A Short Backstory

Henwooja had posted a video regarding a common breakage issue with Hercules H4. There was a question about whether this piece breaking off the layer would render the layer legal or illegal to use. Shindog had asked what would be considered "wear/tear", "breakage", and "awaken". "Did you just awaken 3 H4s?  Or did you break them?" "Awakened" is just a specific form of wear/tear based on whether it might be desirable for the user. It isn't useful for this discussion on legality. I had called the piece of the layer having come wear and tear since the change is minor. I had proposed this definition of breakage:

Breakage (for layers) should be ruled as wear that modifies contact points in an unintended manner, changes the structure of the layer, or would pose a risk to the opponent and/or their bey.

I will come back to this definition later. After the conversation had gotten to the point where we realized "awakening" and whether it is intended or not, 2D and Mobius were brought up. At which point I asked about whether the WBO had banned the 'flat Mobius' which was banned by the WBBA.

---

A Flaw in the Rules

It just so turns out that the 'flat Mobius' (wearing down the driver tip to become more flat) that is banned by the WBBA is allowed by the WBO under the current Driver Wear Regulation. The current driver wear rules are:

Banned:

1) The tip has been worn down to the point that other structural parts of the Driver become the primary point of contact (ex. If the rubber on Jolt wears down completely and is parallel with the plastic casing surrounding it) or if structural parts such as screws are exposed.

2) Tips which have obviously been damaged or intentionally worn down to affect shape or performance through methods other than repeated launching in a Beyblade stadium (ex. sanding down a pointed tip to a flat surface or launching a Beyblade on concrete).

The first rule bans things that wear down the contact point to parts of the driver that are never supposed to be used as a contact point. The second rule bans wear that cannot be obtained by launching within any official stadium. Neither of these rules address modifying the contact point to an unrecognizable state without violating the first rule, like 'flat Mobius' or even the infamous 'flat Bearing', both of which wear down their pointed tips into more flat ones.

Images of 'flat Bearing' were once in the rulebook as an example of something that was banned by the driver wear regulation, but the images are gone now and the wording of the rules do not imply it would be banned.

---

First Proposal

A rule that could ban both 'flat Mobius', 'flat Bearing', and another issue involving Fusion and potentially Zeta in the future.

Banned:

The non-rubber parts of the primary contact point of the driver have been significant worn down to cause a change in performance. If a specific mode on a driver would violate this rule, the user may continue to use that driver without using that mode.

This rule would ban excessive wear on the plastic contact points of drivers, which would ban 'flat Mobius' and 'flat Bearing'. This would also ban wearing down Fusion to the point where the nub on the bottom is gone, making it play like Accel. While it hasn't happened yet, this would also ban wearing the nub down on Zeta to also make it play like Accel. In addition, the last clause would it make it so if the flat spike mode on Zeta was excessively worn (without violating the other two rules), the other modes of Zeta could still be used.

The term "non-rubber" is used as rubber on drivers wears down a lot quicker (otherwise many well used Xtreme drivers could be banned), and in some cases it is desired to be worn down like on Unite.

I'm not sure about the Variable driver. Its contact point doesn't seem like plastic, but I cannot tell if it is just a hard rubber. (TrainiacJ seems to confirm Variable and Evolution to have rubber tips.)

---

Second Proposal

Back to my definition on breakage when it comes to layers:

Breakage (for layers) should be ruled as wear that modifies contact points in an unintended manner, changes the structure of the layer, or would pose a risk to the opponent and/or their bey.

A definition like this would cover most cases, including the case of Hercules H4. The part of H4 that breaks off doesn't modify the contact points of the layer, the structure of the layer is still intact, and no risk is posed to the opponent and/or their bey.

The term "unintended" is used for modifying contact points because the Imperial layer bases intentionally has its contact points modified, and it can be assumed that there is a degree of intended wear for rubber contact points on layers.

Some examples for this rule: If a blade breaks off or it belt out of shape, that would be both the unintended modification of a contact point and a change in the layer's structure. If a layer had a crack through it, that would be an example of a modification in structure (the structural integrity is damaged) and a risk being posed to the opponent and/or their bey (the layer could break during battle, causing things to go flying in ways they should not). A chunk of plastic being chipped off the side of a bey is an example of modifying the contact point in an unintended manner.

---

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.

I have a question. For fusion I can understand what change in performance might look like. For something like bearing or mobius... what is the change in performance threshold?

I can't imagine that a completely flat Mobius would be controllable to any usable degree...

But then again, I could be wrong.

Regarding Driver Wear:

My quick take on this is that there's no need to be so harsh on the wear of plastic tips and it would in fact hinder the competitive viability of certain parts and ability for players to tune their combos to specific wear levels.

