Jerm, I’m an idiot. Thank you for bringing me up to speed when I thought I was already.
Okay, my opinion is flipped. So long as the barbs are curved, it’ll do damage when it’s pulled out. Curved barbs, I don’t care about direction, quote doesn’t specify.
I’m gonna step out of the conversation for a bit before I say something else stupid.
2a : a sharp projection extending backward (as from the point of an arrow or fishhook) and preventing easy extraction also : a sharp projection with its point similarly oblique to something else
Aside from the curve added additional friction and “barb-ness,” I’m not sure what other direction the points of these barbs would be pointing. Still a bit caught up on that, as it were.
Tell that to Norik’s axe spear thing, or Metus’s sword, which is an axe somehow. Technical definitions mean bugger all in Bonkland.
Well, it also got him in the heart, and these animals are venomous…but that’s besides the point. One must also consider that these stingers are much smaller than a sword, and in many animals, like some bees and North American porcupines, stingers or quills have barbs so they can get stuck. That’s how they do more damage.
Whoever can make this, I want to see it.
He didn’t, that’s the entire reason I’m contesting the ruling. He just said what the barbs are for.
The thing is, Greg specified that they do more damage when you pull it out. Sure, a sword with curved bards pointing toward the tip would do more damage than a regular sword when being pulled out, but it would be designed to do more damage when it was stabbed in, not when it was pulled out.
Greg specified that the barb’s purpose is so that it does more damage when being pulled out. That means they’re curved toward the hilt.
As cool as this would be… sadly, as was pointed out with Artakha’s transforming hammer, unless it’s portrayed in the artwork, it wouldn’t be a canon feature.
Be cool as heck if someone could pull it off though.
The venom isn’t lethal though. The venom probably would’ve caused some endocarditis which is treatable.
The situation was described as “enthusiast could have been saved if he hadn’t hastily pulled the stingray barb from his chest.”
And
"The stingray tail effectively acted as a plug, and the second he removed it he began to bleed to death.“
By Doctors who’ve had access to analyze the video
And just getting stuck doesn’t deal more damage. It actually keeps the wound plugged… its always the removal of a barb that causes the additional serrations and tissue damage.
I think you may have a misconception on the point of a barb. It is both simultaneous in function a way to make an object stay embedded in something and guarantee extra serration to occur upon being removed, which is why its so effective.
Ancient humans knew this when creating arrowheads, and certain blades to kill other humans.
As for bees, they also leave a bundle of nerves and additional venom that gets pumped with the stinger so thats more unique than the others
I’m really confused by the propagating notion that barbs somehow don’t cause additional damage when pulled out of the victim. That’s literally why arrows were barbed. Arrows don’t need to remain embedded in their targets to wound or kill – once the arrow’s in there the damage has been done. Removing arrows (as has been pointed out already) actually results in opening the wound and accelerating blood loss assuming the wound is not sufficiently treated.
The barb allows the arrow to remain embedded easier, which also makes removal more difficult (which ties up additional manpower as now more people have to be pulled aside to treat the casualty, reducing the combat effectiveness of the enemy, etc. etc.) because the arrow has to be cut out and removed through specific techniques, as opposed to just pulling out a flat-edged dagger.
Why is that? Why can’t we just pull the arrow out because the barbs are sticking it in the wound?
If the arrow is pulled out it’ll cause additional injury. It is impossible to remove a barbed blade/arrowhead without doing further damage to the victim’s tissue precisely because the barbs will catch on flesh and pull/cut it. If the barbs were to face the “wrong way” (and by definition, no longer be barbs), the curvature of the backward-barbs would allow the weapon to slide out of the victim with relatively little extra harm done. The “barbs” would fail to catch on any flesh because they’re facing the wrong way.
All this stated, as others have previously pointed out, the real-world practicality of a barbed broadsword is not necessary in the context of BIONICLE. All that really matters is that we get a sword that’s got barbs – true barbs that face backward.
If we wanted to get slightly pedantic, a broadsword should be single-handed in keeping with the European basket-hilted broadsword (which was considered “broad” in comparison to the very thin rapiers that were fashionable during that same period) and the Chinese dao, also sometimes called a broadsword. It can possess either a dual edge or single edge as the European broadswords were double-edged while the dao were single-edged – based on the barb comment, dual-edged sounds more preferable.
Do I agree with this pedantry? No, and I do not think the above requirements are necessary. As people have already pointed out, BIONICLE played fast and loose with weapon names. Metus wielded an “axe,” for crying out loud. There are other examples that specifically pertain to swords:
BIONICLE has never really cared too deeply whether a broadsword looks like a real broadsword. However, the adjective “barbed” tells us very specifically what attributes the weapon has. Other Toa Tools signify this with terms such as “Laser Axe,” “Energized Ice Sword,” “Fire Sword,” “Rotating Fire Blades.” Even if the sword doesn’t look like a sword, the barbs will at least attempt to look like barbs.
