Point 5: Dual Spin Gimmick Legality in 3v3 Format

I'm all for seeing this one in action, because lets face it: Being in opposite spin does not guarantee a win. Only thing I would add is a clause that if both bladers have a dual spin capable layer that they would have to choose which direction they're going in in secret at the same time, to prevent one user from manipulating the decision of the other unintentionally.

Both would have to turn around and change their modes in secret. That line is part of the mode change section and would apply to changeing the spin direction because it is a mode change.

Point 7: Revamp to the Draw Rule

This is a weird change honestly. It would require two judges at a match far too frequently by needing to call a second judge over at a single draw, which could slow down larger events too much and add extra stress to a stretched out judging team for smaller ones. I get the concern, but either way revamping a protocol that is already a suggestion and not a requirement is simply kinda moot. If you want to do your events this way go ahead, but it can backfire too easily and not all locales use this to begin with (Carmel Indiana doesn't, for instance, and keeps it to just 1 judge per match at all times).

This procedure is ONLY for WBO deck format. So by that time in the tournament some judges should be opend to help. Also this might not even be needed if the spinning definition is changed to something simmilar to what we both have sugested. I just wanted to include it because there have been several tounaments that have taken far to long to finish, and I feel that this could help. It's by no means perfect,  but I feel as if it helps. It also gives a penalty to the players that want to argue with the judges. Judges are not getting paid and are there on their own time. No one should be arguing with them once they make a decision.

Point 8: Revamping Mode Changes
I half agree and half disagree with this. Let's start with the disagreement. Mode Changes that require disassembly typically take a significant amount of time to do. If we allowed them constantly, there's options for someone to bring a bey with mode changes and delay the entire tournament simply by constantly disassembling and reassembling their bey. It's probably a terrible idea to do that, but some people are trolls and this is something I'm not inclined to give them a whole ton of leeway for. This is especially true when switching from High to Low mode counts, and vice-versa. All you need to do to abuse that is run a DB bey on any armor that isn't +L. Let's not give people the option to torture our tournament attendees.

On the other hand, I'd love to see driver changes such as adding/removing the +X/+Z chips legalized, and doing so also would add precedence for Hasbro's QD Armor Tips doing the same thing. The current rules don't allow for this since Zone'+Z is a different part compared to Zone', but this could be expanded to the addition or removing of such addons when reasonable.

I see your concern. I could add in there that they must do it within an acceptable time frame given by the judge. I also feel that if people were allowed to mode chnage more, over some time they would enherently get faster at doing it and that would reduce time. Plus if the amound of battles resuting in draws gets reduced because of the spin rule, a lot of time will be saved there too.

Overall
Most of these changes are ultimately good, and part of one is an already active proposal last I knew (if this has changed since, then I've been kept out of the loop regarding it). One could be improved by being more inclusive. One is more a judging suggestion than anything else, and one that isn't suitable for all tournament types or locales the same as the original suggestion. Another has good intentions but misses one of the consequences it'd allow into the game.

Definitely feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree with my reasoning here though, I'd love to keep the debate going.

Thank you for all of your input. It definately helps. I just really want to see the game be more healthy and fun for everyone.

---

DedZeY and Broyeeto real quickly I would like to ask you guys what defines “Attack” types to you?

Beyblades whose vastly primary win condition is to knock out their opponents. Ds' for example generally aims to get some outspins and is therefore Balance type, not attack. Guilty Ds' doesn't outspin much, and is therefore more kind of a bad attack type than anything, so it is whole of combo to clarify.

And the DB stadium just crushes these Beys honestly. If we are legalising it, we really should look at how lowering the bar to this degree would affect our justification for restricting stadiums like Haspro - as much as I think it's quite bad I'm not sure it's actually worse than DB. Really the WBO should be looking at its own stadium at this point. I am also concerned about players in areas where say the DB stadium is the only format... It is almost as different to B09 as Zero G Attack is to BB10. There is a lot of thought to be given to how we handle it. Given there's only a minor difference in the release windows of db and b09, and that b09 ran longer, going into the future availability will probably favour b09? Or at least be even. It's not like we see less bb10s than zero g attack stadiums.

I believe I've seen the rest of this previously and was generally positive about it but I'll write up some more in a few hours time, just wanted to give the definition of attack that I use when looking at game balance and metagame analysis!

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

DedZeY and Broyeeto real quickly I would like to ask you guys what defines “Attack” types to you?

Beyblades whose vastly primary win condition is to knock out their opponents. Ds' for example generally aims to get some outspins and is therefore Balance type, not attack. Guilty Ds' doesn't outspin much, and is therefore more kind of a bad attack type than anything, so it is whole of combo to clarify.

And the DB stadium just crushes these Beys honestly. If we are legalising it, we really should look at how lowering the bar to this degree would affect our justification for restricting stadiums like Haspro - as much as I think it's quite bad I'm not sure it's actually worse than DB. Really the WBO should be looking at its own stadium at this point. I am also concerned about players in areas where say the DB stadium is the only format... It is almost as different to B09 as Zero G Attack is to BB10. There is a lot of thought to be given to how we handle it.

I believe I've seen the rest of this previously and was generally positive about it but I'll write up some more in a few hours time, just wanted to give the definition of attack that I use when looking at game balance and metagame analysis!

"I am also concerned about players in areas where say the DB stadium is the only format... " Are you talking abount an area where the host only wants to use the DB stadium, or an area where no one has the standard stadium?

---

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

---

Hi,
I'm Mike
I'm a professional Beyblader

YOUTUBE || INSTAGRAM || BLADER'S KINGDOM

Use code 'BEYBLADEORBURST' & save money @ Four-Gaming, MallOfToys, Beys&Bricks, & Ever-Wish

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

Thank you for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

---

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

It is a weak and (I am sure unintentionally) insulting response to imply that people not wanting to play a format where one must play balance instead of attack could not win in that format. In stadiums which are unkind to attack, generally the actual stamina side of the game is minimally affected. The game is not just about winning, it's about enjoying play. Some people don't enjoy watching guilty flail around on MUn or Wv' and instead want attack to be the fast-finishing, skill-reliant type that it always has been, and their views are just as valid as yours - there is no need to make aspersions as to their skill level as part of the otherwise valid "adapt and overcome" argument.

In the plastics era you harken back to, you forget that we did try to play rubber attack and criticised Hasbro for not releasing stadiums where this worked - so much so that they had to add a section defending their wack stadiums to their Q&A page.

More from me soon but a couple of people pointed this post out to me and I wanted to nip this line of argument in the bud.

I appreciate your contributions to the game, I like your content, and I enjoy bladers kingdom format and would *love* to see it ranked, but this is a bad take.

We have a precedent set already for stadiums that upend gameplay like DB stadium does. We have been asked this de question before and we answered with Zero G Standard. I am fine with, and even supportive of, both a DB Standard Ranked Format and moving all current unranked events to a combined ranked ladder.

