Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[-Kagato-]

Yes. They bothered to make the move never result in a win, but didn't care if it was a draw or loss and Bowser WILL lose draws.

Who's trying to enforce arbitrary rules here? The dev team or the Smash community? Oh, and the DT kinda makes the rules so think carefully.

Bowser's SD performance relates greatly to a move that causes the mode to start, don't you think?

The dev team fully intended something less then a win, a SD won't always happen and it's possible for the opponent to recover if not, and the whole rule wouldn't exist if it wasn't in previous games. EVO won't be enforcing the rule and it's existence caused this whole controversy. Do we have rules for janky moves like Zelda's Fsmash that keep her from being punished for using the move? No. Accept the moves are buggy and bad and move on. Or would you rather memorize which stages arbitrarily make you win ir lose?

None of what you said even relates to the topic at hand.

 

[1FC0]

If it bothers you that Bowsercide seems to not be the intention of the developers, then make Bowser lose because that seems to be their intention. But that argument is stupid anyway. It does not matter what the devs wanted.What does matter is not having arbitrary rules to buff certain characters that may cause confusion.

Suicide clause was necessary in SSBB but now it is an unneeded extra complication to the rules in order to buff Bowser. I do not support arbitrary rules to buff Bowser.

 

[Yikarur]

Bowser should lose in a sudden death Situation. Thats common sense.

 

[-Kagato-]

To those saying Bowser should lose just because he dies first and that was the developer's intent, I say Bowsercide was intended to be a double KO because that's what the devs intended. See, I can do it too.

We don't know the dev's intentions because they never released patch notes so it's up to interpret. However, there's far more evidence backing up the Double KO result than there is the Bowser Dies First result.

-It's Bowser's move. He initiates it.
-It's inescapable unless the move is interrupted.
-Bowser being able to recover from a Bowsercide was considered a bug. Now other characters can on certain stages and somehow it's not a bug anymore?
-The fact the result of a Double KO still happens on various stages proves we don't know the dev's true intent.
-The opponent technically hits the blast zone first.
-The move was intended to give Bowser the win in Brawl according to Sakurai himsef, and it started off giving Bowser the win 100% of the time in the new game. The nerf only happened as a result of complaints of the move being abused to give Bowser the win, the fact Bowser could recover from it, and the Flying Man glitch. The resulting nerf now causes a Double KO on some stages with Bowser dying first on others which results in Point #3 happening.

So, on the opposite side, what facts are there to back up "Bowsercide should kill Bowser first all the time" other than:

-People complained about it too much so clearly he's meant to die first now!
-He dies first on some stages, therefore it must have been the intended result!
-Bowser's a bad character and would lose in a Sudden Death fight anyway!

So what makes more sense to you?

 

[Haloedhero]

Koopa Klaw being steerable by the player with lower damage is one reason I get mixed feelings about this. Since Bowser almost always dies first, a strategy I've used in the absence of any suicide rulesets is capitalizing on a foolish klaw by someone I have a lead on by steering it over the edge for an instant win.

Also, klaw doesn't always result in immediate death. The other player can often jump out and even survive under certain circumstances. I haven't done extensive testing, but Mega Man can absolutely get back on the stage if it has walls to walljump off of. Why should Bowser get an auto win if I would've survived had the match not ended?

If a Falcon main (for unexplained reasons) somehow gimps me with an aerial falcon kick but dies before me, should they get the kill because they gimped me before dying and used it as a suicide move?

 

[1FC0]

How about the game says Bowser dies?

Here are my answers to your arguments:

-It's Bowser's move. He initiates it.
- Why would that matter? There is no need to create arbitrary rules just because it seems right to you. If the move would make you lose then how about not initiating it?

-It's inescapable unless the move is interrupted.
https://gfycat.com/FarflungFaroffBeardedcollie
But even when you escape just because Bowser dies first, then the Bowsercide clause would mean that if Bowser has >1 stocks and you could recover well enough you could survive and Bowser would lose a stock but if you both have 1 stock you lose. Does this mean that recovering after being dragged down by a Bowsercide by a Bowser with >1 stocks should be banned?
If it does not then that means Bowsercide is only considered a kill for the opponent on Bowsers last stock. How is that for inconsistency?
And if it does then we just made a rule against recovering. While we are at it, can we ban recovering after being hit with Falcon Punch too? If you get hit by that you deserve the more than if you get hit by a Bowsercide.

