BBR Recommended Rule List v2.0 & General Ruleset Discussion

[Crystanium]

Never mind my question. I know the answer now.

 

[infomon]

A ganoncide does go to sudden death based on controller port... usually. In special cases (against certain chars or from very high up) Ganon outright loses.

I'm not convinced.

 

[TP]

We have spent the last week discussing the outcome of a ganoncide over at the Ganon board. It appears that the result is based on the height Ganon is from the blast zone at the start. However, there is not a set line dividing the sudden death area and the loss area (this is all assuming you are controller port 1, you always lose if you have the higher controller port to my knowledge). The result varies like a vertical sine function. If you are 9 Ganons from the bottom, you may go to sudden death, but you will lose if you are 8 or 10 Ganons from the bottom. Note that as far as I can tell NOBODY can accurately control these results, because it seems that the variance is based on very small changes in height. Like, it might be a matter of pixels that determines the results. If so, it is unrealistic to call the outcome controllable at all. Therefore, a ruling should be made to make the results not based on luck.

Others feel differently, however. Check out the Ganon board for more info.

 

[Dark Volt]

What the hell is wrong with Distant Planet that it would even be considered for a ban?

Don't mind the rain, flower items, giant man-eating bug and the overall miniscule terrain. It's the definition of a banned stage.

 

[Kinzer]

No, the definition is reserved for Spear Pillar.

Distant Planet does in no way fill the criteria for a stage to be banned.

 

[TP]

Attention everyone!

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqspGnTl_tQ

As you can see, the player has no control over the outcome of a Ganoncide. Two things determine the results: controller port and luck. Neither should be a factor in competitive play, and thus an official ruling is required.

 

[GogglesVK]

Was Eldin banned just because of the walk off edges? Because the hazard on that level is nothing, really.

 

[Zeruel21]

Eldin also has serious camping issues due to its size. Projectile spammers have a major advantage there, and weakened combatants will simply run towards the edge and wait for an easy KO. It's kind of like Mario Circuit, but with a less pronounced camping effect.

 

[GogglesVK]

Eldin also has serious camping issues due to its size. Projectile spammers have a major advantage there, and weakened combatants will simply run towards the edge and wait for an easy KO. It's kind of like Mario Circuit, but with a less pronounced camping effect.

Ahh, that makes more sense, although I really do love that level (probably because I 'm a crappy Olimar camper).

VKedit: Although maybe it should be a CP/B?

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I have a somewhat minor complaint.

There is no mention of factors outside of the game being banned, such as people yelling during CGs to mess up timing. This hasn't been a problem since everybody still assumes it's banned and will stop doing something like yelling if I warn them not to, but it would be nice to have outside distractions explicitly banned.

 

[GogglesVK]

I have a somewhat minor complaint.

There is no mention of factors outside of the game being banned, such as people yelling during CGs to mess up timing. This hasn't been a problem since everybody still assumes it's banned and will stop doing something like yelling if I warn them not to, but it would be nice to have outside distractions explicitly banned.

Well, chaingrabbing is pretty gay, anyways. But yeah, if someone is yelling during a match, just kick them out. We shouldn't have to put that in the rules, its common courtesy.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Yeah, I'm probably being paranoid.

 

[KillL0ck]

So why exactly do Dedecide/ Kirbycide and Ganoncide not count as a win like Bowser's? Just curious.

 

[Kuraudo]

Randomness, Jack. But allow me to shed some light on this. Mark my words, Dededecide and the works WILL be allowed by the time I'm through convincing. Controller Port/Luck/Etc. determine a Dededecide, correct?

The reasons for banning the Dededecide was because the outcome was random. Either the Dedede will win, it'll go Sudden Death, or the opponent could win. Apparently decided by controller slots too. But that's not good enough. Here's the way that I see it.

KillLock and I played a set recently where I tried performing Dededecide. But he broke out of it and I fell to my inevitable death. That was his win because he broke free. Any other time, that was my victory because he was stuck. If Bowsercide is allowed, and Ganoncide is debatable, because they give the win because of a suicide/sudden death. The reason WHY? It's because the player innitiated it and got the double kill personally. That's EXACTLY what the Dedede and Kirby are doing too! The only difference is that for some strange *** reason, it's random who dies first when inside Dedede's belly. The fact of the matter is that they BOTH died if the opponent didn't break away. Therefore, should be treated as legal as a Bowsercide is because they innitiated the move, and succeeded in following through on it. Hell. The opponent can battle a Bowsercide just as much as a Dededecide.