If we are adding a second stadium, and I don't think we need to as 10 years from now DB stadiums shorter production run will leave it no more common than B09, we should be looking to Haspro as it has the advantage of being able to be bought in stores for a quick and easy GT tournament setup for people who cannot buy online. With good pocket rulings it is much closer to B09 than DB stadium is, despite its many flaws.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

It is a weak and (I am sure unintentionally) insulting response to imply that people not wanting to play a format where one must play balance instead of attack could not win in that format. In stadiums which are unkind to attack, generally the actual stamina side of the game is minimally affected. The game is not just about winning, it's about enjoying play. Some people don't enjoy watching guilty flail around on MUn or Wv' and instead want attack to be the fast-finishing, skill-reliant type that it always has been, and their views are just as valid as yours - there is no need to make aspersions as to their skill level as part of the otherwise valid "adapt and overcome" argument.

In the plastics era you harken back to, you forget that we did try to play rubber attack and criticised Hasbro for not releasing stadiums where this worked - so much so that they had to add a section defending their wack stadiums to their Q&A page.

More from me soon but a couple of people pointed this post out to me and I wanted to nip this line of argument in the bud.

I appreciate your contributions to the game, I like your content, and I enjoy bladers kingdom format and would *love* to see it ranked, but this is a bad take.

We have a precedent set already for stadiums that upend gameplay like DB stadium does. We have been asked this de question before and we answered with Zero G Standard. I am fine with, and even supportive of, both a DB Standard Ranked Format and moving all current unranked events to a combined ranked ladder.

If we are adding a second stadium, and I don't think we need to as 10 years from now DB stadiums shorter production run will leave it no more common than B09, we should be looking to Haspro as it has the advantage of being able to be bought in stores for a quick and easy GT tournament setup for people who cannot buy online. With good pocket rulings it is much closer to B09 than DB stadium is, despite its many flaws.

Once again thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated.

---

"I am also concerned about players in areas where say the DB stadium is the only format... " Are you talking abount an area where the host only wants to use the DB stadium, or an area where no one has the standard stadium?

The former, sorry. And I should phrase it better now I have time - I am concerned about players in areas where the DB Stadium is the only Stadium used for Burst Standard. I realise that by stating this while suggesting it as a separate format in the line of Zero G Standard I sound a little hypocritical, and perhaps I am, but if I had thought ZG Standard would take over MFB Standard I might also have been slightly concerned 😅
I am generally fine with DB Standard as its own format.

---

Anyway, onto the things I actually want to talk about because my man you have made some amazing suggestions and finally written up what we've all been talking about as players for ages! I'm super happy you made this thread and it's what these forums were made for.

Responses:

Change 1: All G

Change 2: STRONG SUPPORT. Most of the issues with the current format can be solved by people just using attack more, but clearly the risk vs reward is not balanced right for people to practice and take the risk. I think tap-then-self-ko is way less common than straight self KO and actual KO. This change is a small one that would be a tremendous boon to deck. The only thing I would add is that I'd love to extend it to first stage if we also resolve the issue around gattyaki. Honestly kinda would anyway but think that would be a good thing to do.
This is fine even in GT. Tact is a very strong defensive choice vs Judgment and there are answers to Zwei and LLD too. Allow the format to be aggressive as it wants IMO.

Change 3: As above.

Change 4: No, no no. I have posted my refutations already but I disagree with almost all of your points here. See previous comment.

Change 5: Strong Support. These parts are meant to be used like this and 3v3 it's kind of much of a muchness. Astral is kinda meh and World while good also shows its age, this gives them more relevance. Lord is the primary candidate for GT but honestly I feel it was a bit overrated, and suspect it will be fine with this. Right Master is kinda meh so again not terrified. It also allows tS4 to be a way more viable part so is good in that respect. Love it.

Change 6: I've said everything I can about spinning in Magiks thread. This change needs to happen yesterday.
I generally agree with the definition of knockout but there is zero reason to limit it to DB and B09, the same reasoning works for HasPro and future proofs matters. That said, I prefer trusting judges to judge if a beyblade would have exited the stadium were the wall of a designated pocket not present as a way of handling this matter, if we can all agree not to be rules lawyers.

Change 7: Support for the reasons you gave. Nothing to add.
Frankly I also support infractions for things taken to the OP team frivolously. Vexatious litigants go home.

Change 8: FREE OUR GIMMICKS. MAKE THE GAME SMARTER. HOORAH!

Overall I would say I agree or go further on your points aside from DB which I see the same way I see Zero G stadiums.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

The 3 exit design (Tornado Attack, BB-10, B-09) for a stadium has worked perfectly since plastic gen because it balances out the types perfectly. The problem with other stadiums like the DB and basically any Hasbro stadium is that they completely throw off this balance. Attack is just hurt because of bad slopes and there being bad or no pockets/exits. Defense then ends up in a horrible spot because it’s niche is useless because attack sucks. This just leaves stamina and stamina-oriented balance. In this new stamina only meta, there’s gonna be far less good combos, since you only have to really account for spin time and LAD. Dual spin will become completely OP because you just give it the best driver for same spin or LAD and win every matchup. Even without dual spin, the meta just becomes boring and not fun to watch, thus killing the game more than having only the B-09 legal ever would. Attack is the most explosive type, so introducing these stadiums that kill its viability will actually make the game less “fun and exciting”.

And yes, you can consider yourself a good blader from only winning in a stadium and ruleset optimized for a balanced meta with one specific combo. It would be the fault of the other players for not exploiting your singular combo.

---

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

It is a weak and (I am sure unintentionally) insulting response to imply that people not wanting to play a format where one must play balance instead of attack could not win in that format. In stadiums which are unkind to attack, generally the actual stamina side of the game is minimally affected. The game is not just about winning, it's about enjoying play. Some people don't enjoy watching guilty flail around on MUn or Wv' and instead want attack to be the fast-finishing, skill-reliant type that it always has been, and their views are just as valid as yours - there is no need to make aspersions as to their skill level as part of the otherwise valid "adapt and overcome" argument.

In the plastics era you harken back to, you forget that we did try to play rubber attack and criticised Hasbro for not releasing stadiums where this worked - so much so that they had to add a section defending their wack stadiums to their Q&A page.

More from me soon but a couple of people pointed this post out to me and I wanted to nip this line of argument in the bud.

I appreciate your contributions to the game, I like your content, and I enjoy bladers kingdom format and would *love* to see it ranked, but this is a bad take.

We have a precedent set already for stadiums that upend gameplay like DB stadium does. We have been asked this de question before and we answered with Zero G Standard. I am fine with, and even supportive of, both a DB Standard Ranked Format and moving all current unranked events to a combined ranked ladder.

If we are adding a second stadium, and I don't think we need to as 10 years from now DB stadiums shorter production run will leave it no more common than B09, we should be looking to Haspro as it has the advantage of being able to be bought in stores for a quick and easy GT tournament setup for people who cannot buy online. With good pocket rulings it is much closer to B09 than DB stadium is, despite its many flaws.

