I see the discussion of "rules" has come up again. I haven't been around as much lately so I don't necessarily know the entire context but I'll just add my two cents here.
100%, I think if folks say something like, "Indies can't happen" then yeah...that's a pretty silly statement. There's nothing that says they can't, and no character should really be treated like an impossibility. There's frankly no way to know that, let alone prove it. The characters we know to be "impossible" from Sakurai himself are picks like Goku, Iron Man, or Spongebob. That's it in terms of "impossible".
Another suggested "rule" is "spirits disconfirm". This was, in my opinion, part rule and part speculation. This held true for Volume 1, and it made sense due to the context: the DLC was decided alongside the base roster, so it'd be kind of weird to see a character who got a "non-playable" type spirit become playable. There was also the wording of Spirit mode (as was previously mentioned) as well as Piranha Plant who didn't have a spirit in base game. This suggested that there was specific reasoning to go with Spirit choices. Based on that, it would seem that in the context of base roster --> Volume 1, Spirits DID disconfirm.
That said, Volume 2 is a new context. Min Min showed that Spirits aren't a death wish to characters, but does this help picks like Geno? That's yet to be seen. Min Min wasn't picked for popularity on its own, which is essentially the criteria which Geno would be picked for. It's a different situation. What helps one doesn't help all. Banjo-Kazooie may have shown that western-created characters CAN be added, but it doesn't mean all will. That's probably the best outlook: No character is impossible, but with 5 characters left, it's impossible for all characters to happen.
What I don't consider a rule, but simply speculation, is the observations that:
1) All series getting a "new" fighter have started with a character who is considered a "protagonist" by the developers, or widely seen as the protagonist. Every series with a visible protagonist has held true to that, even Min Min as "protagonist" as defined by Yabuki and Sakurai. Considering this has held true for every Smash game, it seems like this is an observation that has a solid chance to holding true. That said, this will likely only continue to apply to 3rd parties and few remaining 1st party series that seem "eligible" for a playable fighter.
2) Challenger Packs 1-6 have brought something new to Smash Ultimate in what are essentially themed packs. 1st party newcomers have thus far been new, marketable titles over games that are older. Could this change? Maybe, but it probably depends on which games they want to push, and if there's a character they want to pull from it.
3) With Mario having a 35th anniversary Smash tournament, it seems like the most opportune time to announce a Mario DLC fighter if the series is getting one. Nintendo not only has influence in the choosing of Fighters in Volume 2, but they obviously also plan out content for other events and games. It's not crazy to maybe think that, just maybe, it would make more sense to announce a character like Waluigi or Geno before the tournament starts to properly celebrate "all of the Mario content" (characters, stages, and items) as opposed to afterwards, showing that the tournament didn't really celebrate all the Mario content in the game due to the character, stage, and music that would come with the Waluigi or Geno challenger pack.
To respond to things like what's written above with "fan rule" comes across as disingenuous. This isn't arguing anything that says a character is impossible- it's making the observation, and then speculating what it could mean for future picks. That's literally the act of speculation, and it is frustrating to see these types of ideas get shut down rather than responded to, rather than either "fan rule" or "Sakurai does what he wants!" These should be met with a more open and grounded approach, in my humble opinion.
--
There are probably others I would suggest if I was thinking harder, but I'll close with the following: There's been a large movement against "fan rules" in the past year, which seems to largely target the idea that some folks are limiting what people can talk about. That seems weird, if you ask me. I know I usually have ideas that I shared and there are times I've definitely wholeheartedly believed them. That said, nobody is forcing anybody to believe what they write. If you disagree with what somebody has to say, suggest a different perspective and explain it. That's how discourse works! It's not like we're inherently arguing with each other and seething that the other person is horrible for wanting Dr. Goomba Stack (though I may judge just a little on that one). These are not personal attacks on people or characters. Some ideas gain traction because folks make a compelling case for them, and it's based/grounded in something. It's as simple as that, really.
(Sorry, BEEG post)
