Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[Hitman JT]

What more points do you need other than the bare facts:

-You make a mistake in my face
-I punish you with a command grab
-you die as a result

Just use any amount of logic and there is no way you can justify making the other person the winner for that chain of events. If you're all about playing the game as it stands, Bowsers side-b stands as a move where you can take people off the stage.

That would be fair, yes, but life isn't fair and the game makes it clear that it wants Bowser to lose. If we went around making arbitrary rules for everything that's "logical" and should happen then we wouldn't be playing Sm4sh anymore...as much as it pains me to **** on my favorite character and not be able to back up Ziggy on the issue since Ziggy's awesome.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Just to reiterate, the OP's issue is only tangentially-related to the Suicide Clause and just an injustice no matter what way you slice it.

TO: "Do the thing."
OP: *does the thing*
TO: "Nm you lose LOL."

Ain't nobody who thinks that's nothing but a raw deal.

 

[deepseadiva]

...as much as it pains me to **** on my favorite character and not be able to back up Ziggy on the issue since Ziggy's awesome.

I'm 100% on board to include a Suicide Claus that includes Bowser if the reasoning is "to make Zigsta happy."

100% serious not even joking Zigsta is that much of a treasure.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

But Bowser is always stealing Peach from Mario. Why would you have sympathy for him? He's just a big mean turtle.

I once went to a local "tournament" where I was told chain-grabs were out, but the wobble was in. I didn't really find this fishy (my fault) so I went for a wobble on the first stock of the second game and lo and behold my opponent reaches over and ****s my inputs up. I paused and stared at him. Normally I would assume that kind of behavior would earn an instant disqualification, but of course the game kept going. I ended up beating him but I left the "tournament" anyway because the prize-pool was pretty much non-existent and at this time (2008) my area's only events mostly consisted of complete asswipes anyway. This kind of thing isn't (or at least I thought) a big deal anymore because people take competitive Smash more seriously. I'll take this opportunity to give yet another R.I.P. to the most kawaii couple of all time.

I genuinely feel for you and can offer you only my ~7 year old anecdote that loosely relates to your much more serious infraction.

 

[Angry Guy of DE]

Well this issue is solely due to the changes from For Glory complaints, thanks whatever patch that changed it to what it is currently.

Double check rules is all I could say especially when it applies to a viable tactic for your character.

Though who pops off by winning by suicide clause? I think the most I could do would be to look at you and be like, "Bruh"

 

[Praxis]

This logic is so stupid. Some stages declare bowser the winner and some others don't. It's stupid programming and Bowser should definitely be the winner.

There are ZERO stages that declare Bowser the winner. Some stages declare him the loser. Some go to sudden death.

The programming post patch clearly intends for Bowser to lose. People want Bowser to win regardless of the game's results out of tradition.

...But that isn't what happens. You literally self destruct and then tell me that I'm supposed to lose.

"Bare facts." lol

Those response do not really apply to the hypothetical scenario, but I suppose you have a point. I am not against learning the "intricacies" of the game myself, but it does not really make sense to forgo a logical Suicide Clause just because the game does not recognize that as a competitively viable technique. Just as it does not recognize that time-outs result in a loss. It is OUR meta-game and WE determine the rules. Not the game. Otherwise, we would most likely be playing on the default setting. But that is neither here, nor there. I understand your opinion and respect it, but at the same time, we have a Suicide Clause for a reason. There is an interest in the concept, sour grapes or not.

Okay. Then I want a rule that you win the entire match if you land a Warlock Punch. Ganondorf deserves it.

It's our metagame and our rules and we should buff bad characters by improving their bad moves, right? Makes the game more even.

 

[Patrick Ray]

If a move hits an opponent and he/she dies (and loses the game), the character who activated the killing blow should be rewarded with a win.

This is common sense and shouldn't be an issue.

Glad I have a competent TO. Keep up to good work Xyro.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it actually possible for the other character to make it back from a Bowsercide? This would make the whole suicide issue null and void, because you can't simply award someone the kill for a move that doesn't kill. The pre-patch Klaw actually let Bowser jump out and make it back if he was running max distance Up-B. It seems the move's just poorly programmed.

 

[Jerodak]

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it actually possible for the other character to make it back from a Bowsercide? This would make the whole suicide issue null and void, because you can't simply award someone the kill for a move that doesn't kill. The pre-patch Klaw actually let Bowser jump out and make it back if he was running max distance Up-B. It seems the move's just poorly programmed.