You read my final statement exactly as I intended it to be received. I appreciate the love and support on our content and Blader's Kingdom as a whole; fun is the first and final goal.

---

Hi,
I'm Mike
I'm a professional Beyblader

YOUTUBE || INSTAGRAM || BLADER'S KINGDOM

Use code 'BEYBLADEORBURST' & save money @ Four-Gaming, MallOfToys, Beys&Bricks, & Ever-Wish

Point 5: Dual Spin Gimmick Legality in 3v3 Format

I'm all for seeing this one in action, because lets face it: Being in opposite spin does not guarantee a win. Only thing I would add is a clause that if both bladers have a dual spin capable layer that they would have to choose which direction they're going in in secret at the same time, to prevent one user from manipulating the decision of the other unintentionally.

Both would have to turn around and change their modes in secret. That line is part of the mode change section and would apply to changeing the spin direction because it is a mode change.

Fair.

Point 7: Revamp to the Draw Rule

This is a weird change honestly. It would require two judges at a match far too frequently by needing to call a second judge over at a single draw, which could slow down larger events too much and add extra stress to a stretched out judging team for smaller ones. I get the concern, but either way revamping a protocol that is already a suggestion and not a requirement is simply kinda moot. If you want to do your events this way go ahead, but it can backfire too easily and not all locales use this to begin with (Carmel Indiana doesn't, for instance, and keeps it to just 1 judge per match at all times).

This procedure is ONLY for WBO deck format. So by that time in the tournament some judges should be opend to help. Also this might not even be needed if the spinning definition is changed to something simmilar to what we both have sugested. I just wanted to include it because there have been several tounaments that have taken far to long to finish, and I feel that this could help. It's by no means perfect,  but I feel as if it helps. It also gives a penalty to the players that want to argue with the judges. Judges are not getting paid and are there on their own time. No one should be arguing with them once they make a decision.

It's still a change to a suggestion and not a requirement, and my other points still apply. No harm to anyone that wishes and is capable to host this way, but sometimes it is simply not optimal or reasonable (for instance, in the latest Carmel tournament there was only one backup judge able to do their job during the finals due to the Organizer ordering pizza and the other main judge, a.k.a. me, being part of the match. Fortunately it was Burst Classic where LAD is simply not a thing that really exists). This is solely a personal preference matter, and could be done regardless of what the rulebook says as it's a suggestion still. It is a good thing for events that are prepared to do so, but could never become a requirement. Thus the question: Do we need to rewrite a suggestion, or just do what we can with what we have and let our judges and organizers do what they feel is best?

I am fine with giving a penalty to people that want to argue with the judge needlessly, but I have seen judging calls changed due to someone pointing out a wall bounce that went unnoticed in the moment but was plenty visible in a recording so I don't necessarily agree with the "all calls are final" thing. Judges are not perfect, and sometimes simply asking "did that hit the back wall?" is a good question worth answering. Thus is the issue with wall bounces in general, they're not usually easy calls to make unless they're blatant. I don't think banning all sort of judge discussion is bad, but if the call isn't contested immediately then it should be too late to do so.

Yet again a story from Carmel where I hit the arm of the judge with my launch the moment my bey dropped from the launcher, and then when the tournament was already done the judge was asked to review the mislaunch call. Mislaunch calls in general shouldn't be argued by anything more than "they were late to call it" (I did freeze up in the moment under the pressure, this would've been a valid argument), but the fact that it basically forced a judge to decide the winner solely off of that one call was not fair for him or anyone else. It ultimately resulted in us redoing the entire first place match to satisfy all arguments, however were it argued at the moment I would've been fine with it.

If such a penalty for judge pestering were to be added, tacking it onto the end of a suggestion is not the way to go. It makes that look like a suggestion too, and really needs a small section of its own to make sure that it's clear that it's a different thing altogether and not still just a suggestion.

Point 8: Revamping Mode Changes
I half agree and half disagree with this. Let's start with the disagreement. Mode Changes that require disassembly typically take a significant amount of time to do. If we allowed them constantly, there's options for someone to bring a bey with mode changes and delay the entire tournament simply by constantly disassembling and reassembling their bey. It's probably a terrible idea to do that, but some people are trolls and this is something I'm not inclined to give them a whole ton of leeway for. This is especially true when switching from High to Low mode counts, and vice-versa. All you need to do to abuse that is run a DB bey on any armor that isn't +L. Let's not give people the option to torture our tournament attendees.

On the other hand, I'd love to see driver changes such as adding/removing the +X/+Z chips legalized, and doing so also would add precedence for Hasbro's QD Armor Tips doing the same thing. The current rules don't allow for this since Zone'+Z is a different part compared to Zone', but this could be expanded to the addition or removing of such addons when reasonable.

I see your concern. I could add in there that they must do it within an acceptable time frame given by the judge. I also feel that if people were allowed to mode chnage more, over some time they would enherently get faster at doing it and that would reduce time. Plus if the amound of battles resuting in draws gets reduced because of the spin rule, a lot of time will be saved there too.

The clause of doing it in a reasonable timeframe is a good countermeasure, but I'd still rather not feed the trolls just for something I think would be used rather sparingly. Can you name any sort of mode change requiring disassembly where changing modes so often would be a benefit? The only one that comes to mind would be Dynamite+F in deck format. That's about all I see for it in standard at least, and I'm not seeing many other uses in other formats as well. If you could actually name a few situations where this is helpful please feel free to share, but I'm not ultimately happy to make a risk regarding someone that wants to change their beys mode via disassembly every single launch even if it "has to be done in a reasonable time". It's the frequency that causes the problem, not people stalling out for too long doing it.

---

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...

I believe these rule upgrades were well written and thoroughly thought-out, thank you. I've only been playing beyblade competitively for a short time so I cannot speak on how things were in the past; but I played with plastic gen when they first came out in 2001 (ish) and what made the game fun for me was the variety of stadiums to be used, from my mom's wok pot to the Driger's den stadium. For me, now, what I believe the game needs is more creativity from the bladers because both Hasbro and TT have given us the means to do so. I'd enjoy playing even more if there were more stadiums for organizers to officially choose from; I know most folks hate all Hasbro stadiums and anything but the current standard stadium but that's just a lame excuse to be a carbon copy and use "guaranteed" winning combos for points. I've found people are more adventurous with their combos in unranked tournaments compared to the safe route in ranked tournaments, but that's a different convo.

I fully support the changes mentioned but REALLY love the inclusion of the DB stadium, mode changes, and dual spin. We've spent money to play with this fancy gimmicks and the rule to ban them is no bueno. I might even add in an idea of being able to use both sides of dual spin layers as separate parts as long as the chip is a fixed left or right... hmmm... I think I may be on to something there 🤔.

With all this being said, this is a game designed to be fun and I believe that fun should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when they think about rules for the game. We want the game to be as evenly fair as possible but also fun and exciting so people continue to play well beyond the game's lifespan.