-The opponent technically hits the blast zone first.
I fail to see how this has any relevance. Smash does not have to be realistic or logical and it never has been.

-Bowser being able to recover from a Bowsercide was considered a bug. Now other characters can on certain stages and somehow it's not a bug anymore?
-The fact the result of a Double KO still happens on various stages proves we don't know the dev's true intent.
-The move was intended to give Bowser the win in Brawl according to Sakurai himsef, and it started off giving Bowser the win 100% of the time in the new game. The nerf only happened as a result of complaints of the move being abused to give Bowser the win, the fact Bowser could recover from it, and the Flying Man glitch. The resulting nerf now causes a Double KO on some stages with Bowser dying first on others which results in Point #3 happening.
Intentions of the devs do not matter. We do not play the game to please the devs. The devs intentions are not even part of the game.


And lastly you forgot to add the real reason that Bowser should lose when the game says he lost:
Because there is no need to add confusion by making arbitrary rules just to buff Bowser.

The problem with suicides has been solved, port priority is no more an issue. And the SD clause was only needed because otherwise players could get an advantage or disadvantage based on controller port. Now they can get an advantage or disadvantage based on stage with SD moves, which is not bad. So we do not need the SD clause anymore.

 

[-Kagato-]

I'm done with repeating the same points. Any direct replies will simply result in me saying what I have already said over and over and over again.

I'm going to let others take it from here.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

And ultimately, all you've argued is that players should be rewarded for using a bad, buggy move of a low-tier character that has a tendency to kill the person who uses it.

I can't think of a single good reason for a rule to exist for the sole purpose of rewarding such a decision. It would exist for no other reason than to buff a move that you think "should" be better than it actually is, and it has "sore loser" written all over it.

 

[Judo777]

Could be mistaken on this, but I am pretty sure that Bowser (pretty sure because I tested it pretty extensively in Brawl, unless I am remembering my results wrong) that If Bowser was the lower port in Brawl, he always won bowsercide, and if he was higher port he always tied. And he could only jump out of bowsercide if he was lower port (because his opponent would die first ending the move, so he could jump). Also randomly you couldn't jump out even as lower port unless you began the claw at least a certain minimum distance from the blast zone (like BF lower platform height).

The point of me saying this is, jumping out of bowsercide, never altered the results, he could jump out BECAUSE he already won. This was ok in brawl (for balance sake I mean) because Bowser could never recover under normal conditions even if he could jump out. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is pretty unbalanced because the opponent CAN recover. Not saying balance is necessarily important for making this rule. Just my 2 cents.

 

[-Kagato-]

I seriously didn't want to come back to this, but I have 2 simple questions I want everyone to answer, whether it's here or to themselves:

1. If Bowser was meant to always die first and lose, why are Double KO results still possible?
2. If Bowser being able to recover from a Bowsercide was considered a bug, why is it not a bug when other characters can now do it?

"It's what the devs intended" could go both ways on this discussion, so don't use that as your answer, because anyone could simply say the opposite was true and have the same amount of leverage.

 

[Hb2]

We should always follow what the results screen says. If it says that Bowser won, then he won. If it says that the opponent survived and won, then the opponent won. The suicide clause should only be used for Sudden Death situations, in which Bowser should get the win for initiating the move.

 

[1FC0]

I seriously didn't want to come back to this, but I have 2 simple questions I want everyone to answer, whether it's here or to themselves:

1. If Bowser was meant to always die first and lose, why are Double KO results still possible?
2. If Bowser being able to recover from a Bowsercide was considered a bug, why is it not a bug when other characters can now do it?

"It's what the devs intended" could go both ways on this discussion, so don't use that as your answer, because anyone could simply say the opposite was true and have the same amount of leverage.

As far as I am concerned both your questions are irrelevant.

What the devs intended in itself does not effect competitive play. Their intentions are in their head, not in the game.
Rules should be used to solve problems that make the game unsuitable for competitive play. Whether the devs intended x or not does not influence if it is unsuitable for competitive play or not. To me all arguments about the devs intentions are pointless.