Being able to escape or not is stage dependent, some stages declare the opponent the winner, others declare sudden death. The move is obviously glitched and most likely not intended to work the way that it does. It would make sense to acknowledge at least the SD situations as a win for Bowser, Isn't that the intended purpose of the clause for the other characters listed in it? Hopefully the glitch will be resolved in due time, I really have trouble imagining that the way it works currently is intentional.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Being able to escape or not is stage dependent, some stages declare the opponent the winner, others declare sudden death. The move is obviously glitched and most likely not intended to work the way that it does. It would make sense to acknowledge at least the SD situations as a win for Bowser, Isn't that the intended purpose of the clause for the other characters listed in it? Hopefully the glitch will be resolved in due time, I really have trouble imagining that the way it works currently is intentional.

Well obviously the best situation would be to make it a consistent result which always results in the death of both characters. I'd personally prefer the opponent dying before Bowser but really consistency ingame would make these rulings so much easier.

 

[Praxis]

If a move hits an opponent and he/she dies (and loses the game), the character who activated the killing blow should be rewarded with a win.

This is common sense and shouldn't be an issue.

But this isn't the situation.

The situation is that a move hits the opponent, both die, and he/she WINS the game.

In Brawl, we got in to a habit of overriding the victory screen because the game uses port priority to decide the victor. This isn't the case anymore. There isn't a justifiable argument for ignoring the victory screen in Smash 4.

If you Rest someone with Jiggs in Melee and they respawn and kill you while you're still asleep, that sucks. It's lame to get punished for hitting someone successfully in that specific situation. We wish it didn't happen. But you know what? It's how the game works, and we don't override the results screen to award the victory to someone else, as long as the game is consistent about it and players can understand the risk.

Again: If the game isn't deciding at random like Brawl did, there is no reason to declare the winner opposite of what the game says. We only need rules to handle sudden death.

 

[Praxis]

Well obviously the best situation would be to make it a consistent result which always results in the death of both characters. I'd personally prefer the opponent dying before Bowser but really consistency ingame would make these rulings so much easier.

There is semi-consistency in game.

Bowser always loses, or sudden death occurs.

A "sudden death = Bowser loss" rules creates a consistent-in-all-scenarios rule.

If Bowser wins on sudden death, then Bowser loses or wins depending on the stage. If Bowser always loses, then you know not to Bowsercide on mutual last stock because the game is consistent.

 

[Xyro77]

But this isn't the situation.

The situation is that a move hits the opponent, both die, and he/she WINS the game.

In Brawl, we got in to a habit of overriding the victory screen because the game uses port priority to decide the victor. This isn't the case anymore. There isn't a justifiable argument for ignoring the victory screen in Smash 4.

If you Rest someone with Jiggs in Melee and they respawn and kill you while you're still asleep, that sucks. It's lame to get punished for hitting someone successfully in that specific situation. We wish it didn't happen. But you know what? It's how the game works, and we don't override the results screen to award the victory to someone else, as long as the game is consistent about it and players can understand the risk.

Again: If the game isn't deciding at random like Brawl did, there is no reason to declare the winner opposite of what the game says. We only need rules to handle sudden death.

I think we might be talking about 2 different things here.

Example A:

Jiggs at 1 stock
Falcon at 2 stock
Jiggs rests falcon.
falcon dies.
falcon is at 1 stock.
falcon respawns.
jiggs is sleeping due to rest.
falcon kills jiggs while she sleeps.
falcon wins the game.

100% totally certified win for falcon. no complaints at all.


Example B:

Bowser at 1 stock
Marth at 1 stock
Bowser hits marth with Klaw
Both characters die

Bowser should get the win.

Why? Bowser initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for bowser. To disagree with this is to disagree with any character landing a kill move on any opponent. it doesnt make sense.

 

[Praxis]

I think we might be talking about 2 different things here.

Example A:

Jiggs at 1 stock
Falcon at 2 stock
Jiggs rests falcon.
falcon dies.
falcon is at 1 stock.
falcon respawns.
jiggs is sleeping due to rest.
falcon kills jiggs while she sleeps.
falcon wins the game.

100% totally certified win for falcon. no complaints at all.


Example B:

Bowser at 1 stock
Marth at 1 stock
Bowser hits marth with Klaw
Both characters die

Bowser should get the win.