At least with Ganoncide if you get stuck you have NO CHANCE.

It's a move that's innitiated. It's just the game's ******* controller port option as to who dies first, second, or ties with on a move where both die at the EXACT same time like a suicide. Unlike the Snake Grenade trick (controller ports and all), this is a move that means 100% imminent death unless battled. Like ANY other suicide move.

Taking a conversation between myself and SuPeRbOoM on the topic,

--

SuPeRbOoM says:

other than the gay factor
the random reasoning is pretty legit reason
like if the person does the suicide
it SHOULD result in a tie

Kuraudo says:

Yeah, it should. And from when I've played, it always did. (going into a sudden death)
Whenever it goes either way though, should be ignored.
They ended the match on THEIR move like a Bowser or Ganon would.
And has the exact same result as their moves.

SuPeRbOoM says:

but also
ill have to side with you as well
cause its the suicider's choice

Kuraudo says:

Yeah.
And the suicider is at fault if the opponent breaks free.
Like KillLock did.
They're ALWAYS taking a risk with the suicide.
Unlike Kirby who can recover if they break free?
D3 can't.
He's one of the fastest fallers in the game.
NO chance.

SuPeRbOoM says:

as for both people dying
I think it should count as tie though
1 stock replay
you know what would be funny?
if it did go into 1 stock replay
and the guy suicides again
LOL

Kuraudo says:

The reason why I personally disagree with that is because it all ends the same way. But I see your understanding too.
I'd say this.
If that happened.
"THIS IS WHAT YOU GET YOU ****** OF A RULE!"

SuPeRbOoM says:

haha
1 stock replay

Kuraudo says:

Do it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.

SuPeRbOoM says:

LOL

Kuraudo says:

"Wanna make it count as a win NOW? I can ****ing do this ALL day."
XD
"My move. His failure for not breaking free. Our death in harmony. Bowsercide, Ganoncide, Kirbycide, DEDEDECIDE. I rest my ****ing case."

--

The long story short version of what I'm saying?

Who cares about the result screen going to "This game's winner is...!" or "Sudden Death!"? A controller port/quirk such as that does not belong in the ruling of banning a move or not. ESPECIALLY when you favor one over them all. It's the principle of it all, and what a suicide entails.

Bowsercide, Ganoncide, Kirbycide, Dededecide. They all end in the exact same way if they succeed, escapable or no. At the hand of the player USING it, and both characters dying at the same time. The laws of a controller port don't apply when it's the same method, different character, different move. It's the players fault if the opponent breaks out of a Dededecide or a Kirbycide. It's the player's fault if the opponent steers the Bowsercide onto solid ground instead of their imminent death. It's the player's fault if Ganoncide misses even (no escape if it hits though).

All. The exact same. You're all basing it upon a result screen and the fact that the SAME result ends differently because the game decides it as such and not the move the player used. That's senseless to me. We have one of four options here.

1; Allow ALL suicide victories, sudden death or the dictated win/lose screen resulting in a win for the one who innitiated the move and succeeded with it.

2; BAN all suicide victories altogether for cheapness and redundant desperation attempt to even the odds/end a match quickly.

3; A suicide kill/victory shall result in a new 1 stock match

4; A suicide kill/victory shall result in a TIE for that match.

I've pretty much covered up all bases with this. Thanks for all who read this. It's ridiculous that Bowsercide is allowed, and everyone else gets shafted because of some idiotic 'technicality' when they still both die at the same time.

 

[TP]

It appears that the result is based on the height Ganon is from the blast zone at the start. However, there is not a set line dividing the sudden death area and the loss area (this is all assuming you are controller port 1, you always lose if you have the higher controller port to my knowledge). The result varies like a vertical sine function. If you are 9 Ganons from the bottom, you may go to sudden death, but you will lose if you are 8 or 10 Ganons from the bottom. Note that as far as I can tell NOBODY can accurately control these results, because it seems that the variance is based on very small changes in height. Like, it might be a matter of pixels that determines the results. If so, it is unrealistic to call the outcome controllable at all.

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqspGnTl_tQ

As you can see, the player has no control over the outcome of a Ganoncide. Two things determine the results: controller port and luck. Neither should be a factor in competitive play, and thus an official ruling is required.