Also, can you really consider yourself a good blader if you can only win in one specific stadium, under one specific set of rules, and with one specific combo?

The 3 exit design (Tornado Attack, BB-10, B-09) for a stadium has worked perfectly since plastic gen because it balances out the types perfectly. The problem with other stadiums like the DB and basically any Hasbro stadium is that they completely throw off this balance. Attack is just hurt because of bad slopes and there being bad or no pockets/exits. Defense then ends up in a horrible spot because it’s niche is useless because attack sucks. This just leaves stamina and stamina-oriented balance. In this new stamina only meta, there’s gonna be far less good combos, since you only have to really account for spin time and LAD. Dual spin will become completely OP because you just give it the best driver for same spin or LAD and win every matchup. Even without dual spin, the meta just becomes boring and not fun to watch, thus killing the game more than having only the B-09 legal ever would. Attack is the most explosive type, so introducing these stadiums that kill its viability will actually make the game less “fun and exciting”.

And yes, you can consider yourself a good blader from only winning in a stadium and ruleset optimized for a balanced meta with one specific combo. It would be the fault of the other players for not exploiting your singular combo.

I disagree, I feel there are a variety of drivers that aren't being utilized because they don't perform well in the current standard. But, who knows how they'll do in the DB stadium.

---

Hi,
I'm Mike
I'm a professional Beyblader

YOUTUBE || INSTAGRAM || BLADER'S KINGDOM

Use code 'BEYBLADEORBURST' & save money @ Four-Gaming, MallOfToys, Beys&Bricks, & Ever-Wish

The 3 exit design (Tornado Attack, BB-10, B-09) for a stadium has worked perfectly since plastic gen because it balances out the types perfectly. The problem with other stadiums like the DB and basically any Hasbro stadium is that they completely throw off this balance. Attack is just hurt because of bad slopes and there being bad or no pockets/exits. Defense then ends up in a horrible spot because it’s niche is useless because attack sucks. This just leaves stamina and stamina-oriented balance. In this new stamina only meta, there’s gonna be far less good combos, since you only have to really account for spin time and LAD. Dual spin will become completely OP because you just give it the best driver for same spin or LAD and win every matchup. Even without dual spin, the meta just becomes boring and not fun to watch, thus killing the game more than having only the B-09 legal ever would. Attack is the most explosive type, so introducing these stadiums that kill its viability will actually make the game less “fun and exciting”.

And yes, you can consider yourself a good blader from only winning in a stadium and ruleset optimized for a balanced meta with one specific combo. It would be the fault of the other players for not exploiting your singular combo.

I disagree, I feel there are a variety of drivers that aren't being utilized because they don't perform well in the current standard. But, who knows how they'll do in the DB stadium.

There are a lot of drivers that aren't being used anyway. Much like drift is amazing in opposite but mediocre in same, there's a same spin equivalent in Quattro (Ball) which outspins even HXt+' in same in my testing, and can still hold up to say Guilty Ds' in Opposite. This sees no use. The gold never from rb27 is also great. Yielding looks to be good too (waiting on mine to rock up!) I honestly feel we aren't done with exploring Standard yet... And I'm planning on proposing allowing Hasbro Drivers on TT layers soon (because they do no damage at all and provide some very nice alternatives or upgrades in exchange for poorer burst resistance). I think even without a stadium change people are kind of stuck in their ways, following the crowd, and not experimenting. Look at how HXt+' was missed in Burst Classic for ages before I spotted it and Broyeeto exploited it to solo a tournament. A big part of that is that these forums are so lifeless right now, not the vibrant place where testing was its own battlefield like it was a decade ago. It's sad to see.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I disagree, I feel there are a variety of drivers that aren't being utilized because they don't perform well in the current standard. But, who knows how they'll do in the DB stadium.

There are a lot of drivers that aren't being used anyway. Much like drift is amazing in opposite but mediocre in same, there's a same spin equivalent in Quattro (Ball) which outspins even HXt+' in same in my testing, and can still hold up to say Guilty Ds' in Opposite. This sees no use. The gold never from rb27 is also great. Yielding looks to be good too (waiting on mine to rock up!) I honestly feel we aren't done with exploring Standard yet... And I'm planning on proposing allowing Hasbro Drivers on TT layers soon (because they do no damage at all and provide some very nice alternatives or upgrades in exchange for poorer burst resistance). I think even without a stadium change people are kind of stuck in their ways, following the crowd, and not experimenting. Look at how HXt+' was missed in Burst Classic for ages before I spotted it and Broyeeto exploited it to solo a tournament. A big part of that is that these forums are so lifeless right now, not the vibrant place where testing was its own battlefield like it was a decade ago. It's sad to see.

So this I can agree with. People aren’t testing out things right now. They just test out what comes out and that’s it. They don’t go back and test things with old parts. And it’s true that people are stuck in their ways right now. I honestly hope that once BU is over we get at least a year break before TT starts up the new generation of Beyblade. That would give us some time to experiment with as many parts as we can.

---

It's still a change to a suggestion and not a requirement, and my other points still apply. No harm to anyone that wishes and is capable to host this way, but sometimes it is simply not optimal or reasonable (for instance, in the latest Carmel tournament there was only one backup judge able to do their job during the finals due to the Organizer ordering pizza and the other main judge, a.k.a. me, being part of the match. Fortunately it was Burst Classic where LAD is simply not a thing that really exists). This is solely a personal preference matter, and could be done regardless of what the rulebook says as it's a suggestion still. It is a good thing for events that are prepared to do so, but could never become a requirement. Thus the question: Do we need to rewrite a suggestion, or just do what we can with what we have and let our judges and organizers do what they feel is best?

I am fine with giving a penalty to people that want to argue with the judge needlessly, but I have seen judging calls changed due to someone pointing out a wall bounce that went unnoticed in the moment but was plenty visible in a recording so I don't necessarily agree with the "all calls are final" thing. Judges are not perfect, and sometimes simply asking "did that hit the back wall?" is a good question worth answering. Thus is the issue with wall bounces in general, they're not usually easy calls to make unless they're blatant. I don't think banning all sort of judge discussion is bad, but if the call isn't contested immediately then it should be too late to do so.

Yet again a story from Carmel where I hit the arm of the judge with my launch the moment my bey dropped from the launcher, and then when the tournament was already done the judge was asked to review the mislaunch call. Mislaunch calls in general shouldn't be argued by anything more than "they were late to call it" (I did freeze up in the moment under the pressure, this would've been a valid argument), but the fact that it basically forced a judge to decide the winner solely off of that one call was not fair for him or anyone else. It ultimately resulted in us redoing the entire first place match to satisfy all arguments, however were it argued at the moment I would've been fine with it.

If such a penalty for judge pestering were to be added, tacking it onto the end of a suggestion is not the way to go. It makes that look like a suggestion too, and really needs a small section of its own to make sure that it's clear that it's a different thing altogether and not still just a suggestion.