Why? Bowser initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for bowser. To disagree with this is to disagree with any character landing a kill move on any opponent. it doesnt make sense.

But you're trying to invent an award for this move that doesn't exist in the game. Bowsercide is useful on first stock when you're at higher percentage than them and not at a deficit. The game rewards that.

The game does not reward Bowsercide on last stock.

Okay, better analogy.

Bowsercide is basically identical to a suicidal edgeguard that guarantees the opponent's death after you. For another Melee example, imagine Falcon going way offstage after a Falco player with an unsweetspotted knee that puts Falco too far away to recover. Falcon will die, first, but Falco dies too.

On Falcon's first stock, if he's got a higher percentage, or if he's up a stock, this is a great move.

If it's Falcon's last stock, however, it's a bad move, because he will die first (since Falco can shinestall) and the game awards him the win.

We don't award the Falcon a win for a suicidal edgeguard on last stock (even if it's a good move on the first stock!) in Melee, even if he initiated the situation.

Falcon initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for Falcon. But he knew the game would award the win to the opponent. So he should have known better.

Why would we make a rule to award Bowser the win for a suicidal finish the game tells him not to do if we don't reward people for suicidal edgeguards?


Knowing "I can't finish the last stock with a Bowsercide even if it's good on the first stock" is exactly the same as knowing "I can't finish the game with a suicidal edgeguard that kills me first even if it's good on the first stock."

 

[Xyro77]

But you're trying to invent an award for this move that doesn't exist in the game. Bowsercide is useful on first stock when you're at higher percentage than them and not at a deficit. The game rewards that.

The game does not reward Bowsercide on last stock.

Okay, better analogy.

Bowsercide is basically identical to a suicidal edgeguard that guarantees the opponent's death after you. For another Melee example, imagine Falcon going way offstage after a Falco player with an unsweetspotted knee that puts Falco too far away to recover. Falcon will die, first, but Falco dies too.

On Falcon's first stock, if he's got a higher percentage, or if he's up a stock, this is a great move.

If it's Falcon's last stock, however, it's a bad move, because he will die first (since Falco can shinestall) and the game awards him the win.

We don't award the Falcon a win for a suicidal edgeguard on last stock (even if it's a good move on the first stock!) in Melee, even if he initiated the situation.

Falcon initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for Falcon. But he knew the game would award the win to the opponent. So he should have known better.

Why would we make a rule to award Bowser the win for a suicidal finish the game tells him not to do if we don't reward people for suicidal edgeguards?


Knowing "I can't finish the last stock with a Bowsercide even if it's good on the first stock" is exactly the same as knowing "I can't finish the game with a suicidal edgeguard that kills me first even if it's good on the first stock."

I don't think it matters what the game rewards us with because we, as players/TOs, have been editing this game to where OUR rules determine the winner since smash went competitive. So why start going against this now? If we are going to do what the game says, as you suggested, then we better start doing timed matches with items because that is what the game gives us right off the bat when you begin your first time playing smash.

 

[Hitman JT]

Yeah but...the opponent can't literally drag/force you into a suicidal edgeguard. That's completely and 100% your decision

The same can't exactly be said for Bowsercide. The opponent gets grabbed? They can influence the move and force Bowser off-stage even when the initiator doesn't want that at all. Sad life

 

[Noa.]

I don't think it matters what the game rewards us with because we, as players/TOs, have been editing this game to where OUR rules determine the winner since smash went competitive. So why start going against this now? If we are going to do what the game says, as you suggested, then we better start doing timed matches with items because that is what the game gives us right off the bat when you begin your first time playing smash.

I think the fact that some characters can jump out of Bowser's side b right before they hit the blast zone makes it too difficult to enforce a suicide rule. Villager can jump out of the side b and recover to stage. It's too hard to tell if both characters died and the game decided to let Bowser lose, or if the other character jumped out of the side B and Bowser died by himself. This is also applicable for DDD, Wario, and Kirby suicides

 

[Yong Dekonk]

I feel for your situation OP, but I don't think Bowser's Koopa Claw should give you the win if you use it to suicide. Other suicide type moves are either harder to achieve or easier to break out of. They're also much more situational and not as easy to execute at low percents like Koopa claw.

 

[Cassius.]

