Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

Should this be allowed? It is the one outlier where we allow modifications that does not line up with the manafacturer's intended use case, with the other three exemptions being battling against another beyblade, launching into a stadium, and assembly/disassembly of the beyblade with other parts in the series.

The main case of this is to allow Vanguard's inner plastic portions to be bent downwards to legally increase burst resistance, but this could very easily open up to other parts - messing with the mechanism of Greatest Raphael's halo gimmick to increase its same spin potential, stretching the Vanish blade out to increase its shock absorption capabilities, bending the tabs on Ignition', Hybrid, Generate, Shot, and Almight to increase burst resistance, and so on. 

Examples of Vanguard:
Normal: https://imgur.com/9KnxpbF (from zankye)
Bent: https://imgur.com/EdQHjCV (from zankye)
Videos of what it can accomplish: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjMmIp2M...zg7G1mmGzV
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/6...4328_1.mp4
(from th!nk)

As cool as it is to see the Lightning L. Drago remake successfully fighting off Dynamite Battle competitive customs, I don't think it's worth bending the rules. 

So: should bending parts by hand count as illegal modification?

I'm gonna be honest here. I am not a fan of this rule at all.

There is a difference between natural wear and tear on a Beyblade slightly adjusting its performance (yet still remaining legal) and actually forcefully bending a piece to modify its performance--which feels wrong to me. Of course this is just how I feel but as a competitor it does not necessarily feel right to me.

If awakening drivers forcefully outside of an arena is illegal (I was told it was anyhow) then bending the tabs of Vanguard forcefully should be as well.

I agree with you here Abellia. I think it is a figurative can of worms just waiting to be opened if not handled properly. But that's just my initial knee jerk reaction. lol

---

"I have no limits..."

Spoiler (Click to View)

---

Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

Should this be allowed? It is the one outlier where we allow modifications that does not line up with the manafacturer's intended use case, with the other three exemptions being battling against another beyblade, launching into a stadium, and assembly/disassembly of the beyblade with other parts in the series.

The main case of this is to allow Vanguard's inner plastic portions to be bent downwards to legally increase burst resistance, but this could very easily open up to other parts - messing with the mechanism of Greatest Raphael's halo gimmick to increase its same spin potential, stretching the Vanish blade out to increase its shock absorption capabilities, bending the tabs on Ignition', Hybrid, Generate, Shot, and Almight to increase burst resistance, and so on. 

Examples of Vanguard:
Normal: https://imgur.com/9KnxpbF (from zankye)
Bent: https://imgur.com/EdQHjCV (from zankye)
Videos of what it can accomplish: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjMmIp2M...zg7G1mmGzV
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/6...4328_1.mp4
(from th!nk)

As cool as it is to see the Lightning L. Drago remake successfully fighting off Dynamite Battle competitive customs, I don't think it's worth bending the rules. 

So: should bending parts by hand count as illegal modification?

So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

---

Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

Should this be allowed? It is the one outlier where we allow modifications that does not line up with the manafacturer's intended use case, with the other three exemptions being battling against another beyblade, launching into a stadium, and assembly/disassembly of the beyblade with other parts in the series.

The main case of this is to allow Vanguard's inner plastic portions to be bent downwards to legally increase burst resistance, but this could very easily open up to other parts - messing with the mechanism of Greatest Raphael's halo gimmick to increase its same spin potential, stretching the Vanish blade out to increase its shock absorption capabilities, bending the tabs on Ignition', Hybrid, Generate, Shot, and Almight to increase burst resistance, and so on. 

Examples of Vanguard:
Normal: https://imgur.com/9KnxpbF (from zankye)
Bent: https://imgur.com/EdQHjCV (from zankye)
Videos of what it can accomplish: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjMmIp2M...zg7G1mmGzV
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/6...4328_1.mp4
(from th!nk)

As cool as it is to see the Lightning L. Drago remake successfully fighting off Dynamite Battle competitive customs, I don't think it's worth bending the rules. 

So: should bending parts by hand count as illegal modification?

So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

Correct. I remember when that incident happened. However, a big difference from that to this is that they was no rule allowing or not allowing that to happen at the time. This situation currently has a rule stating that it is allowed. We shouldn’t be allowing parts to be modified in anyway. A part getting a little dinged up from natural usage is fine. But it’s when you allow something to be intentionally modified that you are crossing a line. At least in my opinion anyway.

---

I do agree that this rule is not that great as it is, but I think it should only be applied to legal awakening/modifications, such as intended features (Savior rubber blades falling off) or just better performance (Mobius/Volcanic free spin getting better and perhaps Jet too? idk). Illegal awakening/modifications such as bending Vanguard, bending the spring of the driver to make it stronger, bending Paradox (since plastic), etc. should be taken as illegal even if done by hand.
That is, if I understood it correctly.