So for this you are mostly saying it just shouldn't be a mandatory thing but just a suggestion on how to handle the situation if you have the availability of judges to do it?

The clause of doing it in a reasonable timeframe is a good countermeasure, but I'd still rather not feed the trolls just for something I think would be used rather sparingly. Can you name any sort of mode change requiring disassembly where changing modes so often would be a benefit? The only one that comes to mind would be Dynamite+F in deck format. That's about all I see for it in standard at least, and I'm not seeing many other uses in other formats as well. If you could actually name a few situations where this is helpful please feel free to share, but I'm not ultimately happy to make a risk regarding someone that wants to change their beys mode via disassembly every single launch even if it "has to be done in a reasonable time". It's the frequency that causes the problem, not people stalling out for too long doing it.

Personally I think you are fearing people trolling a little more than you should. I have played in tournaments in several states and not once have I found a player trying to troll by wasting time. I've seen them troll in the form of using a wacky driver like Bullet or quest to have fun. But that's about it.

This rule isn't really useful in Single Bey or P3C1, but it doesn't do anything to hurt them in anyway either.

Now to talk about when the mode changes being able to happen often would benefit right away I can say 3v3 format and even WBO deck format. So in single bey and P3C1 if I use my Vanish Over High Xtend+' as my first pick and I have to battle against a Dynamite+F Giga Drift combo I would want to go into high mode and hope I have a chance to get the out spin because you have a better chance to get it in high mode compared to low mode because of the gap that they can get stuck in. So where as doing this for single bey or even P3C1 you're both locked into those combos all the way through so as a more skilled player you're trying to give yourself a tactical advantage. However, in 3v3 each time you pull out a bey for a battle your opponents bey is going to be random to you. Just like if you go into it for single bey. So using the same combos I do the same thing and change to high mode. Then say the score is 1-2 after that and we go into the reshuffle phase. Now once again I pull out my Vanish but it's in high mode, and now they pull out say their Vanish Over Bearing' combo. Well now that they have the lower center of gravity they actually have the advantage and yet it's almost like you just entered a whole new round of single bey, yet my option to switch doesn't exist now. So I get to be at a disadvantage because I was trying to be a good player the first battle and change my mode to the better mode for the match up? That doesn't really seem fair or even fun when there isn't really a way you can launch to change your center of gravity. That is all done by the mode change itself.

The same thing goes for WBO deck format. It's really upsetting if you have to change your mode to try and get a point because the matchup is just terrible for you and then because you had to adjust for that bey your bey might now have a second unfavorable matchup because now your center of gravity has changed. Plus it would be another thing that Blader's would have to think about when they are playing deck format. It would make the top cut matches need a little more skill than what they even have now. And I am all for raising the skill cap for the really competitive players.

---

It's still a change to a suggestion and not a requirement, and my other points still apply. No harm to anyone that wishes and is capable to host this way, but sometimes it is simply not optimal or reasonable (for instance, in the latest Carmel tournament there was only one backup judge able to do their job during the finals due to the Organizer ordering pizza and the other main judge, a.k.a. me, being part of the match. Fortunately it was Burst Classic where LAD is simply not a thing that really exists). This is solely a personal preference matter, and could be done regardless of what the rulebook says as it's a suggestion still. It is a good thing for events that are prepared to do so, but could never become a requirement. Thus the question: Do we need to rewrite a suggestion, or just do what we can with what we have and let our judges and organizers do what they feel is best?

I am fine with giving a penalty to people that want to argue with the judge needlessly, but I have seen judging calls changed due to someone pointing out a wall bounce that went unnoticed in the moment but was plenty visible in a recording so I don't necessarily agree with the "all calls are final" thing. Judges are not perfect, and sometimes simply asking "did that hit the back wall?" is a good question worth answering. Thus is the issue with wall bounces in general, they're not usually easy calls to make unless they're blatant. I don't think banning all sort of judge discussion is bad, but if the call isn't contested immediately then it should be too late to do so.

Yet again a story from Carmel where I hit the arm of the judge with my launch the moment my bey dropped from the launcher, and then when the tournament was already done the judge was asked to review the mislaunch call. Mislaunch calls in general shouldn't be argued by anything more than "they were late to call it" (I did freeze up in the moment under the pressure, this would've been a valid argument), but the fact that it basically forced a judge to decide the winner solely off of that one call was not fair for him or anyone else. It ultimately resulted in us redoing the entire first place match to satisfy all arguments, however were it argued at the moment I would've been fine with it.

If such a penalty for judge pestering were to be added, tacking it onto the end of a suggestion is not the way to go. It makes that look like a suggestion too, and really needs a small section of its own to make sure that it's clear that it's a different thing altogether and not still just a suggestion.

So for this you are mostly saying it just shouldn't be a mandatory thing but just a suggestion on how to handle the situation if you have the availability of judges to do it?

I'm saying the part you're trying to adjust was already a suggestion to begin with. Is changing a suggestion to a different suggestion helpful enough when that suggestion itself is not always feasible, and has never once been feasible in every region I've played in thus far? Yes, it may improve things if you have the judges free to do it. I just don't see a need to fix what ain't broken.

The clause of doing it in a reasonable timeframe is a good countermeasure, but I'd still rather not feed the trolls just for something I think would be used rather sparingly. Can you name any sort of mode change requiring disassembly where changing modes so often would be a benefit? The only one that comes to mind would be Dynamite+F in deck format. That's about all I see for it in standard at least, and I'm not seeing many other uses in other formats as well. If you could actually name a few situations where this is helpful please feel free to share, but I'm not ultimately happy to make a risk regarding someone that wants to change their beys mode via disassembly every single launch even if it "has to be done in a reasonable time". It's the frequency that causes the problem, not people stalling out for too long doing it.

Personally I think you are fearing people trolling a little more than you should. I have played in tournaments in several states and not once have I found a player trying to troll by wasting time. I've seen them troll in the form of using a wacky driver like Bullet or quest to have fun. But that's about it.

This rule isn't really useful in Single Bey or P3C1, but it doesn't do anything to hurt them in anyway either.

Now to talk about when the mode changes being able to happen often would benefit right away I can say 3v3 format and even WBO deck format. So in single bey and P3C1 if I use my Vanish Over High Xtend+' as my first pick and I have to battle against a Dynamite+F Giga Drift combo I would want to go into high mode and hope I have a chance to get the out spin because you have a better chance to get it in high mode compared to low mode because of the gap that they can get stuck in. So where as doing this for single bey or even P3C1 you're both locked into those combos all the way through so as a more skilled player you're trying to give yourself a tactical advantage. However, in 3v3 each time you pull out a bey for a battle your opponents bey is going to be random to you. Just like if you go into it for single bey. So using the same combos I do the same thing and change to high mode. Then say the score is 1-2 after that and we go into the reshuffle phase. Now once again I pull out my Vanish but it's in high mode, and now they pull out say their Vanish Over Bearing' combo. Well now that they have the lower center of gravity they actually have the advantage and yet it's almost like you just entered a whole new round of single bey, yet my option to switch doesn't exist now. So I get to be at a disadvantage because I was trying to be a good player the first battle and change my mode to the better mode for the match up? That doesn't really seem fair or even fun when there isn't really a way you can launch to change your center of gravity. That is all done by the mode change itself.