 

[Zigsta]

Could be mistaken on this, but I am pretty sure that Bowser (pretty sure because I tested it pretty extensively in Brawl, unless I am remembering my results wrong) that If Bowser was the lower port in Brawl, he always won bowsercide, and if he was higher port he always tied. And he could only jump out of bowsercide if he was lower port (because his opponent would die first ending the move, so he could jump). Also randomly you couldn't jump out even as lower port unless you began the claw at least a certain minimum distance from the blast zone (like BF lower platform height).

The point of me saying this is, jumping out of bowsercide, never altered the results, he could jump out BECAUSE he already won. This was ok in brawl (for balance sake I mean) because Bowser could never recover under normal conditions even if he could jump out. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is pretty unbalanced because the opponent CAN recover. Not saying balance is necessarily important for making this rule. Just my 2 cents.

Bowser could actually always jump out in Brawl. He usually couldn't make it back, but with proper timing, Bowser always died second regardless of port priority.

 

[Judo777]

Bowser could actually always jump out in Brawl. He usually couldn't make it back, but with proper timing, Bowser always died second regardless of port priority.

Really? Cause I remember trying like tons and tons of times to jump out with a higher port and never could. Then switching to the lower port and doing it with 100% consistency. Maybe its easier with lower port?

 

[Zigsta]

Really? Cause I remember trying like tons and tons of times to jump out with a higher port and never could. Then switching to the lower port and doing it with 100% consistency. Maybe its easier with lower port?

The port shouldn't have anything to do with it. Basically think of the timing as the same as Koopahopping--the blast zone is essentially an invisible floor (except you can only Koopahop off this floor once as opposed to infinitely).

 

[Judo777]

The port shouldn't have anything to do with it. Basically think of the timing as the same as Koopahopping--the blast zone is essentially an invisible floor (except you can only Koopahop off this floor once as opposed to infinitely).

Well as I said, my original theory was that the reason you COULD jump out was because Bowser already won the bowsercide (he was dying later and could act before he died, because the other player was dead ending the move, allowing him free control).

I feel sorta strongly about this theory because now that Bowser always loses bowsercides (or ties) the opponent can always jump out and recover (except on stages that end in sudden death, then they can't jump out because they die at the same time).

 

[Zigsta]

Well as I said, my original theory was that the reason you COULD jump out was because Bowser already won the bowsercide (he was dying later and could act before he died, because the other player was dead ending the move, allowing him free control).

I feel sorta strongly about this theory because now that Bowser always loses bowsercides (or ties) the opponent can always jump out and recover (except on stages that end in sudden death, then they can't jump out because they die at the same time).

I'm confused here.

Bowser could always jump out of a Koopacide in Brawl, regardless of port priority. Without jumping out, port determined who died first, but as long as you know the timing, you can jump out. Bowser typically couldn't recover back to the stage, though.

Prior to the latest Smash 4 patch, he could actually jump out of Koopacide too, but here the timing was a LOT easier. I cannot stress this enough. Many Brawl Bowser's who couldn't regularly jump out in Brawl reported being able to do so much more often on 3DS.

Post patch Bowser cannot jump out of a Koopacide.

 

[Sodo]

I don't understand some of the arguments here. Either make it 100% suicide initiator wins or loses. End of story.

 

[Judo777]

I'm confused here.

Bowser could always jump out of a Koopacide in Brawl, regardless of port priority. Without jumping out, port determined who died first, but as long as you know the timing, you can jump out. Bowser typically couldn't recover back to the stage, though.

Prior to the latest Smash 4 patch, he could actually jump out of Koopacide too, but here the timing was a LOT easier. I cannot stress this enough. Many Brawl Bowser's who couldn't regularly jump out in Brawl reported being able to do so much more often on 3DS.

Post patch Bowser cannot jump out of a Koopacide.

Well that makes sense, because pre-patch bowser won bowsercides, and post patch he always lost or tied. My theory is that you can always jump out, only if you are going to win the Bowsercide. Here is a simple test, go to any given stage, bowsercide final stock to see if its a draw (goes to sudden death). Then return to the stage and see if the opponent can jump out of the bowsercide and survive. If they can, my theory is wrong. If they can't it looks like it may be right.