Just reposting this evidence to support the above argument. Between this evidence and the above speech, I don't see how this issue can get ignored any longer.

 

[infomon]

The trouble with Dededecide is that it's pretty much impossible to tell if the suicide was actually accomplished, or if the opponent broke out first.
So you can't just give it to D3.

 

[Kuraudo]

That is absolute bull****. Sorry to shoot down what you've said. But you can easily tell when they've broken out. Thanks to the new way that matches end in slow-mo, if a character breaks free, they'll break free with a high leap above. If that happened, the match would go to the one who broke free.

In theory, the Bowsercide ends with the person bodyslamming them from the top as they die. Which means that the opponent BENEATH them should die first. But it goes to Sudden Death (despite you giving the win to Bowser)

You can't honestly say that you've seen someone break out RIGHT before they die, and you NOT see them leap up from it in the slow-mo. Dededecide and Kirbycide are just as legit as a Bowsercide and a Ganoncide are.

[EDIT]

Besides, if you survived the Dededecide attempt, you wouldn't see the KO Blast Zone of the one who broke free.

 

[infomon]

Hmm, you might well be right. But I remember seeing a match where we weren't able to tell. Maybe we just weren't as observent as necessary.

What exactly determines the outcome of a D3cide? Does controller port really have anything to do with it? Does it matter based on the relative fall speeds of the characters; and if so... aren't fall speeds different for chars depending on whether or not they're visible on the screen, or in the magnifying glass off the side? (as was the case in melee) -- and if so, what effect does that have on the D3cide? What are the relative probabilities of D3-win vs. D3-lose vs tie?

Now I'm curious lol.

You're all basing it upon a result screen and the fact that the SAME result ends differently because the game decides it as such and not the move the player used. That's senseless to me.

I guess this is where I disagree with your perspective (I don't yet have an opinion about what the ruling on these suicides should be). I don't care what would have made sense for the game to do, I care what it actually does. Suppose D3cide ended 50% win for D3, 50% loss for D3. That's D3's choice for using the move; he knew the odds, it's his own fault if the game gives him the loss. Stochastic factors exist in this game; we don't just give G&W a win because his hammer randomly could have been a 9 when it comes out a 1. (bad example I know)

Sudden Death cannot be tolerated in tournament play, so we must decide a workaround for it. Since Bowser's suicide will ONLY result in sudden-death due to controller port, and in all other cases give the win to Bowser, we decide that Bowser wins. But if the game's natural way of balancing a Ganon side-B is to have it sometimes count as a loss for Ganon, it's not really up to us to decide "oh but that's dumb let's pretend it didn't happen".

I guess I'm currently of the opinion: give Bowsercide to Bowser, and in all other cases revert a Sudden Death to a 1-stock "overtime game". But that's just a patch until I understand the other suicides in case they're exceptional like Bowser's.

Edit:

Besides, if you survived the Dededecide attempt, you wouldn't see the KO Blast Zone of the one who broke free.

Not necessarily; you might both die, just one dies first. Unless it's impossible to break from a D3cide and be close to a killzone? idk.

 

[Kuraudo]

Hard for me to fathom that it even needs to be discussed still. Simply put, we're letting a game where there's random tripping dictate for us who wins and who loses based upon some choice factors of the game itself rather then the moves that we ourselves innitiate. A suicide is a suicide, and an attempt on it resulting in victory is all the same.

It's as simple as this. If the opponent breaks free, it's a loss for the one who tried it in the first place. If they don't and they both die at the same time? Treated the same as a Bowsercide where they both die at the same time. Everyone is making this far more difficult then it has to be, in my opinion.

And no, you lose a life when the blast is seen. No one lives without a blast zone if they both "die" at the same time.

 

[infomon]

I'm talking about the situation where the victim breaks free while they're both off screen, and they both hit the blastzone, but not at the same time. That is, someone hits the blastzone a fraction of a second after "GAME" is called, and the game's in slow-mo. It will call it as a win for somebody. I recall it being hard to tell if someone had actually broken out of the D3cide or not. I could be mistaken though.

But yes, this game employs probabilistic factors, which must necessarily be involved in your decision-making process as you play it. If you decide to do something risky (like.... starting a dash ) then you are to blame for the consequences. D3cide is one player intentionally initiating a gamble. I don't care if it's more "fair" for them to win; then we wouldn't be playing Brawl, we'd be playing Brawl-with-made-up-rules. IMO.

