually. I just think that maybe some drivers like xtreme, hold, or whatever others that have 3 variants could be used in a deck creatively.

High Hold' is honestly terrible, and already makes that basically pointless as a three-fer. Destroy could work, but it's a jack-of-all-trades and that leaves you with a lot of ways to beat them no matter what you bring to the table yourself. Triple Xtreme means you're repeating Attack in at least one direction, which isn't very helpful in Deck and is unnecessary redundancy. I don't think that's good even if you're amazing at Attack.

So no, I don't think putting 3 copies of anything into a deck is a problem at all.

---

Basically it is a rule to not rush decisions in future, and that things will be reviewed appropriately at that point, when there is enough evidence they will be reviewed. Given how quick the team was to try to stop them altogether I don't imagine we need to worry about it not being swift and decisive.

My problem is it being swift and decisive. Ig im worried about the staff making decisions based on their personal thoughts on the rule and not their thoughts on the driver.

I'm more worried about staff making decisions in fear of the driver like the majority of restriction supporters without actually thinking of whether they can be reasonably beaten or not. From what I've heard, this was a likely situation that caused this rule to get ham-fisted in to begin with.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Mkay, I voted the 2nd one, but I’m sorta confused. Does it mean that if multiple variants cause an unprecedented change in the meta up to 10 weeks after release, it’ll be banned? Is there any criteria? That sorta seems vague to me. How big of a change is necessary? There’s a difference between Smth being good and unfair, so how will you measure that? A certain amount of wins or Smth? From my point of view, it seems like this is basically either option a or c, as it really depends on what the majority of the staff believes about having variants. If most think that there shouldn’t be variants, the criteria will be pretty low and every variant will be banned, and vice versa. Ig wut I’m saying is is there an unbiased way to make this not based on opinion, but a set few rules that apply to every driver, regardless of the will of the staff or the users?

These are good question. First we should ask these question of option #1 which has already been put into place. What criteria is that based on to already make the rule change?  We should ask how it already happened first in my opinion.  Then we can see if it can apply to other options or other future decisions.

Oh, sorry I guess I misread rule number 2. And no I haven’t seen decks that used 2-3 variants of other drivers, or any drivers actually. I just think that maybe some drivers like xtreme, hold, or whatever others that have 3 variants could be used in a deck creatively.

High Hold' is honestly terrible, and already makes that basically pointless as a three-fer. Destroy could work, but it's a jack-of-all-trades and that leaves you with a lot of ways to beat them no matter what you bring to the table yourself. Triple Xtreme means you're repeating Attack in at least one direction, which isn't very helpful in Deck and is unnecessary redundancy. I don't think that's good even if you're amazing at Attack.

So no, I don't think putting 3 copies of anything into a deck is a problem at all.

I never said it was a problem, and I never said hold’ was good or that having 2 attack types in one direction is good. I was simply giving examples of how you could potentially use 3 variants of a driver creatively.

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

This thread is to see the community's opinion of the new driver variant rule. It is also to present in a single place, both the new rule and the proposed changes from several of the community members. The new rule in question is:

“For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of a Driver is permitted in deck format.”

Please vote on an option so that Staff can better gauge the community's opinion of this rule. The options are:

Yes - If you agree with the rule as is.
No use proposed variant- The variant rule  thread can be found here. The complete proposal is:

1. Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (eg. MDr and Br’ would be eligible to be limited to one variation per deck by 12-4-2021)
   
2. Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  ( under the WBO deck/Final stage format, I propose adding a section of “part variants that are not repeatable” in which the non-repeatable variants are listed)
   

No - Drivers should not be limited at all, the old rule "Including any combination of regular/Dash/SlingShock/HyperSphere versions of a Driver is permitted." is fine.



You do not have to give a reason for your vote but feel free to if you want.

Old poll not going well enough so you split the no vote? Come on, really?

Those of you smart enough to fall for the old slimy political trick should vote the second option - use proposed change, as a suggestion. This means a lot to me as it was a trick used to stop a national political thing I feel very strongly about and I'm disgusted to see it here.

Anyway, I've already made my point extensively - it is utterly wrong to ban things or restrict them when we haven't seen them in action, we do not have a precedent for how this will go re double dr and br. Whether admitted or not, this is obviously aimed at those parts but by restricting X variants you actually help such combos more than you hurt them. Be sensible and target things appropriately rather than taking a sledgehammer to the game as a whole.