 

[BaeBraham]

Well that makes sense, because pre-patch bowser won bowsercides, and post patch he always lost or tied. My theory is that you can always jump out, only if you are going to win the Bowsercide. Here is a simple test, go to any given stage, bowsercide final stock to see if its a draw (goes to sudden death). Then return to the stage and see if the opponent can jump out of the bowsercide and survive. If they can, my theory is wrong. If they can't it looks like it may be right.

I thought that any stage that offered a wall jump caused a tie, while any stage that did not ended with Bowser losing the stock, and the opposing character the chance to recover (which I thought we discovered still only mattered for characters with the best recoveries in the game). Was it more complicated than that?

 

[JohnnyB]

I'm sorry you left apex with a bad taste in your mouth Zigsta. I hope you change your mind about not going back, the king of koopas needs representation!

I stopped playing Bowser after the patch. His sideB is the most unfairly designed move in the game. Bowser should have full control of the move at all times and be put into helpless state with his opponent being able to recover if he makes the miatake of going offstage. If this were the case there would be no need for a suicide clause.

As it stands in this discussion, all of the talk about following the results screen and getting rid of suicide clauses all together is completely irrevelent. Why, in a tournament that has a suicide clause for other characters, should Bowser not be included? If you derail the thread while failing to address this question you are missing the point entirely...

 

[1FC0]

As it stands in this discussion, all of the talk about following the results screen and getting rid of suicide clauses all together is completely irrevelent. Why, in a tournament that has a suicide clause for other characters, should Bowser not be included? If you derail the thread while failing to address this question you are missing the point entirely...

Personally I think that the Suicide Clause should be removed for all characters.

But if the point is that given that other characters have the Suicide Clause then Bowser should have it, then yes, I agree. Also in that case R.O.B. should have it too.

 

[JohnnyB]

Wow i didn't even know Rob had a suicide ko until i read your post. Yes he should be included.

 

[BaeBraham]

I'm sorry you left apex with a bad taste in your mouth Zigsta. I hope you change your mind about not going back, the king of koopas needs representation!

I stopped playing Bowser after the patch. His sideB is the most unfairly designed move in the game. Bowser should have full control of the move at all times and be put into helpless state with his opponent being able to recover if he makes the miatake of going offstage. If this were the case there would be no need for a suicide clause.

As it stands in this discussion, all of the talk about following the results screen and getting rid of suicide clauses all together is completely irrevelent. Why, in a tournament that has a suicide clause for other characters, should Bowser not be included? If you derail the thread while failing to address this question you are missing the point entirely...

I absolutely think that if there is a clause, all characters who could fit into the category of the clause should be included.
I would also say that rules are rules, and that the rules should have been accessible enough to make a case right then and there and with evidence that couldn't be denied (that's for both the TO's and the OP). Although it is unfortunate that there was a TO who said that Bowser was in the clause and that put the OP in the mindset that he could totally land the win with the Klaw, we as individuals should certainly be able to verify that in some way with the actual ruleset and not just word of mouth (which again I'm sure had to be somewhat accessible).

That of course is definitely not to say that what happened wasn't cruddy, because it certainly was. Bowser, to the OP's knowledge DEFINITELY should have won, and it sounds like the post match TO's did nothing to help lay a solid foundation of evidence to why he didn't other than saying 'ah well tough you lose'. My assumption is that from this point forward the OP will be extra sure of where bowser fits in that situation from this point forward.

Also I'd like to apologize if I seemed to have been a part of a derailment from the actual topic, as a Pit main, it is super interesting to know that with my ridiculous recovery and stage matchup knowledge, I can fully recover from a bowsercide. Not only is it super interesting, it's actually just really important MU knowledge. It was to enticing not to try and learn what others had discovered! :D

 

[Scarlet Jile]

It should also be a clause that if you get with with Ganondorf's up-tilt, you lose the game.

 

[Pyr]

It should also be a clause that if you get with with Ganondorf's up-tilt, you lose the game.

Only if it breaks their shield and you Reverse Warlock punch for the kill.