 

[Kuraudo]

As far as I can recall, as a Dedede secondary, it's extremely difficult to break free from his suicide. Because they stay in there for a while COUPLED with his extreme fastfalling. It's simple to see when they survive. And if they do survive? The win obviously goes to the one who broke free. ^^ Simple as that.

But when the suicide succeeds, it needs to be treated equally like a Bowsercide. We started playing Brawl-with-made-up-rules when we put limitations on stages, and moves such as Dedede's infinite chaingrab, and even some bans on IC's CG. Even before when everyone was in the craze of banning MK.

Really, what I'm hoping for in the end with the light I've shed on the situation, is equality for all players with the suicide option. For me, I feel that it's either all suicides are allowed, or no suicides are allowed as victory-claiming moves. There's not much else I can say without repeating myself, and it'd get redundant, so in the end it's up to people to listen to both sides and chip in.

...

Have I mentioned that I haven't had a friendly debate in a long time? This is awesome! LOL

 

[infomon]

yes, debating ftw

As far as I can recall, as a Dedede secondary, it's extremely difficult to break free from his suicide. Because they stay in there for a while COUPLED with his extreme fastfalling. It's simple to see when they survive. And if they do survive? The win obviously goes to the one who broke free. ^^ Simple as that.

OK, I'll just need proof that it will always be easy enough to tell that disputes won't break out at tournaments. Remember that the vast majority of tourneys do not have staff at each setup, so both players will need to agree on the outcome for the match to be valid.

We started playing Brawl-with-made-up-rules when we put limitations on stages, and moves such as Dedede's infinite chaingrab, and even some bans on IC's CG. Even before when everyone was in the craze of banning MK.

We put the bare minimum of stage/character bans required to make the game playable at a competitive level; degenerate techniques such as circle-camping must be removed where it breaks the game. There should be no bans on any infinites in Brawl because none have been proven to be game-breaking. In fact if D3's standing chaingrab is actually broken, then D3 should be banned, rather than place arbitrary restrictions on how a D3 should be allowed to play the game. Sadly, the vast majority of Brawl TO's are ban-happy in the interest of pleasing whiny+vocal players. I see this as a scrub movement in the Brawl community, heavily exemplified by the ban-MK madness.

Really, what I'm hoping for in the end with the light I've shed on the situation, is equality for all players with the suicide option. For me, I feel that it's either all suicides are allowed, or no suicides are allowed as victory-claiming moves.

Your complaint is one for Sakurai, not for the SBR/TOs. I could say "there should be equality in this game, so let's patch the game to make Ganondorf a better character" but then we're not playing Brawl. Also, your terminology is a little wrong; it's not about "suicides are allowed as victory-claiming moves", it's about us arbitrarily deciding "the game says DeDeDe lost, but we think he deserved to win instead!" So I guess "give all suicide wins to the attacker".

Just IMO.

 

[Kuraudo]

Well, everytime I go D3, I'll have someone watching the match just to make sure. I can do that. Everyone else should as well, so that we get a better look at this. I haven't seen much of a dispute in tournaments on the Dededecide issue, personally... When the rule had it that the winner was who triggered the move and succeeded, I noticed not too many people complaining. Worked like Bowser and stuff, imo. Time will tell.

And yeah, I know why there are rules and changing Brawl. LMAO I wouldn't be playing the game or placing/trying to do good if I didn't. I just used that as an example of changing the game and manipulating it already.

And yeah, I phrased that wrong. Apologies for a scattered brain. ^^; Giving all suicide wins to the attacker seems right. But if that doesn't work? I do believe that if ANYTHING all suicide wins should go to a tie breaker of a new match, one stock. Thanks for describing it better then me. XD Oh good lord though, I don't wanna relate myself to Sakurai in terms of equality. If I wanted that, MK amongst others would be gone to balance it. I'm just talking about the suicide issue and every character capable of it getting a fighting chance in tournaments.

 

[kirbycpok]

Most of the members of the SBR did not know Ganon was a playable character until this post.