It would attempt to inch a game which is inherently physical and carries performance variables on various different levels closer to homogenization.

There's no reason why wear should be frowned upon for non-rubber tips. It's not in the WBBA where things like the worn Bearing, Hybrid/Ignition', etc are commonplace in high level competitive play, based on my first-hand experience in Japan at G4, G3, and G1 events.

As long as the primary point of contact remains the same as when the Driver was new (and not something like the plastic casing of Jolt' becoming the primary contact point, like our current rule states), it should be permitted even if the shape has changed.

It's Beyblade. It's physical. So, things will wear (even plastic). Allowing for wear is part of what adds greater strategic depth to the game.

One thing I will say however is that obviously, if Takara-Tomy imposes specific wear regulations for specific Drivers, it is worth it for us to consider following them. Mobius is the first example I can think of where they specifically added wear instructions and built in an indicator into the design of the part itself. This is technically not covered in our rules right now, I agree. It might need to be addressed under "Beyblade/Part-Specific Rulings", plain and simple.

---

Regarding Driver Wear:

As long as the primary point of contact remains the same as when the Driver was new (and not something like the plastic casing of Jolt' becoming the primary contact point, like our current rule states), it should be permitted even if the shape has changed.

It's Beyblade. It's physical. So, things will wear (even plastic). Allowing for wear is part of what adds greater strategic depth to the game.

One thing I will say however is that obviously, if Takara-Tomy imposes specific wear regulations for specific Drivers, it is worth it for us to consider following them. Mobius is the first example I can think of where they specifically added wear instructions and built in an indicator into the design of the part itself. This is technically not covered in our rules right now, I agree. It might need to be addressed under "Beyblade/Part-Specific Rulings", plain and simple.

Can't we just take the protrusion of Mobius as primary point of contact? Then won't the current rules still apply?

Regarding Driver Wear:

My quick take on this is that there's no need to be so harsh on the wear of plastic tips and it would in fact hinder the competitive viability of certain parts and ability for players to tune their combos to specific wear levels.

It would attempt to inch a game which is inherently physical and carries performance variables on various different levels closer to homogenization.

There's no reason why wear should be frowned upon for non-rubber tips. It's not in the WBBA where things like the worn Bearing, Hybrid/Ignition', etc are commonplace in high level competitive play, based on my first-hand experience in Japan at G4, G3, and G1 events.

As long as the primary point of contact remains the same as when the Driver was new (and not something like the plastic casing of Jolt' becoming the primary contact point, like our current rule states), it should be permitted even if the shape has changed.

It's Beyblade. It's physical. So, things will wear (even plastic). Allowing for wear is part of what adds greater strategic depth to the game.

One thing I will say however is that obviously, if Takara-Tomy imposes specific wear regulations for specific Drivers, it is worth it for us to consider following them. Mobius is the first example I can think of where they specifically added wear instructions and built in an indicator into the design of the part itself. This is technically not covered in our rules right now, I agree. It might need to be addressed under "Beyblade/Part-Specific Rulings", plain and simple.

You say certain parts would have reduced competitive viability, but you didn't name any. Bearing is competitively viable as is, and the excessively worn Bearing, 'flat Bearing', got banned in Japan. I do not know anything about a worn Hybrid or worn Ignition'.

But for a driver like Fusion, the spike is the primary point of contact, and if the spike is gone then its primary point of contact is gone. Plus plastic drivers aren't meant to have large shape alterations. In addition, this rule would actually make Fusion' more competitively viable since it would no longer need to be banned in Burst Classic (It was banned due to excessively worn Fusion' being used as Accel', another banned part).

"Allowing for wear is part of what adds greater strategic depth to the game." is a loaded statement. This post wasn't to ban any kind of part wear outright so wear still exists, and there's no mention of what changes to strategic depth would occur by banning excessive wear in your post.

A Mobius part specific ruling would not ban flat Bearing nor save Fusion' (and potentially Zeta'). A general rule is much simpler and better than a part specific rule. You haven't pointed out any specific examples where this rule has a negative impact.

---

I have a question. For fusion I can understand what change in performance might look like.  For something like bearing or mobius... what is the change in performance threshold?

I am unsure. I guess we would go with whatever the WBBA precedent for those drivers is.

---

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.

I have a question. For fusion I can understand what change in performance might look like.  For something like bearing or mobius... what is the change in performance threshold?

I am unsure. I guess we would go with whatever the WBBA precedent for those drivers is.

My concern is that rights now driver wear conveyed with photos (at least by TT/WBBA).  If we change the criteria to performance.... don’t we have to show this by videos?  