So then what happens if we try to use side b with the intention of not going for a suicide, similar to Zigsta's situation against his second opponent? Are we just supposed to say tough ****? Too bad, guy. You're a "grappler character", you shouldn't have used your command grab/kill move when your opponent was shielding?

Especially if you're at, like, 120%, where the move would surely kill over 80% of the cast. I grab you, and surely you would die, no questions asked. In the instance that I have little or no control over the move, and we go flying off, now that counts as my loss for doing the right thing?

If you're shielding due to pressure, now we're forced to not use our command grab out of risk of that rule? The way control over the side-b works isn't as simple as it was in Brawl.

I'm curious about this now, because the move is basically useless if I'm looking at the direction this thread is heading. For now I guess it'll be the TOs discretion, but holy **** man.

 

[Noa.]

So then what happens if we try to use side b with the intention of not going for a suicide, similar to Zigsta's situation against his second opponent? Are we just supposed to say tough ****? Too bad, guy. You're a "grappler character", you shouldn't have used your command grab/kill move when your opponent was shielding?

Especially if you're at, like, 120%, where the move would surely kill over 80% of the cast. I grab you, and surely you would die, no questions asked. In the instance that I have little or no control over the move, and we go flying off, now that counts as my loss for doing the right thing?

If you're shielding due to pressure, now we're forced to not use our command grab out of risk of that rule? The way control over the side-b works isn't as simple as it was in Brawl.

I'm curious about this now, because the move is basically useless if I'm looking at the direction this thread is heading. For now I guess it'll be the TOs discretion, but holy **** man.

If you use it in the center of the stage, how far can the claw go? I was under the impression that it wouldn't be able to travel offstage from center stage, but I don't play against Bowser often. Also I'm not sure when Bowser has control of the move and when the opposing player has control of the move. It might appear random at times, but with extensive testing it might actually turn out to be based on factors that Bowser players may not be aware of at this time.

Whatever the case may be, there might just be some situations were it's bad to use Koopa Claw. Maybe the only safe time to use it is when you have a stock lead, which sucks but we can't arbitrarily buff the way a move works by manipulating the ruleset. The ruleset is meant to provide the most fair test to decide who is the better player. It shouldn't be used to balance the game.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Why? Bowser initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for bowser.

The key word is "was."

The move was patched so that it sucks now.

Adding rules to disregard balance changes is some serious poor loser stuff. I almost can't believe there's any significant amount of support for that.

 

[Flamecircle]

I think we might be talking about 2 different things here.

Example A:

Jiggs at 1 stock
Falcon at 2 stock
Jiggs rests falcon.
falcon dies.
falcon is at 1 stock.
falcon respawns.
jiggs is sleeping due to rest.
falcon kills jiggs while she sleeps.
falcon wins the game.

100% totally certified win for falcon. no complaints at all.


Example B:

Bowser at 1 stock
Marth at 1 stock
Bowser hits marth with Klaw
Both characters die

Bowser should get the win.

Why? Bowser initiated a move that was a guaranteed kill move for bowser. To disagree with this is to disagree with any character landing a kill move on any opponent. it doesnt make sense.

The difference is Marth isn't guaranteed to die. He can jump out as the last second and survive for a while, and with his dolphin jump custom even make it back to the stage.

 

[deepseadiva]

As players/TOs, have been editing this game to where OUR rules determine the winner since smash went competitive.

Those are settings. Timers, stocks, items, custom moves, are all on/off settings.

Rules like "Sudden Death is not played out" are only implemented when a draw occurs. The ONLY time we've altered who wins and who loses from what the game says was in Brawl because of port priority. And that reason no longer exists in this game.

I know that the game's result isn't "common sense" and "doesn't make sense" - but there is a serious logical mangling here and that is that your opinion of who "deserves" to win matters does not matter. At all.

A clear as crystal win/lose screen from the game is not open to debate. A win/lose screen is not open to interpretation. Who "deserves" to win does not matter and should never matter and will never matter as long as we're not playing in Xyro's mom's basement where you're also not allowed to edgegaurd probably.

 

[Morbi]

Okay. Then I want a rule that you win the entire match if you land a Warlock Punch. Ganondorf deserves it.

It's our metagame and our rules and we should buff bad characters by improving their bad moves, right? Makes the game more even.

Please, really, a straw man fallacy? I would not usually bother replying to such nonsense, but you implied that we do not make our own rules in tournament play which is utterly ridiculous. I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Sodo]

The fact that using a move, connecting, and then losing as a result boggles my mind.