 

[Judo777]

Only if it breaks their shield and you Reverse Warlock punch for the kill.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure it already does. Same as when I play Falcon, hit people with a knee, then chase them offstage, and hit them with reverse falcon punch offstage. Even if the win screen hasn't yet said that I won, no one can mentally comeback from that.

 

[Gunla]

It should also be a clause that if you get with with Ganondorf's up-tilt, you lose the game.

Only if it breaks their shield and you Reverse Warlock punch for the kill.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure it already does. Same as when I play Falcon, hit people with a knee, then chase them offstage, and hit them with reverse falcon punch offstage. Even if the win screen hasn't yet said that I won, no one can mentally comeback from that.

Please keep it on topic to Bowser's inclusion or exclusion from the clause.

 

[Darklink401]

I'd say that it should be Bowser's win if the opponent can't make it back. Like, Little Mac, mario, Wii Fit, etc etc.

if its someone like Rob, Villager, etc that CAN make it back, there is no reason to allow Bowser the win, since the character wouldnt have died anyway.

 

[JohnnyB]

I'd say that it should be Bowser's win if the opponent can't make it back. Like, Little Mac, mario, Wii Fit, etc etc.

if its someone like Rob, Villager, etc that CAN make it back, there is no reason to allow Bowser the win, since the character wouldnt have died anyway.

This is the worst problem with the suicide clause, but who is to say who can and can't get back? There are plenty of fighters that will or won't depending on exactly how far you take them offstage. And what do you do on the levels that go to sudden death instead of Bowser looses?

It's a mess and i wish there was another patch coming to address it, but as far as we know there aren't going to be any more patches. We are just going to have to deal with things being unfair to one side or the other.

 

[Darklink401]

This is the worst problem with the suicide clause, but who is to say who can and can't get back? There are plenty of fighters that will or won't depending on exactly how far you take them offstage. And what do you do on the levels that go to sudden death instead of Bowser looses?

It's a mess and i wish there was another patch coming to address it, but as far as we know there aren't going to be any more patches. We are just going to have to deal with things being unfair to one side or the other.

Eh

In my book, I'd even make it so bowser dies first.

I mean, it's true. If I get bowsercided as Villager, I wouldn't lose a stock. So I shouldn't win the game xD

No offense to Bowser.

 

[dav3yb]

The main issue I could see with using the game as the ultimate judge is that it seems to be inconsistent when it comes to browsers side b. On some stages it forces a loss, and on others it forces sudden death.

If Nintendo doesn't intend for the move to be used in a suicidal way, then they need to change it to where it flies Strait up and down, and kill any lateral movement it could have.

Also, the OP really needs a tldr section.

 

[Darklink401]

The main issue I could see with using the game as the ultimate judge is that it seems to be inconsistent when it comes to browsers side b. On some stages it forces a loss, and on others it forces sudden death.

If Nintendo doesn't intend for the move to be used in a suicidal way, then they need to change it to where it flies Strait up and down, and kill any lateral movement it could have.

Also, the OP really needs a tldr section.

Well if youre one stock up its great.

If not...better only do it at center stage...haha...

 

[JohnnyB]

The main issue I could see with using the game as the ultimate judge is that it seems to be inconsistent when it comes to browsers side b. On some stages it forces a loss, and on others it forces sudden death.

If Nintendo doesn't intend for the move to be used in a suicidal way, then they need to change it to where it flies Strait up and down, and kill any lateral movement it could have.

Also, the OP really needs a tldr section.

The reason it has lateral movement is because when you are playing with more than 2 players it can hit the other players.

Remember, this game is balanced for 4 player FFA. It's one of the main reasons other fighting game scenes call smash a "party game".

 

[dav3yb]

The reason it has lateral movement is because when you are playing with more than 2 players it can hit the other players.

Remember, this game is balanced for 4 player FFA. It's one of the main reasons other fighting game scenes call smash a "party game".

Point taken. I still think Nintendo needs to at least fix all the stages to where it's either all bowser dies first, or they both ko together. At least with that consistency you could better determine how to proceed.

 

[S_B]

How would you feel about tournaments that simply defer to the game and not have a suicide clause for any moves?