Let’s say somehow we have the resources to wear down all these drivers and make videos.  Would the judge need to test launch a driver to decide if it should be allowed?

I am unsure. I guess we would go with whatever the WBBA precedent for those drivers is.

My concern is that rights now driver wear conveyed with photos (at least by TT/WBBA).  If we change the criteria to performance.... don’t we have to show this by videos?  

Let’s say somehow we have the resources to wear down all these drivers and make videos.  Would the judge need to test launch a driver to decide if it should be allowed?

Well, instead of making your own videos, you could just cite other videos and provide your own explanation (if the video is in a non-English language).

The judge launching the driver, if they see fit to do so, can seem a bit strange. Perhaps better visual indicators can be described?

---

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.

My concern is that rights now driver wear conveyed with photos (at least by TT/WBBA).  If we change the criteria to performance.... don’t we have to show this by videos?  

Let’s say somehow we have the resources to wear down all these drivers and make videos.  Would the judge need to test launch a driver to decide if it should be allowed?

Well, instead of making your own videos, you could just cite other videos and provide your own explanation (if the video is in a non-English language).

The judge launching the driver, if they see fit to do so, can seem a bit strange. Perhaps better visual indicators can be described?

and do the judges go find and watch these videos ahead of time?  If not how do they deal with sometime questionable internet connection?  Organizers can even run challonge successfully at times.  How is this going to be done?

Regarding Driver Wear:

As long as the primary point of contact remains the same as when the Driver was new (and not something like the plastic casing of Jolt' becoming the primary contact point, like our current rule states), it should be permitted even if the shape has changed.

It's Beyblade. It's physical. So, things will wear (even plastic). Allowing for wear is part of what adds greater strategic depth to the game.

One thing I will say however is that obviously, if Takara-Tomy imposes specific wear regulations for specific Drivers, it is worth it for us to consider following them. Mobius is the first example I can think of where they specifically added wear instructions and built in an indicator into the design of the part itself. This is technically not covered in our rules right now, I agree. It might need to be addressed under "Beyblade/Part-Specific Rulings", plain and simple.

Can't we just take the protrusion of Mobius as primary point of contact? Then won't the current rules still apply?

The issue with this is that Mobius' spike isn't the only part of the driver that makes contact with the stadium. The large plate portion also makes contact quite frequently, to the point where I'd consider it to also be a "primary point of contact". Similar to drivers like Unite, Rise, Zone, Guard, etc.

Well, instead of making your own videos, you could just cite other videos and provide your own explanation (if the video is in a non-English language).

The judge launching the driver, if they see fit to do so, can seem a bit strange. Perhaps better visual indicators can be described?

and do the judges go find and watch these videos ahead of time?  If not how do they deal with sometime questionable internet connection?  Organizers can even run challonge successfully at times.  How is this going to be done?

Judges would be expected to know this ahead of time, just like any other rule.

---

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.

and do the judges go find and watch these videos ahead of time?  If not how do they deal with sometime questionable internet connection?  Organizers can even run challonge successfully at times.  How is this going to be done?

Judges would be expected to know this ahead of time, just like any other rule.

Sure, and judges are expected to refer back to the rulebook for guidance and clarification. Just as organizers are encouraged strongly to refer back to the organizer guide for the same reasons.  

Because using performance as a guide would require the judges to know how each driver performs at different stages of wear, would it not be reasonable for judges refer back to a video if we go this route?  Take for example Mb, as it gets flat, the stall time and stamina after stalling changes.  It isn’t always easy to determine without a side by side comparison.  The rulebook is commonly referred back to and there is nothing wrong with that a at all. The videos would need to be that way.  Also, at the very least, when dispute regarding the state of wear on a driver arises based on its performance, it would be prudent to check a video would it not?

it makes complete sense to banned the driver if you can't see the tip
it doesn't add up why banned flat bearing and keep mobuis UNCONCERNED
and its really hard to tell just by looking at it
I do agree with Shindog I do think we need a some type of video howsome drivers perform

so am not sure if this off topic but I seen some kids cut off there 2d chassis because they complain thats bad for same spin????
and I really can't tell if its been cut by something
but I really want the 2d see more investigation if its allowed because if kids are just cutting of the rubber and we can't tell what's the point

The problem with banning something based on performance is that it will make it very hard for judges to definitely tell if something is performing at a state where it should be banned.  Videos can help with this, but referring back to video content isn’t always feasible or practical during a tournament.  Most tournaments do have some form of “time limit” to them, whether it be hours of daylight, venue hours of operation, or rental time block restrictions.  Sometimes, park internet is just bad.  Sometimes,  some ideas are just a bit “pie In the sky. “