Body tissue is soft and muscles contract when irritate.
so If hastily remove the stabbing wounds from a barbs object, the flesh will be torn off together.
The problem is how effective such attacks are because MU residents are basically robots with only a few organic parts.
I think…Greg wouldn’t have considered it and chose a weapon
But if there are thorns next to the blade, I think any shape will be fine.
May I present to the argument: Barbed Wire
Notice the dual-directional spikes. Downward and outward facing spikes do make more sense for a slashing object such as a sword from a mechanical perspective, but simply put, it doesn’t necessarily have to be.
The barbs catch on these because they’re not projectiles or stabbing weapons. They’re designed that way to maximize effectiveness.
…for the sake of being pedantic, the thing you are describing is razor wire on top not barbwire.
There is barbwire underneath though, with just the spikes, but the top one is razor wire.
But the barbs function different on this because it is on a wire, not a blade. Its so once they hook into you, you do not continue to push into that direction or else it will cause more tearing into the flesh, because it is designed to keep things in
Razor-wire=slicing
Barb-wire=snagging
I understand where you’re getting at. Yeah, maybe not the best picture of barbed wire, it was just the first one I found that wasn’t a diagram or an old and bent up example. But I believe you can see the point in it, no?
Well you weren’t describing the barb-wire… so no.
I don’t necessarily agree with the “because there are things that don’t make as much sense as they should we shouldn’t try to make sense either” point.
Especially when one of the main gripes with the contest is not getting a detail as correct as it could be when we’ve been given a description of how it ‘should be’
It may be worth checking though… are there any weapons that exist in canon as of present that have ‘barbs’ or ‘barbed’ in the description?
If so and they are a more loose interpretation of what a barb is, then I think it’d be okay to play off of that
Every time I hear the reversed barbs argument, all that comes to mind is this:
Seven-Branched Sword Seven-Branched Sword - Wikipedia
If you think Tuyet wields a cactus/upwards barbs shaped blade then that’s your choice. But honestly this is getting really pedantic. Greg said Barbed Broadsword, mods say it’s a certain way, end of story. We don’t need a college essay on why you think it’s the other way around when we have our answer. Unless you have proof they go the other way, you’re probably not gonna win this battle. That’s what I’ve learned from trying to make sense of design elements or colors in this discussion board.
Also the Metis thing always felt like it was based on a prototype where he used an axe. Since it’s pretty easy to tell that thing he’s holding is a sword, as Hewkii used the same one less than 2 years prior.
Edit: Responded to post properly
I looked up if any other things in canon were described as having ‘barbs’ being ‘barbed’ or a ‘barb’
I have found Nokama’s hordika weapons
These have clear downward facing barbs, as that is what a barb is.
And then this. The Nui-Kopen.
The Nui-Kopen’s tail is described as being barbed. This is definitely a looser interpretation of a barb, but can also be attributed to parts limitation of the time.
Hey that’s a pretty cool idea: Have the pointed hilt facing upwards so it deals more damage when stabbed. That way both stabbing and removing deal more damage
If you combined the barbs on those with the stingray stinger arrangement, I think it would look like a pretty convincing in universe weapon.
I prefer facing down barbs
but…just I think many people don’t like it if they lose what has been well received by many people in the community over the past few years.
As a result, I am worried that negative public opinion against the contest itself will grow.
I think it’s best to set the rules to the extent that it prevents trolling.
By the way, if I was able to do 3D modeling, I want to improve this more.
Mmph thats good stuff
The entire point is that terminology and logic clearly don’t apply in Bionicle, and the standard for the application of terminology seems to be that there is no real standard.
We have been told that the sword has “barbs,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean in Greg-speak, and we have been told that the weapon is supposed to do a certain thing that, given historical precedent, probably wouldn’t work out on a real sword. This rule is based on assumptions. That’s why I’m beefing with it.
I do not. I’m saying that the inverse should not be mandatory and the artists should have the choice to do something else if they think they can make it work.
“I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it is a contemptible decision, I’ve elected to contest it.”
-Nick “Don’t Paraphrase Me for a Forum Argument About Lego” Fury
My entire point is that the proof that they don’t is nonexistent at worst, dodgy at best, and not worth a mandate, and it’s splitting hairs on engineering and definitions regarding weapons when that level of specificity and clarity pretty much never applies to actual Toa tools.
According to BS01, that weapon is called…a "fin “barb.” As in…the entire thing is somehow a barb. The entire weapon. Is a barb. It does not simply have barbs. It is one. Somehow, that’s more infuriating than anything else in the entire discussion so far. I ■■■■■■■ hate Bionicle, man.
The idea of Tuyet using a bunch of these glued onto a sword is rather captivating, come to think of it…
I would also note this–regardless of part limitations of the day, this is the Nui-Kopen’s tail in the only form we’ve ever seen it. The “barbs” are just horizontal axles.