I am not sure, I think of it this way: if you were to invite someone uninitiated with Smash and allow them to watch the "How to Play" video of the game. Start up a one stock match with Bowser and Mario, use his side-special and initiate a Bowsercide, and of course, subsequently turn off the television so that the victory screen does not introduce a bias. Then ask them, "who won that match." Anyone with any semblance of logic or reasoning would assert that the Bowser won the match. No question. Unless, they thought it was a trick question, I suppose.

If you were to then show them that same scenario where Bowser loses on one stage, and incites sudden death or a victory on the other. They would probably ask, "why is that?" You would not have a feasible response.

I am not sure why the victory screen is being hailed as a be all, end all indication of victory despite the notion that we all have brains and can think for ourselves.

You put it perfectly.

 

[popsofctown]

Why don't we make the rule for timeout sudden deaths and suicide move sudden deaths identical? The player with % lead wins. It's more elegant for the ruleset as a whole, and rewards the core principal of Smash that you want to build up % on your opponent. Now that I think of it it seems to make more sense than suicider always losers and suicider always wins, both.

Obviously developer intent is that Bowser loses when he Bowsercides on FD, but I can't actually give two cares about developer intent.

 

[Morbi]

Why don't we make the rule for timeout sudden deaths and suicide move sudden deaths identical? The player with % lead wins. It's more elegant for the ruleset as a whole, and rewards the core principal of Smash that you want to build up % on your opponent. Now that I think of it it seems to make more sense than suicider always losers and suicider always wins, both.

Obviously developer intent is that Bowser loses when he Bowsercides on FD, but I can't actually give two cares about developer intent.

That is an interesting premise. Basically, the player with the percent lead wins once the game ends regardless of extenuating circumstances?

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Why don't we make the rule for timeout sudden deaths and suicide move sudden deaths identical? The player with % lead wins.

If you get rid of the suicide clause, then this is what the existing rules would dictate anyway.

EDIT: Actually, wait, I'm wrong. Without a suicide clause, a suicide sudden death would be the same as a double-KO sudden death.

 

[popsofctown]

That is an interesting premise. Basically, the player with the percent lead wins once the game ends regardless of extenuating circumstances?

I'm one of those folks that insists on following the results screen whenever possible, so I'm only proposing that it dictate the winner when the suicide move causes the game to go to Sudden Death instead of the results screen.

In Brawl I Dedecided a really good player in tournament once while at twice his percent, the current rules at that time dictated that we play a 1 stock rematch. That was a poor rule because it made the tournament run up to 3 minutes longer.

 

[Morbi]

I'm one of those folks that insists on following the results screen whenever possible, so I'm only proposing that it dictate the winner when the suicide move causes the game to go to Sudden Death instead of the results screen.

In Brawl I Dedecided a really good player in tournament once while at twice his percent, the current rules at that time dictated that we play a 1 stock rematch. That was a poor rule because it made the tournament run up to 3 minutes longer.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[popsofctown]

If you get rid of the suicide clause, then this is what the existing rules would dictate anyway.

EDIT: Actually, wait, I'm wrong. Without a suicide clause, a suicide sudden death would be the same as a double-KO sudden death.

I don't see double-KO sudden death listed in the APEX rules. Technically it would seem a lawyer's reading of the APEX rules would dictate that bowsercide on a Sudden death stage or any two characters killing eachother on the same frame (would be extremely rare, and not sure if it's possible in Smash 4) is decided by the results of sudden death. Instructions to disregard Sudden Death were specifically covered in regards to timing out. Of course if that had actually happened there's a few way sthe TO would have handled it but I'm sure sudden death isn't the one he'd choose..

 

[Praxis]

Yeah but...the opponent can't literally drag/force you into a suicidal edgeguard. That's completely and 100% your decision

The same can't exactly be said for Bowsercide. The opponent gets grabbed? They can influence the move and force Bowser off-stage even when the initiator doesn't want that at all. Sad life

It's your decision to initiate the grab knowing that at the given percentage it can result in a suicide.

 

[Sodo]

It's your decision to initiate the grab knowing that at the given percentage it can result in a suicide.