The same thing goes for WBO deck format. It's really upsetting if you have to change your mode to try and get a point because the matchup is just terrible for you and then because you had to adjust for that bey your bey might now have a second unfavorable matchup because now your center of gravity has changed. Plus it would be another thing that Blader's would have to think about when they are playing deck format. It would make the top cut matches need a little more skill than what they even have now. And I am all for raising the skill cap for the really competitive players.

I mean, after a certain organizer got their rank stripped away for launching Infinite in left spin I am definitely a bit more wary regarding abuse, and this is a change with both positives and negatives to it. No, it's not the most likely thing in the world, but I'm not going to let that side of the argument be ignored either.

---

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...

Rules Changes 2 & 3
I think this is perfectly fine, I would actually just take it a step further though. I know there are many ideas floating around right now to prioritize knock-outs, or of even more importance, minimize draws. I would actually prefer 2pt KO to be implemented across Burst Standard formats, not just in deck.

In a way, incentivizing attack usage already helps with the draws and 40 hour long matches since that will be eliminate a whole match (or for 3on3, potentially 2) from a possibly drawn out encounter. Less Stamina types in place automatically means less draws to have to parse through.

Rule Change 4 
I understand where this rule is coming from. I believe that it would actually be better off as a separate ladder entirely from Standard. Standard should keep true to the traditional roots of the game - three exits, tornado ridge, and the (mostly) viability of attack to keep potent and simple-to-use combos in check.

DB being included in the Standard umbrella would kind of skew matches in a way. Everything is no longer equal and the same - communities that focus on DB usage for tournaments mingling with Standard communities on the leaderboard is confused. They are not equivalent. 

By making it an entirely separate option, provided there is actually enough support for it, the people who have a serious attack aversion get to show their stuff and be ranked in a stadium and setting they play best in. 

The kind of people who would consider DB for ranked matches to begin with aren't going to care that actual attack isn't truly viable. The people showing up know that and if they don't like it they can run Standard ranked events. So, let them play their game, in a competitive ranked environment that doesn't muddle the general Standard ranked pool.

Rule Change 5
This is actually a very good idea in my opinion. In the one-shot formats, and the deck format as it is currently structured, a dual spin beyblade on Drift would be a must-have if it could switch mid-match to deal with a certain problem bey it is locked into facing. 

In the 3on3 format, though, Drift is really uh, not what I would consider an intelligent and safe choice. It is a carp shoot, in hopes that you'll catch an opposite spin opponent (or somehow score a lucky knockout with a well done launch). 

If you allow the direction change gimmick here that can be enacted between sets, a player can actually use Drift and change directions during a second set after knowing the makeup of the opponent's deck. They can make an informed decision. 

This would actually make Drift pretty good. I'm actually not too sure this helps the whole drawing issue, but it may further incentivize attack options. If you catch the opponent's drift combo with an attack combo you're not assured 2pts, but I mean... there is a very good shot of free 2pts.

Rule Change 6
Spinning distinction:
I am actually not inclined to agree with this just yet. I know it has been brought up before, particularly by Shin. I don't think I am cool with it because it favours things that can take massive advantage of this ruling in opposite spin. 

For example, Ultimate Blade. It is a decently balanced blade for what it is, but it has weight pretty prominently focused on certain ends. At the end of the battle it will inevitably tip over. 

Should Ultimate Blade be taking out Vanish Blade in a pure battle of endurance because it luckily fell in the direction it was spinning? If it is on a Driver it can reliably draw on, it is a matter of time before it can rack up wins in the match by tipping over in a fortunate direction.

So, my question is, how do you deal with that type of scenario? Do we just welcome Ultimate and things like Ultimate into the Stamina Blade fold because it can reliably tip over later than its well-balanced and actually Stamina-oriented contemporaries?

Play Area/Knock-Out distinction:
Also disagree here. I actually think that backwall is too stringent because there are cases that the opposing Beyblade may be propelled out of the dish* into the back-corner rather than directly back pocket. I don't think attack has the luxury at this point to necessitate strict enforcement of back pocket only. Actual corner hits, where the opposing beyblade can be hit into, but not actually out of the dish, are safe. That would just be the oppressive quirk of the guard that in a more traditional older stadium wouldn't happen. But it does here. It's safe.

* Where the beyblade is either:

1.Very obviously out of the dish proper (driver no longer in contact with dish + making contact with back-corner or directly back pocket)

or

2. propelled into the back-corner/directly back pocket with such force that it would have continued out of the play area if the guard was not there (in super rare/near impossible case where a beyblade's driver somehow matrix's by maintaining consistent contact with the dish's absolute edge, and the Blade/upper portion ricochets off of back-corner to keep it back in).

Change 7
I think this is very involved, and we should probably be picking, trusting and respecting our judges to provide clear and decisive calls for most of the tournament. Otherwise they simply shouldn't be picked.. 

I think something like this should be a tournament finals (literal finals and semis) only procedure, where a second judge is a kind of fail-safe for matches where something is really on the line.

Change 8
Very correct, very good change. Knowing the difference between high mode and low mode's matchups and showing that level of familiarity with nuance deserves praise. Same is true for different chips or attachments. We should allow for that kind of skill expression to be present in battle. I have definitely come across matches where I wish I could have done that because it is very favourable. Simply should be implemented whether people agree with the rest of the rules or not.

The game is about customization, and every single DB bey has a very intentional mode gimmick attached to it that should be available for us. All the parts remain unchanged, it just requires a quick disassembly. 

I would just add here that if someone wishes to enact a "mode change", or "accessory change" in the cases of chips or attachments, it should be mentioned aloud to the judge, rather than allot time every match or give the judge extra work (imagine asking every single battle "do you want to change modes?" to the competitors). That seems like a more streamlined approach.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

I mean, after a certain organizer got their rank stripped away for launching Infinite in left spin I am definitely a bit more wary regarding abuse, and this is a change with both positives and negatives to it. No, it's not the most likely thing in the world, but I'm not going to let that side of the argument be ignored either.

I mean someone launching a right spin bey in left spin is a pretty big difference than just being allowed to do a simple mode change. The beys are made with the intention of being able to use these different modes and gimmicks. The boxes and instructions of the beys tell you what spin direction the beys are suppose to be launched in. Just like how the boxes and instructions tell you how to change these modes. So if it’s a part of the bey it should be allowed to be used how it was intended. On a battle to battle basis.

---

I mean, after a certain organizer got their rank stripped away for launching Infinite in left spin I am definitely a bit more wary regarding abuse, and this is a change with both positives and negatives to it. No, it's not the most likely thing in the world, but I'm not going to let that side of the argument be ignored either.