@th!nk Please be careful with the accusations. I know you are passionate about this topic but your comments are coming very close to personal attacks on the WBO staff. I can assure you there is no impropriety when it comes to the poll or voting. We need to collect data from the community for all options on the table. 

We value your feedback and input on this topic so please stay within the forum guidelines so that you may continue to be a part of the discussion.

---

WBO Staff Member, South Florida Organizer & member of Team Plus Ultra

@th!nk Please be careful with the accusations. I know you are passionate about this topic but your comments are coming very close to personal attacks on the WBO staff. I can assure you there is no impropriety when it comes to the poll or voting. We need to collect data from the community for all options on the table. 

We value your feedback and input on this topic so please stay within the forum guidelines so that you may continue to be a part of the discussion.

No worries, I edited my post a short time ago after some additional perspective and thought as well as realising I worded it quite badly. I apologise.

---

Basically it is a rule to not rush decisions in future, and that things will be reviewed appropriately at that point, when there is enough evidence they will be reviewed. Given how quick the team was to try to stop them altogether I don't imagine we need to worry about it not being swift and decisive.

My problem is it being swift and decisive. Ig im worried about the staff making decisions based on their personal thoughts on the rule and not their thoughts on the driver.

Perhaps. At the end of the day someone has to make the decision though and it will be staff. That said, with the second option the path is clear to preventing that: we work our behinds off to test counters and counter strategies and see them used in tournaments. I don't think we should have no ability to restrict driver combinations, personally speaking, because we might just suddenly end up with an issue we then can't resolve without it. Keep options open, yeah?

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

@th!nk Please be careful with the accusations. I know you are passionate about this topic but your comments are coming very close to personal attacks on the WBO staff. I can assure you there is no impropriety when it comes to the poll or voting. We need to collect data from the community for all options on the table. 

We value your feedback and input on this topic so please stay within the forum guidelines so that you may continue to be a part of the discussion.

No worries, I edited my post a short time ago after some additional perspective and thought as well as realising I worded it quite badly. I apologise.

---

My problem is it being swift and decisive. Ig im worried about the staff making decisions based on their personal thoughts on the rule and not their thoughts on the driver.

Perhaps. At the end of the day someone has to make the decision though and it will be staff. That said, with the second option the path is clear to preventing that: we work our behinds off to test counters and counter strategies and see them used in tournaments. I don't think we should have no ability to restrict driver combinations, personally speaking, because we might just suddenly end up with an issue we then can't resolve without it. Keep options open, yeah?

I appreciate you, thank you.

Now I don’t know what the final ruling will be but we all should keep in mind that nothing is unchangeable. If the rule update stands, is changed to option 2, or 3 it can always be revisited, and likely would be eventually. Let’s not let this take on too much of a dire tone.

---

WBO Staff Member, South Florida Organizer & member of Team Plus Ultra

Thanks for making the vote. While I can't say I know to what degree this vote will impact the decision-making process, it is meaningful to allow the community to voice their opinions. Not just for us to not feel alienated, but also for CM to be able to make the correct decision on a topic that impacts the community.

Going forward it would be ideal for other potentially contentious or sufficiently important issues to get a community vote too (based on internal CM discretion), even if it doesn't single-handedly decide an issue. As we've seen, having rules implemented from seemingly out of the blue doesn't go over well, it rubs members the wrong way. Outlets for interaction like this can mediate that.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

Oh, sorry I guess I misread rule number 2. And no I haven’t seen decks that used 2-3 variants of other drivers, or any drivers actually. I just think that maybe some drivers like xtreme, hold, or whatever others that have 3 variants could be used in a deck creatively.

High Hold' is honestly terrible, and already makes that basically pointless as a three-fer. Destroy could work, but it's a jack-of-all-trades and that leaves you with a lot of ways to beat them no matter what you bring to the table yourself. Triple Xtreme means you're repeating Attack in at least one direction, which isn't very helpful in Deck and is unnecessary redundancy. I don't think that's good even if you're amazing at Attack.

So no, I don't think putting 3 copies of anything into a deck is a problem at all.