Considering you have to remember which stage you're on and how the game decides to bug out over it, I wouldn't like it.

The game: "This player won, and this player lost."

Bowser players: "But what does that MEAN exactly? Who's to say what the truth is this world? Aren't we all living without our own preconceived realities? Fredrick Nietzche in his work On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873) writes "if man..."

Dude, the stuff is BUGGED. Bowser dies first on some stages and it goes to SD in others.

If THIS happened in Brawl doubles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPawAvERKwI
...would they just let the clock run out and let the Bowser player off the stage win?

We have to accept the fact that Nintendo isn't the best at fixing bugs like this, and it's obviously bugged because the results aren't consistent.

It'd be like if the game arbitrarily went to SD even though one player clearly won. Would we say "Well, that's what the game wanted..." or would we call it what it is and award it to the player who ACTUALLY won?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Considering you have to remember which stage you're on and how the game decides to bug out over it, I wouldn't like it.

There is nothing wrong with needing some insight, it's like knowing which characters a combo works with and those who doesn't, but with stages instead of characters.

We have to accept the fact that Nintendo isn't the best at fixing bugs like this, and it's obviously bugged because the results aren't consistent.

Cherrypicking: few companies actually fix stuff like that.

It'd be like if the game arbitrarily went to SD even though one player clearly won. Would we say "Well, that's what the game wanted..." or would we call it what it is and award it to the player who ACTUALLY won?

That's why we don't just go black or white. We'd need to know what "clearly won" would mean in this scenario.


***The following is my opinion***
For Bowsercide it is like this: The goal of the game is removing your opponent's stock by making them touch the blastzone, Bowsercide is a move that can push opponents to the blastzone, thus removing their stock. BUT you tend lose your stock as well.
If both are at the last stock, one stock is likely to be removed first, and the game already knows who has priority.

Bowser should be credited with a win if the game said so
Bowser should be credited with a lose if the game says so
Tiebreaker should take place if the game says it's a tie.

 

[S_B]

There is nothing wrong with needing some insight, it's like knowing which characters a combo works with and those who doesn't, but with stages instead of characters.

That's not even REMOTELY comparable...

Which characters combo and which don't is intuitive based upon the size and weight of the character. Even things like which stages you can go UNDER or tech off the side of are based upon the size and shape of the stage itself.

In the case of Bowsercide, one "bottom of the screen" is identical to every other. There is no appreciable difference based upon game logic.

This is simply a bug.

Cherrypicking: few companies actually fix stuff like that.

Can you name another developer that has left a bug in a game where, by doing the same thing on different levels, the outcome of a match will be different?

Seriously, if Valve introduced a bug where a soldier killing the last enemy and himself simultaneously on SOME arena maps awarded his team the win and others awarded the other team the win, it would be patched less than 24 hours later.

That's why we don't just go black or white. We'd need to know what "clearly won" would mean in this scenario.

It was crystal clear for years before Nintendo introduced this bug: the initiator of the suicide move is declared the winner.

And that's the other thing: the game SHIPPED with the exact same rules as Brawl. Have we even had official confirmation that Sakurai wanted to change it to be anything like this?

and the game already knows who has priority.

The game doesn't "know" who has priority. The game is haphazardly tossing priority out arbitrarily because it's bugged.

Do you honestly believe Sakurai wanted us to remember which of the following stages do what?

Normal Stage Sudden Death
Final Destination
Delfino Plaza
Castle Siege
Custom Stages (wont be used, but thought it would be nice to know)
Duck Hunt

Normal Stage Bowser Dies First
Battlefield
Town and City
Skyloft
Halberd
Mushroom Kingdom U
Lylat
Town and City
Pilotwings
Wuhu Island
Wooly World
Yoshi's Island
Smashville

Omega Stage Sudden Death
Delfino Plaza
Halberd
Mario Circuit
Mario Circuit (Brawl)
Bridge of Eldin
Pyrosphere
Norfair
Port Town Aero Drive
Wooly World
Yoshi's Island
Great Cave Offensive
Orbital Gate Assault
Mario Galaxy
Palutena's Temple
Skyworld
Garden of Hope
Wii Fit Studio
Gaur Plain
75m
Wrecking Crew
Pilotwings
Wuhu Island
Wily Castle
Smashville
Duck Hunt

Omega Stage Bowser DIes First
Skyloft
Battlefield
Mushroom Kingdom U
Luigi's Mansion
Jungle Hijinks
Hyrule Temple
Lylat Cruise
Kalos Pokemon League
Onett
Coliseum
Castle Seige
Gamer
Town and City
Boxing Ring
Windy Hill Zone

Bowsercide already has plenty of drawbacks and difficulty surrounding its use:
1. In order to use it, Bowser must be sufficiently ahead in % of his opponent.