LOL this is hilarious

 

[kirbycpok]

And yeah, I phrased that wrong. Apologies for a scattered brain. ^^; Giving all suicide wins to the attacker seems right. But if that doesn't work? I do believe that if ANYTHING all suicide wins should go to a tie breaker of a new match, one stock. Thanks for describing it better then me. XD Oh good lord though, I don't wanna relate myself to Sakurai in terms of equality. If I wanted that, MK amongst others would be gone to balance it. I'm just talking about the suicide issue and every character capable of it getting a fighting chance in tournaments.

giving all wins to the suicider is a completely unlegit rule, first of all a top tier, dedede, has a suicide as well as a i believe still high tier, kirby, are both capable of suiciding

ok, heres a scenario, its snake v d3 on halberd and the d3 is on last stock 130% and just killed snakes 2nd stock, if the d3 successfully suicides with a 130% dissadvantage does that seem reasonable, i believe not, also, this is the rule from another tournament series, the clash of brokeness,http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=235947, this is the exact copy of the rules

Super Smash Brothers Brawl Singles and Doubles and Low Tier

Rules


*Suicide Move Rules: (all situations are when both players are at 1 stock)
*(A)If a player successfully ends the match with either Bowser or Ganondorf's over B attack by suicide, then the player who initiated the move MUST have the advantage in Percentage to win.
*(B)If a player ends the match by swallowing with Kirby or DDD and falling off the stage and the game counts it as a tie, the player who initiated the swallow move MUST have the advantage in Percentage to win. If the player who was swallowed is shown as winning the match (in the instance the broke out right before they died which some people might not notice), then they win.
* In both cases, if the person Initiating the Suicide Move is Losing in Percentage, that person Loses the Match.

thats my insight on the suicidde rule

 

[Kamikaze*]

This is bull****. All the stages that make you show skill in the game are banned. The ones where characters have a slight advantage are in. They left this to "pro" gamers to choose, eh? Pretty obvious. ¬_¬

I lol'd. Skill is shown by what the player can do. Not how well you can run away from stupid **** that kills you.

 

[infomon]

If you can't avoid obvious stage hazards then that definitely shows you lack skill.

You lack skill.

 

[Fenrir VII]

I have a new rule to consider here...

Brawl allows players to put a % handicap on any character, so that they start with a certain %, rather than 0. For instance, I could set it up so that I always started at 30%...

Should this be allowed in tournament?


Hear me out.. While it would seem to be a disadvantage for yourself to put on a handicap... it would also allow certain characters to do better in hard matchups.

Wolf could put a 45% handicap against Falco so he couldn't be CG spiked... and that match would actually be a pretty good one... rather than having Wolf instantly lose to Falco.

Another Example, Fox could set his handicap to 60% (which is scary high for him, since he's so light) to avoid a Pikachu CG doing 80-90% ....

See the logic?

Basically, I don't see how this would be unfair, since whichever player puts on the handicap will start at a higher %, and thus be easier to kill by normal means (Fox at 60% means Pika gets a bonus without even having to land the CG). And their opponent will still be at 0% to start... meaning they have to work harder to put on % and kill than their opponent does.


I certainly don't think this should be mandatory, but I think a player should be able to put a handicap on himself in any tournament match. thoughts?

 

[Stealth Raptor]

i completely agree. i hate having to cg foxes all day long in tourney (its so gay lol) so i am in support of this

 

[Zeton]

Think of the new arsenal of meta game would unlock due to those 1 factor victories being eliminated...

 

[bigman40]

I would like to see it happen. It definitely sounds like an interesting idea.

 

[Zephil]

this make more fair some matchups and makes some almost impossible matchups more even... it would also make people not depend so much on a cg

 

[infomon]

Think of the new arsenal of meta game would unlock due to those 1 factor victories being eliminated...

And think of the meta game it would arbitrarily eliminate.

I don't get it. Are you talking about someone willingly placing the handicap on themselves to make up for their fear of getting grabbed at low %?

I suppose some TOs would allow this if the opponent (ie. the chaingrabber) is willing. But it shouldn't be allowed without their permission IMO.

The solution, of course, is to not get grabbed.
And what the heck would you do in Falco vs. Falco?