I mean someone launching a right spin bey in left spin is a pretty big difference than just being allowed to do a simple mode change. The beys are made with the intention of being able to use these different modes and gimmicks. The boxes and instructions of the beys tell you what spin direction the beys are suppose to be launched in. Just like how the boxes and instructions tell you how to change these modes. So if it’s a part of the bey it should be allowed to be used how it was intended. On a battle to battle basis.

Doesn't mean I can't be wary of other outlets for potential abuse.

---

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...

I mean, after a certain organizer got their rank stripped away for launching Infinite in left spin I am definitely a bit more wary regarding abuse, and this is a change with both positives and negatives to it. No, it's not the most likely thing in the world, but I'm not going to let that side of the argument be ignored either.

I mean someone launching a right spin bey in left spin is a pretty big difference than just being allowed to do a simple mode change. The beys are made with the intention of being able to use these different modes and gimmicks. The boxes and instructions of the beys tell you what spin direction the beys are suppose to be launched in. Just like how the boxes and instructions tell you how to change these modes. So if it’s a part of the bey it should be allowed to be used how it was intended. On a battle to battle basis.

I know the WBO has been making efforts to streamline the rulebooks, but I feel this may be one of those times where a rule needs to be broken up. I'm in favor for being able to use gimmicks, however I do feel that spin direction changes should stay/be limited to once per match, for reasons that should be obvious. Other than that outlier, I feel that the other forms of mode change wouldn't pose a major impact to the flow of tournaments, provided the mode changes are performed in a short time period (30 seconds? A minute seems like too much time, IDK).

I mean someone launching a right spin bey in left spin is a pretty big difference than just being allowed to do a simple mode change. The beys are made with the intention of being able to use these different modes and gimmicks. The boxes and instructions of the beys tell you what spin direction the beys are suppose to be launched in. Just like how the boxes and instructions tell you how to change these modes. So if it’s a part of the bey it should be allowed to be used how it was intended. On a battle to battle basis.

I know the WBO has been making efforts to streamline the rulebooks, but I feel this may be one of those times where a rule needs to be broken up. I'm in favor for being able to use gimmicks, however I do feel that spin direction changes should stay/be limited to once per match, for reasons that should be obvious. Other than that outlier, I feel that the other forms of mode change wouldn't pose a major impact to the flow of tournaments, provided the mode changes are performed in a short time period (30 seconds? A minute seems like too much time, IDK).

In my proposal you can only change your spin direction in the 3v3 format. And technically you can do it more than once but that’s only after a reshuffle occurs. Also if during the second set of battles your spin direction bey happens to go against the same bey it did before then you wouldn’t need to change the spin rotation again anyways because it’s already in the rotation you want it for the match up. You would only change it again if it’s going to go up against an entirely new bey in the second set than it did in the first set.

---

I know the WBO has been making efforts to streamline the rulebooks, but I feel this may be one of those times where a rule needs to be broken up. I'm in favor for being able to use gimmicks, however I do feel that spin direction changes should stay/be limited to once per match, for reasons that should be obvious. Other than that outlier, I feel that the other forms of mode change wouldn't pose a major impact to the flow of tournaments, provided the mode changes are performed in a short time period (30 seconds? A minute seems like too much time, IDK).

In my proposal you can only change your spin direction in the 3v3 format. And technically you can do it more than once but that’s only after a reshuffle occurs. Also if during the second set of battles your spin direction bey happens to go against the same bey it did before then you wouldn’t need to change the spin rotation again anyways because it’s already in the rotation you want it for the match up. You would only change it again if it’s going to go up against an entirely new bey in the second set than it did in the first set.

Exceptions possibly if you thought you had the LAD advantage, find out that isn't true, and revert to a same-spin strategy because of that failure. You never know, some dual-spin layers are capable of both aggression and defense that way such as Lord.

Lord's same-spin is underrated imo, but that's only tangentially related.

---

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...

In my proposal you can only change your spin direction in the 3v3 format. And technically you can do it more than once but that’s only after a reshuffle occurs. Also if during the second set of battles your spin direction bey happens to go against the same bey it did before then you wouldn’t need to change the spin rotation again anyways because it’s already in the rotation you want it for the match up. You would only change it again if it’s going to go up against an entirely new bey in the second set than it did in the first set.

Exceptions possibly if you thought you had the LAD advantage, find out that isn't true, and revert to a same-spin strategy because of that failure. You never know, some dual-spin layers are capable of both aggression and defense that way such as Lord.

Lord's same-spin is underrated imo, but that's only tangentially related.

Yeah that could be an exception. But honestly if you were wrong thinking you had better LAD but didn't in 3v3 you have already lost the battle and are moving onto your next bey. So it really wouldn't change. I guess if you got a draw with it and then decided you wanted to revert back to samespin you could but at least then you most likely will have a quicker and more clear outcome than if you end up drawing 3 times and have to move to the next bey anyways. Hiwever, if for some reason this did end up becoming a problem you could simply word it to where if you change it for a specific battle in the first set you can't change back until the next set comes around.

---

In my proposal you can only change your spin direction in the 3v3 format. And technically you can do it more than once but that’s only after a reshuffle occurs. Also if during the second set of battles your spin direction bey happens to go against the same bey it did before then you wouldn’t need to change the spin rotation again anyways because it’s already in the rotation you want it for the match up. You would only change it again if it’s going to go up against an entirely new bey in the second set than it did in the first set.

Exceptions possibly if you thought you had the LAD advantage, find out that isn't true, and revert to a same-spin strategy because of that failure. You never know, some dual-spin layers are capable of both aggression and defense that way such as Lord.

Lord's same-spin is underrated imo, but that's only tangentially related.

Lord being good in Same is sort of why it's not a big deal for it to be swappable IMO. I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be in either direction though, I'm not too worried given the format it's in.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Rules Changes 2 & 3
I think this is perfectly fine, I would actually just take it a step further though. I know there are many ideas floating around right now to prioritize knock-outs, or of even more importance, minimize draws. I would actually prefer 2pt KO to be implemented across Burst Standard formats, not just in deck.

In a way, incentivizing attack usage already helps with the draws and 40 hour long matches since that will be eliminate a whole match (or for 3on3, potentially 2) from a possibly drawn out encounter. Less Stamina types in place automatically means less draws to have to parse through.

So just clarifying here, You feel that Ko's should be worth 2 points in the first stage formats as well, even when being used in the first stage and not just the top cut?

Rule Change 4 
I understand where this rule is coming from. I believe that it would actually be better off as a separate ladder entirely from Standard. Standard should keep true to the traditional roots of the game - three exits, tornado ridge, and the (mostly) viability of attack to keep potent and simple-to-use combos in check.

DB being included in the Standard umbrella would kind of skew matches in a way. Everything is no longer equal and the same - communities that focus on DB usage for tournaments mingling with Standard communities on the leaderboard is confused. They are not equivalent. 

By making it an entirely separate option, provided there is actually enough support for it, the people who have a serious attack aversion get to show their stuff and be ranked in a stadium and setting they play best in. 