Given how easy it is to combo Bowser and rack damage on him, throughout the normal course of a match, Bowser should almost never be sufficiently ahead of his opponent to steer the move over the ledge. If he is, it's because the Bowser player is simply playing THAT much better and deserves the win.

2. The move is difficult to land
Klaw has been severely nerfed since Brawl (where it always awarded Bowser the win). Not only has its hitbox been substantially reduced, but the lack of grab armor means pretty much anything can interrupt it.

3. Tradition has always dictated that the initiator of the suicide move wins
When a suicide move kills both players simultaneously on the last stock, the win has always been awarded to the initiator of the move. This avoids characters with suicide moves having those moves used against them (and Bowser is already crap enough).

4. There is clear evidence that this is not working as intended
Until someone can demonstrate that there is sufficient reason for Bowser to die first on some stages and die simultaneously with his victim on other stages, leading to sudden death, then we can use our brains and come to the conclusion that this is a bug.

In fact, this is the bug they were trying to fix when they borked Bowsercide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8
Developers accidentally introduce bugs when patching all the time. Developers who give a rat's hairy butt usually go in and fix those bugs in short order. Let's not confuse Nintendo's lack of care with their genuine intent that stage choice should affect the outcome of Bowsercide.

Until they actually fix the bug and make one thing happen or the other (always SD or always Bowser loses), stick to the old suicide clause: initiator wins.

 

[1FC0]

Reason 3 is bad because tradition does not matter. I do not see why change in itself is bad.

Reason 4 is bad because developers intent does not matter. I play Smash for fun, not to obey the devs. What they want does not matter unless it effects the game.

Reason 1 and 2 are bad as well since they basically boil down to "Bowser should be buffed". He is not the worst character so creating rules to buff him before we do that for worse characters would be wrong, especially since we should not be creating rules to buff characters at all.

Also, why do you think that Bowser should always win instead of always lose if Bowsercide never makes him win but does sometimes make him lose, even though you would want to make him always lose if the game did that?
Do you want to either follow the game 100% or 0%, but not in between? I would say the more we follow the game the less confusion there is.

 

[S_B]

Reason 3 is bad because tradition does not matter. I do not see why change in itself is bad.

Tradition totally matters in cases of ambiguity like this.

Reason 1 and 2 are bad as well since they basically boil down to "Bowser should be buffed".

No, they boil down to "this has been part of Bowser's toolkit for 6+ years prior already and the risk vs. reward ratio of Bowserciding factors in the difficulty of pulling it off".

Also, why do you think that Bowser should always win instead of always lose if Bowsercide never makes him win but does sometimes make him lose, even though you would want to make him always lose if the game did that?

TBH, I don't think Sakurai intended to change this at all.

Again, THIS is the bug they tried to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

And thanks to the fact that Sakurai supplies us with squat for patch notes, we have no idea what part of the change (if any) was intended.

Bowser has been Bowserciding for 6+ years, AND he was Bowserciding when SSB4 launched. To suddenly and abruptly change that would be strange but not unheard of, but to change it so it doesn't even work consistently on different stages says to me that this was a bug unintentionally introduced by Sakurai.

Hypothetical situation: what if a bug was introduced that allowed, say, DK to vanish off the side of the stage and be invincible for the duration of the match (after he acquired a percent lead, of course)?

Should we "go with what the game says" and simply watch as the entire metagame fell to DK?

Let me put this anyone way: can SOMEONE come up with a theory as to why Bowsercide works differently on different stages?

If so, what differentiates the "SD" stages from the "Bowser dies first" stages?