 

[choknater]

can't we just wait until some pikachu player does crazy infinites to win a tournament before we make silly handicaps and rules to compensate for cgers?

ic's mains have been winning tournys, but they still lose... gosh people will always think infinites are broken lol

 

[infomon]

can't we just wait until some pikachu player does crazy infinites to win a tournament before we make silly handicaps and rules to compensate for cgers?

ic's mains have been winning tournys, but they still lose... gosh people will always think infinites are broken lol

Hurrah, intelligence! we has foundzzzzzd

 

[Zephil]

can't we just wait until some pikachu player does crazy infinites to win a tournament before we make silly handicaps and rules to compensate for cgers?

ic's mains have been winning tournys, but they still lose... gosh people will always think infinites are broken lol

ic´s is a special case as even the greatest IC´s players make mistakes in their cg and also the grab range of IC is the WORST in brawl. This is the opposite with DDD that has of the most large grabs range so is harder for them to make a mistake and stop the infinite... really is nice to say to don´t be afraid of infinites when your main don´t suffer of an infinite... poor marios, DKs, Samus, etc... not even fox because pika cg is not infinite so he still have a little chance to win, the chars I mentioned before don`t have that chance... anyways that´s not this topic...

the handicap would be a great option for chars that suffer of long cgs or glitches that make some matchups almost impossible to win

This option would force some chars to find new metagames or other options against some chars and this would not exactly influence in the tier list... falco don´t depend in his cg, he still is amazing without cg, pikachu would still be very dangerous without chain grabbing to 80% fox or wolf... so I think is not a rule that would cause an enormous impact in tourneys but is very useful to some chars that were unlucy with the glitches of the game... is unfair to allow all the advantages that some chars have with their glitches when other chars suffer from this advantages, this rule would allow more interesting matches and would make tourney players to take more seriously some matchups instead of depending completely of a glitch.

 

[Fenrir VII]

And think of the meta game it would arbitrarily eliminate.

I don't get it. Are you talking about someone willingly placing the handicap on themselves to make up for their fear of getting grabbed at low %?

I suppose some TOs would allow this if the opponent (ie. the chaingrabber) is willing. But it shouldn't be allowed without their permission IMO.

The solution, of course, is to not get grabbed.
And what the heck would you do in Falco vs. Falco?

Yes... the player would put a handicap on their own character.
The only metagame this would eliminate is Falco CG spiking everybody, which has mainly been eliminated, in part, with proper wall teching and such. Falco doesn't only rely on that, as it is, so I can hardly thing that it would hurt him all THAT much... especially if his opponent gives him a free 45% lead, he can legitimately camp the whole time, really...

Falco vs Falco... either player could put it on, if they wanted...

can't we just wait until some pikachu player does crazy infinites to win a tournament before we make silly handicaps and rules to compensate for cgers?

ic's mains have been winning tournys, but they still lose... gosh people will always think infinites are broken lol

Well see.. I don't see how this would really be all that bad. It's not like we're in favor of banning CGs or anything... we would be giving our opponents an extra % lead here... so it wouldn't change anything too drastically...

"ic's mains have been winning tournys, but they still lose" wha?
IC's have nothing really to do with this... but you kinda contradicted yourself there...
I just think it would be an interesting rule to have in place.

 

[BStans]

For the stages that are listed under the counter-pick/banned section, how do you determine which category they fall under? Because I know Deva picks Norfair, but its under this category. Does that mean ALL stages are counter-pick OR ALL banned? I want to make sure I'm practicing on all the stages that are going to be an option in a big tournament. Thanks!

 

[Browny]

So I hear all this talk about how metas 'infinite cape glitch' is banned

but how about when not used as an infinite? Say for example MK is on the ledge on battlefield. Snake has a landmine on the platform, c4 behind him, spamming usmash and his utilt is ready to punish any attempt to get back on the stage. Is it completely banned for me to drop off the ledge, go slightly above it offstage and cape into the ground near snake and just extend the cape to the other side of the stage to avoid all the explosions and tilts?

I just think the ruling of 'his infinite cape glitch' needs to be a lot more specific. Since its entirely possible to extend the cape without ever being infinite. If I didnt know all these rules and a TO told me that infinite cape is banned I would think thats the same as a wall infinite or something.

 

[infomon]

djb: If you want to argue that the dimensional cape glitch should be tolerated (or at least considered for non-banworthiness) in the case that it is not used to stall (which is against the rules anyway), you'll hit two problems:

1. Enforceability. We'd have to come up with some way to restrict the cape, ie. arbitrarily limit the amount that one can stay invincible/invisible with it. So that there is a clear distinction between "stalling" and "just putting myself in a better position with respect to the stage and/or timer (lol)". Judges would have to be present at all matches and be ready with timers for the moment an MK starts the down-B.
2. It is very likely that even if the cape is not used to stall for long periods of time, that it still breaks the game... ie. degenerates the game to a matter of who gets first damage in MK dittos.

Just IMO