The kind of people who would consider DB for ranked matches to begin with aren't going to care that actual attack isn't truly viable. The people showing up know that and if they don't like it they can run Standard ranked events. So, let them play their game, in a competitive ranked environment that doesn't muddle the general Standard ranked pool.

So, for this one a lot of people seem to like the idea of making the usage of the DB stadium for ranked tournaments a separate format entirely. Which I don't see being an issue. From what you are saying here I'm just trying to understand if you are saying it would need to be part of a different ranking system entirely or if it should be part of the already established ranking system just as a different format?

Rule Change 5
This is actually a very good idea in my opinion. In the one-shot formats, and the deck format as it is currently structured, a dual spin beyblade on Drift would be a must-have if it could switch mid-match to deal with a certain problem bey it is locked into facing. 

In the 3on3 format, though, Drift is really uh, not what I would consider an intelligent and safe choice. It is a carp shoot, in hopes that you'll catch an opposite spin opponent (or somehow score a lucky knockout with a well done launch). 

If you allow the direction change gimmick here that can be enacted between sets, a player can actually use Drift and change directions during a second set after knowing the makeup of the opponent's deck. They can make an informed decision. 

This would actually make Drift pretty good. I'm actually not too sure this helps the whole drawing issue, but it may further incentivize attack options. If you catch the opponent's drift combo with an attack combo you're not assured 2pts, but I mean... there is a very good shot of free 2pts.

Here I just want to clarify that you understood what I said. Just because I read the part where you talk about switching it between sets. Which to me is also a good idea and another way this could be handled. But I was approaching it the same way as the WBBA where after you reveal your combos to each other during the Selection Phase you then would be allowed to mode change, and this would include spin rotation changing. It's just I'm saying after you decide to change it you can't change it back until after the reshuffle and you’re in the next set of battles.

Rule Change 6
Spinning distinction:
I am actually not inclined to agree with this just yet. I know it has been brought up before, particularly by Shin. I don't think I am cool with it because it favours things that can take massive advantage of this ruling in opposite spin. 

For example, Ultimate Blade. It is a decently balanced blade for what it is, but it has weight pretty prominently focused on certain ends. At the end of the battle it will inevitably tip over. 

Should Ultimate Blade be taking out Vanish Blade in a pure battle of endurance because it luckily fell in the direction it was spinning? If it is on a Driver it can reliably draw on, it is a matter of time before it can rack up wins in the match by tipping over in a fortunate direction.

So, my question is, how do you deal with that type of scenario? Do we just welcome Ultimate and things like Ultimate into the Stamina Blade fold because it can reliably tip over later than its well-balanced and actually Stamina-oriented contemporaries?

Play Area/Knock-Out distinction:
Also disagree here. I actually think that backwall is too stringent because there are cases that the opposing Beyblade may be propelled out of the dish* into the back-corner rather than directly back pocket. I don't think attack has the luxury at this point to necessitate strict enforcement of back pocket only. Actual corner hits, where the opposing beyblade can be hit into, but not actually out of the dish, are safe. That would just be the oppressive quirk of the guard that in a more traditional older stadium wouldn't happen. But it does here. It's safe.

* Where the beyblade is either:

1.Very obviously out of the dish proper (driver no longer in contact with dish + making contact with back-corner or directly back pocket)

or

2. propelled into the back-corner/directly back pocket with such force that it would have continued out of the play area if the guard was not there (in super rare/near impossible case where a beyblade's driver somehow matrix's by maintaining consistent contact with the dish's absolute edge, and the Blade/upper portion ricochets off of back-corner to keep it back in).

This is what I have been looking for to be honest. I had the hardest time trying to think of definitions for these 2 rules. For the spinning definition this is the closest to the WBBA as I could get it. I get the concern for things like Ultimate with how it could fall more at the end because of its shape and under this rule it would be considered a win. However, I was trying a stationary attacker with Ultimate on Hxt+' and I had it against Vanish also on Hxt+' and I don't think I had many battles where it was that close to where I needed to check the footage for an out spin. I think where Ultimate’s shape does help with those split-second last-minute falls and could get points that way, I think it's very far and few between the ones that do happen like this. I feel as if the WBBA's definitions hurt us over here because we are so competitive that we want every single edge to be in our favor so we can get the win. Nothing is going to be so sound that it will be able to accommodate every blade, every driver, or every disk and how they perform. So, if a part comes out that has a bit of an edge let it have that edge. Eventually something will probably come out that takes that edge away completely.
 
So on the Knock-Out definition I'm a little confused. It seems as if you are saying that under this rule if a bey hits the corner where the back wall and side wall of the pocket meet that it wouldn't be a Knock-out because it hit the corner and not the back wall. Is that correct?

Change 7
I think this is very involved, and we should probably be picking, trusting and respecting our judges to provide clear and decisive calls for most of the tournament. Otherwise they simply shouldn't be picked.. 

I think something like this should be a tournament finals (literal finals and semis) only procedure, where a second judge is a kind of fail-safe for matches where something is really on the line.

This one was more made to try and have the top cut matches move quicker than normal. Right now, the LAD is kind of out of hand and you can get some seriously long tournaments because of it. This one might be one that isn't needed IF a better definition for spinning is made, whether it's my definition or not. The problem I tend to see at tournaments is that judges can have a really hard time determining whether a Beyblade is now rolling/turning or spinning, and this turns into debates sometimes. Those instances simply are the reason why I thought about changing the Footage review protocol to this. So, this is a fallback idea if the spinning definition doesn't get updated.

Change 8
Very correct, very good change. Knowing the difference between high mode and low mode's matchups and showing that level of familiarity with nuance deserves praise. Same is true for different chips or attachments. We should allow for that kind of skill expression to be present in battle. I have definitely come across matches where I wish I could have done that because it is very favourable. Simply should be implemented whether people agree with the rest of the rules or not.

The game is about customization, and every single DB bey has a very intentional mode gimmick attached to it that should be available for us. All the parts remain unchanged, it just requires a quick disassembly. 

I would just add here that if someone wishes to enact a "mode change", or "accessory change" in the cases of chips or attachments, it should be mentioned aloud to the judge, rather than allot time every match or give the judge extra work (imagine asking every single battle "do you want to change modes?" to the competitors). That seems like a more streamlined approach.

Since this is a draft, I knew there might have been some things I forgot to type down that were in my head but I might of forgot to physically type them. So, thank you for bringing this up. I had one of 2 ideas in my head, and that was either to make it so the players must always announce when they are going to mode change, or just add a "Mode Change Phase" where after both bladers reveal their combo, both players MUST turn around and preform all mode changes they wish to preform for that Battle within a time frame of say 20-30 seconds. Then after that time is up, they can reveal their bey again in the modes it will be launched in for that battle. I don't know which would be easier or better, but i think one of them would be the best way to do it.

---

Allowing mode chnages would make people have to use duel spin cores like spriggan which I havent seen much use with