---

I'm the original creator of "Welcome to the WBO".
Rank 0 means I'm better than 1°

So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

I don’t have strong opinions on this and there is not an “I don’t have an opinion” option, so I won’t be voting.  But I would like to point out that if you follow this thread:

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-LR-Beyb...pid1760325

Ultimately, the disciplinary actions handed out was based on all the other rules that was broken to facilitate this “Hack” by an individual who should have been looked upon to help enforce the rules and fair play. Just want that to be clear.  It wasn’t that someone was disciplined for something that wasn’t clearly stated in the rulebooks.  I think that’s something that should be clarified.

While I don’t have strong feelings about this rule one way or the other. I am really impressed with what LLD was able to do. So I went back a little further. When things don’t burst… it is interesting what maybe barely viable.

https://youtu.be/VJct3zG9_NA

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

I don’t have strong opinions on this and there is not an “I don’t have an opinion” option, so I won’t be voting.  But I would like to point out that if you follow this thread:

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-LR-Beyb...pid1760325

Ultimately, the disciplinary actions handed out was based on all the other rules that was broken to facilitate this “Hack” by an individual who should have been looked upon to help enforce the rules and fair play. Just want that to be clear.  It wasn’t that someone was disciplined for something that wasn’t clearly stated in the rulebooks.  I think that’s something that should be clarified.

I am going to quote a part of that thread, a joke that was told at one point regarding bent Vanguard, and then an anecdote of what happened at the tournament. 

First the quote: "I'm just going to come out and say immediately: this may not be in our rulebooks, but it intentionally isn't because we deem it common sense." from Mana.

Now the joke (or at least I took it as such): "A new player seeing a veteran take apart their combo before the match, putting 3 tonnes of force into their disk, and then reassembling may not take so kindly to it." from Dan.

Lastly, the anecdote: "A lot of the people I played against today had no idea vanguard could even be bent" from Trsal.

Take from this what you will.

To be clear, my videos of LLD KOing DB are single rounds, it still isn't easy to do, and putting my memes aside the combination is still balanced within BGT. Extremely strong yes, but so is Judgment. LLD can work against DB stuff due to its specific shape.

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure it's that bad. Unless we get another relevant part that is also affected like this, it is limited to a single format where it doesn't appear hugely deleterious.

From a consistency perspective... Perhaps it looks a bit odd to sit there forcefully bending the tabs on a disc.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

To be clear, my videos of LLD KOing DB are single rounds, it still isn't easy to do, and putting my memes aside the combination is still balanced within BGT. Extremely strong yes, but so is Judgment. LLD can work against DB stuff due to its specific shape.

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure it's that bad. Unless we get another relevant part that is also affected like this, it is limited to a single format where it doesn't appear hugely deleterious.

From a consistency perspective... Perhaps it looks a bit odd to sit there forcefully bending the tabs on a disc.

Oh, I can think of several relevant parts that are affected like this. I hope I don't get the opportunity to abuse them.

To be clear, my videos of LLD KOing DB are single rounds, it still isn't easy to do, and putting my memes aside the combination is still balanced within BGT. Extremely strong yes, but so is Judgment. LLD can work against DB stuff due to its specific shape.

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure it's that bad. Unless we get another relevant part that is also affected like this, it is limited to a single format where it doesn't appear hugely deleterious.

From a consistency perspective... Perhaps it looks a bit odd to sit there forcefully bending the tabs on a disc.

Oh, I can think of several relevant parts that are affected like this. I hope I don't get the opportunity to abuse them.

People believe with their eyes, perhaps it is something you should abuse to make the point?

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Oh, I can think of several relevant parts that are affected like this. I hope I don't get the opportunity to abuse them.

People believe with their eyes, perhaps it is something you should abuse to make the point?

The next event is in two weeks. Also, I don't see why I should waste my own money by breaking my own parts...to prove that we shouldn't allow broken parts.

I didn't know Vanguard could be bent like that until last week myself, and I'm someone who prides himself on parts knowledge all throughout MFB and Burst. It's something that definitively provides an advantage solely to those that know the trick, and that gives me concerns about the inclusivity of the game. One of the things I do like about the WBO is its goals to include players of all ages, but is a kid going to know this? Well, you can't just test your parts and learn the trick, so probably not. It puts people at a strict disadvantage, and over something they wouldn't naturally be able to test and would likely consider damage.