---

My problem is it being swift and decisive. Ig im worried about the staff making decisions based on their personal thoughts on the rule and not their thoughts on the driver.

I'm more worried about staff making decisions in fear of the driver like the majority of restriction supporters without actually thinking of whether they can be reasonably beaten or not. From what I've heard, this was a likely situation that caused this rule to get ham-fisted in to begin with.

That’s a good point as well. After all, we’re all human(hopefully) and it’s easy to make decisions influenced more by opinion than fact, which is why we definitely need set rules that apply to every driver, so that we have something to look back on w/out needing to make decisions in the moment. I am sorta annoyed that these decisions r gonna happen now, as drift and bearing are inevitably gonna make them way stricter.

---

emotional DaMAgE

Honestly, I'm fine with pretty much whatever, but fighting constant double drift decks stinks. Bearing would still stink to have doubles of as well. But I feel there is no harm in having dimension-sp and dimensioning-h in a single deck.

If double drift or double bearing is OP, then perhaps the issue is drift/bearing? The rules shouldn't limit the number of a part you can use to prevent an OP part from being spammed. Just ban the OP part.

If a part is so powerful that running two of it in a deck would be viable, then it just proves the part is too powerful or overcentralizing. Which means it should be banned. By having a rule for "oh you can't use 2 of these specific parts", the rules would be set up to allow people to use an overpowered part (but only 1). People are already incentivized to use different parts to ensure their deck has a wider range of coverage.

---

Give us Assault' re-release, Iron', and Charge'. Give a non-limited re-release of Cho-Z Achilles.
Legend Spriggan on tall attack drivers for Burst Limited is fun.
Against layer powercreep in Burst Limited.

If double drift or double bearing is OP, then perhaps the issue is drift/bearing? The rules shouldn't limit the number of a part you can use to prevent an OP part from being spammed. Just ban the OP part.

If a part is so powerful that running two of it in a deck would be viable, then it just proves the part is too powerful or overcentralizing. Which means it should be banned. By having a rule for "oh you can't use 2 of these specific parts", the rules would be set up to allow people to use an overpowered part (but only 1). People are already incentivized to use different parts to ensure their deck has a wider range of coverage.

Well, having one of a part is fine in a deck. Using any driver has a downside, being drift has a bad same spin side, bearing is easy to burst and, and so on. But having two means that you can eliminate that. In deck, you can constantly switch to opposite spin drift, and same spin bearing. So just the two of those should have only one version. I myself use drift as attack, not LAD. So I don't think we need to jump forward to banning it completely.

If double drift or double bearing is OP, then perhaps the issue is drift/bearing? The rules shouldn't limit the number of a part you can use to prevent an OP part from being spammed. Just ban the OP part.

If a part is so powerful that running two of it in a deck would be viable, then it just proves the part is too powerful or overcentralizing. Which means it should be banned. By having a rule for "oh you can't use 2 of these specific parts", the rules would be set up to allow people to use an overpowered part (but only 1). People are already incentivized to use different parts to ensure their deck has a wider range of coverage.

Well, having one of a part is fine in a deck. Using any driver has a downside, being drift has a bad same spin side, bearing is easy to burst and, and so on. But having two means that you can eliminate that. In deck, you can constantly switch to opposite spin drift, and same spin bearing. So just the two of those should have only one version. I myself use drift as attack, not LAD. So I don't think we need to jump forward to banning it completely.

Drift's same-spin is underrated somewhat, and I have beaten even Bearing with it before... though some of that might be the fact that I was using Roar while they were using the more defensive Vanish. I seem to have a really good winrate with Roar Vs. Vanish to begin with so that helps immensely. It's still definitely not undefeatable in same-spin though, or in opposite spin either, and I feel like that's what people seem to fear the most. The same applies to Bearing too, people seem to live in fear of it and/or give it more credit than is due.

Still, it's very arguable about whether it's unfair at all, or whether people just need to get more creative when it comes to facing these sorts of decks. There is a point where skill can overcome even a poor matchup, and I feel like that is often ignored. Heck, I've said time and time again the story of how I beat opposite spin Drift using Orbit, a matchup that should be unwinnable. Is Drift really so bad if I can pull off that in first stage, unable to use a deck to find a better matchup?

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...