I understand what you're saying, I just think the whole idea behind the clause is bonkers. Why do we count a Kirbycide, Dededecide, or Ganoncide as a win but not a Bowsercide? In my opinion make it one way or the other. Suicide initiator wins or suicide initiator loses every single time on every single stage, the outcomes have to be consistent. We can't be stuck in a gray area like "Oh well these make you win but this doesn't" or "It's okay on these stages but not these" because then you have problems like the one that began this thread. If we had it all one way or the other, the TO wouldn't have messed up. They would've known decisively that Bowser wins/loses if they use Koopa Klaw to suicide.

We can discuss this until we're blue in the face. I am all for the suicide clause, because I think it adds an element of unpredictability and excitement to a game. Winning via Kirbycide on the last stock? Priceless. I can see where some people don't like it, and that's fine. But we are here as a community to help discuss, guide, and form these rules, especially at events such as Apex where this should have never happened.

 

[Zionaze]

It's your decision to initiate the grab knowing that at the given percentage it can result in a suicide.

He initiated the grab because the TO told him it was allowed.

 

[Hitman JT]

It's your decision to initiate the grab knowing that at the given percentage it can result in a suicide.

Understood, but as it's been stated already, we don't know for sure how control over Flying Slam works. Up until now we believed that whoever had less percentage had more control, but now there are horror stories about Bowser having less percentage yet still being forced to his doom. It seems the best option for now is to not use the move at all...or just legalize customs everywhere so we can Dash Slash everything without having to worry about arbitrary bull****.

 

[Sodo]

It seems the best option for now is to not use the move at all....

Which is the point I'm using to facilitate a "pro-Bowsercide winning" argument. You basically are forced to remove 1/4 of your special moves from your arsenal as a Bowser main because you're unsure of whether or not luck will be in your favor.

or just legalize customs everywhere so we can Dash Slash everything without having to worry about arbitrary bull****.

Another prospect I'm a proponent of, but we'll save that discussion for the hundreds of other threads out there that are already delving into it.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdiTO7Aji_g

Under suicide clause logic, FOW should have won this game. After all, he initiated the killing blow. But he died first, and so he lost. Did FOW "deserve" to win this game? If you ask me, no. He got horribly unlucky with the star KO, but that's the way the game works. And it seems most people agree, because nobody has bothered to bring up "Hey, shouldn't FOW have won for initiating the killing move?" But how is this scenario any different from Bowser's scenario?

You basically are forced to remove 1/4 of your special moves from your arsenal as a Bowser main because you're unsure of whether or not luck will be in your favor.

There are plenty of characters with useless attacks. Captain Falcon has a useless neutral B, for example, and Jigglypuff has a useless up B. Bowser shouldn't get preferential treatment.

 

[bpjk27]

I understand what you're saying, I just think the whole idea behind the clause is bonkers. Why do we count a Kirbycide, Dededecide, or Ganoncide as a win but not a Bowsercide? In my opinion make it one way or the other. Suicide initiator wins or suicide initiator loses every single time on every single stage, the outcomes have to be consistent. We can't be stuck in a gray area like "Oh well these make you win but this doesn't" or "It's okay on these stages but not these" because then you have problems like the one that began this thread. If we had it all one way or the other, the TO wouldn't have messed up. They would've known decisively that Bowser wins/loses if they use Koopa Klaw to suicide.

We can discuss this until we're blue in the face. I am all for the suicide clause, because I think it adds an element of unpredictability and excitement to a game. Winning via Kirbycide on the last stock? Priceless. I can see where some people don't like it, and that's fine. But we are here as a community to help discuss, guide, and form these rules, especially at events such as Apex where this should have never happened.

With ganoncide, I think that results in a win for ganon all the time. I'm sure someone can confirm or deny this.


With Bowsercide, it seems that some stages lead to sudden death and others a loss for bowser. On stages where bowser loses, a character such as villager can actually recover easily and not be killed. I believe this is very different to ganon who will kill the villager 100% of the time with ganoncide.


With kirby and D3, I'm not sure, but some rule sets consider them to lose also. I would presume that this is because they're also inconsistent. Ganoncide seems to be the only consistent one.

 

[Hitman JT]

But how is this scenario any different from Bowser's scenario?

Bowser's scenario doesn't place him under the mercy of RNGeezus.

 

[popsofctown]

Bowser's scenario doesn't place him under the mercy of RNGeezus.

I think "unlucky" was being colloquial. Star KOs are actually a function of how fast you were going when you hit the blast zone afaik, not RNG