Like, bending a ripcord to make it straight is one thing, you're returning it to its intended state. Even though legal, I don't see this "bent Vanguard" as an "intended state" of the Vanguard disk. It wasn't advertised at all, despite its popularity in some regions including WBBA regions and tournaments, and yet nothing tells me this was something they designed into it intentionally. I think this is mostly why I don't like it, it makes me shudder to think about these bent up disks because it feels like unnatural damage to me. I don't get this same feeling from parts like an awakened Savior, where it was advertised and made clearly intentional.

The rules already have many points about "unnatural wear" and how that is illegal, but I certainly don't see how this is any more "natural" than anything else on that list. Why is this legal to do just because you can do it by hand but all these other methods don't get that leniency? Not like a Vanguard is going to shape up like that no matter how many times you battle it.

Even more importantly, can we prove people did the modification by hand at all? What's to say they didn't stick a shaft of some kind through the center to press it in and get more leverage, and therefore more pushing force, more tab bending, and even more burst resistance from that extra bending? Unless you specifically see them do it themselves at the tournament, nothing is preventing them from circumventing this rule and using outside devices to press in the tabs instead and you probably can't even tell the difference. What about weirder changes, like digging your nails into a rubber tip to give it a spiky shape like Right Rubber Flat or something? Is this a thing we'd really allow? What about digging gouges into contact pieces to change their shape too? It's all by hand.

As I see it, it's not necessarily possible to tell a legal Vanguard from an illegal Vanguard, which leads to a lot of questions regarding whether this rule is actually properly enforceable. If it isn't, then anyone can claim they did it by hand and just about get away with anything without evidence to the contrary. That segues right into the concerns above about this rule not being future-proofed in the slightest. I don't think Bent Vanguard is the worst thing to come out of this (despite how soul-crushing I find the practice), but who knows, maybe wearing down something else by hand might eventually break the game somewhere down the line. It feels like something that is just waiting to be exploited in a less friendly way.

---

Vanguard may be the poster child of this rule dispute, but it's really not about Vanguard at all. It's about an issue in rule enforcement, what "natural wear" really is, the nearly undiscoverable word-of-mouth knowledge gap it can bring into the game, and the potential loopholes it may create for the future. These are the real issues for debate here.

---

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...

A basic list of potentially abusable parts and how to abuse them:
Greatest Raphael: Abusable by tampering with halo mechanisms in order to keep the halo from ever coming up, preserving the higher outwards weight distribution of the initial state of the layer.
Vanish blade: Abusable by intentionally deforming the blade to amplify its characteristics – mainly, stretching out the “pockets” of the blade to increase the shock absorption capabilities.
All discs, but mostly the fused disc drivers: Abusable by bending the tabs outwards to make contact with either the layer or to increase contact with burst stoppers on existing parts, i.e. Judgement. Obviously much easier with fused disc drivers than with regular discs with metal tabs, but still possible and still cause for concern.
Drivers: Abusable by using your hands to stretch out the spring. No rules currently disqualify the disassembly and reassembly of parts from being used in WBO events (and frankly I think it’s stupid that we have to think about such a rule to prevent such blatant cheating) and thus, it is legal to disassemble a driver, pull out the string to increase burst resistance, and reassemble the driver so long as no damage is done to the casing or the rivets of the driver. A bit of a stretch for whether or not someone would go to the effort, but absolutely doable and one of the most obnoxious ways to abuse the rule.
Hasbro layers: “The slopes on Hasbro Energy Layers that have played with Takara-Tomy Drivers inevitably are damaged, increasing their burst resistance illegally.” This says nothing about pressing into the plastic on Hasbro energy layers with your nails to create the same effect.
Infinite lock layer system layers: Similar to Hasbro energy layers, you can decrease the frequency of their staggers by using your hands to create unevenness on the slopes of the layer.
I’m sure there are many other smaller examples that I have not thought of. It’s also worth mentioning that these are the examples for just Burst. Fundamentally, the rule's gotta go, as funny as LLD is.

I don't see the Greatest Raphael change even being good. The shape would be worse, and you don't lose any energy by making the halo rise. If anything it simply doesn't slow down as much for a short while, the same way you'd speed up by tucking your arms in if you were spinning in a chair. Momentum must be conserved, and the only thing that ultimately changes is wind resistance.

Vanish could definitely be deformed, and some of those may allow for illegal applications of things such as the L Gear. Of course that would be illegal for other reasons already, so it's already stopped in its tracks there, but other rubber parts could be changed on all sorts of beys.

Have never seen anyone bend the tabs of the disks like that. Weird, unsure how possible this really is without tools.

Opening a driver without breaking it completely is nearly impossible and would certainly need tools, and quite frankly it would be nearly undetectable even if it did happen if it was done well.

Hasbro layers with teeth???

Not sure it would work as well for the Mugen Locks though, their mechanism is a little more complicated.

But yeah, a lot could be done.

---

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...

A basic list of potentially abusable parts and how to abuse them:
Greatest Raphael: Abusable by tampering with halo mechanisms in order to keep the halo from ever coming up, preserving the higher outwards weight distribution of the initial state of the layer.
Vanish blade: Abusable by intentionally deforming the blade to amplify its characteristics – mainly, stretching out the “pockets” of the blade to increase the shock absorption capabilities.
All discs, but mostly the fused disc drivers: Abusable by bending the tabs outwards to make contact with either the layer or to increase contact with burst stoppers on existing parts, i.e. Judgement. Obviously much easier with fused disc drivers than with regular discs with metal tabs, but still possible and still cause for concern.
Drivers: Abusable by using your hands to stretch out the spring. No rules currently disqualify the disassembly and reassembly of parts from being used in WBO events (and frankly I think it’s stupid that we have to think about such a rule to prevent such blatant cheating) and thus, it is legal to disassemble a driver, pull out the string to increase burst resistance, and reassemble the driver so long as no damage is done to the casing or the rivets of the driver. A bit of a stretch for whether or not someone would go to the effort, but absolutely doable and one of the most obnoxious ways to abuse the rule.
Hasbro layers: “The slopes on Hasbro Energy Layers that have played with Takara-Tomy Drivers inevitably are damaged, increasing their burst resistance illegally.” This says nothing about pressing into the plastic on Hasbro energy layers with your nails to create the same effect.
Infinite lock layer system layers: Similar to Hasbro energy layers, you can decrease the frequency of their staggers by using your hands to create unevenness on the slopes of the layer.
I’m sure there are many other smaller examples that I have not thought of. It’s also worth mentioning that these are the examples for just Burst. Fundamentally, the rule's gotta go, as funny as LLD is.

I would like to add a new part to this: S gear may apparently be abusable in the opposite way from Vanguard, where the gear pushes into the layer and makes the driver compress further as a result rather than the tabs pressing into the driver.

I would like to add a new part to this: S gear may apparently be abusable in the opposite way from Vanguard, where the gear pushes into the layer and makes the driver compress further as a result rather than the tabs pressing into the driver.

If anything this pushes the driver and the driver's locking cap further away from the teeth, resulting in less tooth contact and therefore reduced burst resistance. In fact, I sometimes pull downwards on the disk like that to disassemble beys more easily and reduce tooth wear. This isn't just not abuse, it's actively worsening your combination's burst resistance to attempt this unless the friction of the S Gear itself on the layer makes up for that which is possibly feasible... except I don't think this is actually possible at all.

The S Gear is textured in a way where the gaps in it act as reinforcement points, preventing it from being misshapen past a certain point. Vanguard's centerpiece doesn't have any kind of reinforcement so it can be bent, S Gear is just too heavily reinforced to be bent by hand enough to actually pull this effect off. You can flex it just about enough to actually add or remove it from the disk, but not any more than that. Anything further is either going to take weightlifter type strength to accomplish, make the gear fit unusually on the disk, or simply break the S Gear entirely.

Let's try to keep to the actually realistic methods of modification, because this just isn't reasonable to do at all, by hand or not.

---

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 think it should be banned but some stuff should be allowed, I think bent vanguard is ok, bans shouldn't be secular in nature but ratheer moe specific in my opinion

This is also not a huge deal at this specific moment. For as much as I would like a more future-proofed version of this rule, there's bigger issues with other rules that should be focused down first. The "Spinning" definition is a far bigger rule that needs revision due to the extra confusion and ties it creates, this is a rule with the potential for abuse but few people that are so gutsy, creative enough, and willing to risk punishment to do so.

We need to prioritize bigger issues first, and this is just not a huge problem at the moment to warrant bringing it back up again. The message has been gotten across. We don't need to hear it a ton more, especially with attempts to force it into becoming an issue where it's currently not. Bringing up more ways it can potentially cause issues is basically trying to undermine fair play in an attempt to get a relatively small problem fixed faster, and that's just not worth it.

---

I think it should be banned but some stuff should be allowed, I think bent vanguard is ok, bans shouldn't be secular in nature but ratheer moe specific in my opinion

More specific bans means more stuff to read and memorize, which is itself not something we want to do if we can avoid it. The less we have to go part-by-part, the easier it is to digest the rule.

---

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 would like to add a new part to this: S gear may apparently be abusable in the opposite way from Vanguard, where the gear pushes into the layer and makes the driver compress further as a result rather than the tabs pressing into the driver.

If anything this pushes the driver and the driver's locking cap further away from the teeth, resulting in less tooth contact and therefore reduced burst resistance. In fact, I sometimes pull downwards on the disk like that to disassemble beys more easily and reduce tooth wear. This isn't just not abuse, it's actively worsening your combination's burst resistance to attempt this unless the friction of the S Gear itself on the layer makes up for that which is possibly feasible... except I don't think this is actually possible at all.

The S Gear is textured in a way where the gaps in it act as reinforcement points, preventing it from being misshapen past a certain point. Vanguard's centerpiece doesn't have any kind of reinforcement so it can be bent, S Gear is just too heavily reinforced to be bent by hand enough to actually pull this effect off. You can flex it just about enough to actually add or remove it from the disk, but not any more than that. Anything further is either going to take weightlifter type strength to accomplish, make the gear fit unusually on the disk, or simply break the S Gear entirely.

Let's try to keep to the actually realistic methods of modification, because this just isn't reasonable to do at all, by hand or not.

What? The tabs on bentguard push into the driver as well, making the spring compress further. Bentxus+s works the same way, making the driver compress further. Believe me when I say, it works. I will make no comment on whether or not is is possible.

What? The tabs on bentguard push into the driver as well, making the spring compress further. Bentxus+s works the same way, making the driver compress further. Believe me when I say, it works. I will make no comment on whether or not is is possible.

I don't think you understand at all why Vanbent works. How much the driver spring is compressed is meaningless when the body of the driver is being pushed further downward, and therefore you can actually touch less of the teeth. Spring compression is not what makes it tighter, the spring really can't go much further down anyways before it hits its maximum limit. It's direct disk-on-layer friction and pressure from the tabs pushing the entire disk upward that makes Vanbent so resistant to budging. It's all Vanguard's flat surface suddenly becoming a pancake topped by a layer that has proven so powerful.

Nexus+S would have to bend enough for it to catch on the layer to accomplish this, wouldn't be able to free-spin if it did and thus would only work for attack, and is still probably too tough to actually bend enough to accomplish this. It's not reasonably possible, and it's not worth trying to break the game with it even if it is.

Please, stop trying to suggest that people try to abuse a rule just because it's not well thought out or future proofed. That's going to be less healthy for the community than the bad rule itself, and your posts are starting to turn into an idea board on how to exploit it. Time will see it changed. Let that happen naturally.

---

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...

What? The tabs on bentguard push into the driver as well, making the spring compress further. Bentxus+s works the same way, making the driver compress further. Believe me when I say, it works. I will make no comment on whether or not is is possible.

I don't think you understand at all why Vanbent works. How much the driver spring is compressed is meaningless when the body of the driver is being pushed further downward, and therefore you can actually touch less of the teeth. Spring compression is not what makes it tighter, the spring really can't go much further down anyways before it hits its maximum limit. It's direct disk-on-layer friction and pressure from the tabs pushing the entire disk upward that makes Vanbent so resistant to budging. It's all Vanguard's flat surface suddenly becoming a pancake topped by a layer that has proven so powerful.

Nexus+S would have to bend enough for it to catch on the layer to accomplish this, wouldn't be able to free-spin if it did and thus would only work for attack, and is still probably too tough to actually bend enough to accomplish this. It's not reasonably possible, and it's not worth trying to break the game with it even if it is.

Please, stop trying to suggest that people try to abuse a rule just because it's not well thought out or future proofed. That's going to be less healthy for the community than the bad rule itself, and your posts are starting to turn into an idea board on how to exploit it. Time will see it changed. Let that happen naturally.

Sure, I understand how bent vanguard works, but what you have described is exactly how bent nexus+s works. Also, I don't see how having and stating ideas for how one could potentially use parts is unhealthy for a community. The meta develops, after all. I am not suggesting that people try to abuse a rule. I am suggesting that under the rule, a part might have a new use. It is simply my personal opinion that the use of the rule amounts to cheating and thus I call it abuse, but realistically? It's just using the part.

Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

What is the initial intent behind this rule?  Can anyone chime in here.  I could see this rule written to prevent someone's part being banned for small variations. Like rubber bits on layers.

Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

What is the initial intent behind this rule?  Can anyone chime in here.  I could see this rule written to prevent someone's part being banned for small variations. Like rubber bits on layers.

The primary reason behind it, as far as I know, is to allow what the wbba does where they bend Vanguard's tabs downwards to increase burst resistance.

You see, we are not the wbba.