This can really be read two ways - it can either do more damage while in the wound by lodging in it and thus having to be ripped free (barbs point towards handle) or cause more damage because the barbs are actually also sharpened, and thus translate into a very effective cut when the sword is pulled out (barbs are pointed upwards).
Plus I’d argue that a sword shouldn’t be intended to lodge in an opponent and take great effort to pull/rip out. Hence why the barbs pointing down would at least be less realistic - but then again, this is Bionicle.
Personally, I find them pointing upwards also more visually pleasing, at least in my current design:
I’ve always liked the Air Saber, although there’s a few things that I’d hope the final art would “stylize” away, such as the openings in the blade or the serrated edge. (If anyone could hook me up with a solid body file so I can make the changes myself for a 3d-printed weapon, that’d be greatly appreciated.)
Plus, the barbs on the Air Saber are very similar in shape to those on the Fin Barbs, albeit pointed in a different direction.
I had always read that as “more damage than no barbs at all”.
Although downward-pointing barbs certainly would leave nastier damage than upward-facing ones.
That looks sweet. What’s the metallic piece on the hilt?
We’re talking in the context of the barbs’ main function, not the weapon as a whole. Of course, it’s a sword - it can be used as a slashing weapon. But the primary way the barbs would inflict damage is via a piercing strike, and, more specifically, the withdrawal of the weapon from the wound.
For the broadsword I was looking through Bricklink and found some potential parts besides Krika blades. Although I do like Krika blades.
First is 57566 (Takadox Blades). This part is certainly barbed with the barbs curving towards the hilt. However the overall shape doesn’t really resemble a broadsword. Unless we take Chinese broadswords into account…
Second is 54272 (Brutaka’s sword piece). Not really a fan of this one, but it is barbed. Again it resembles a Chinese broadsword more than a western one.
Third I found 35633 from Ninjago. This could be a great official part for the sword, it’s shape could resemble either Eastern or Western broadswords, and adds the option for “barbs” aiming either up or down. Not too many official colors for this one though.
Lastly there’s 47335 (Keerakh blades). The barbs are smaller, resembling more saw blade teeth than anything else, but I think this part could be used.
Custom built stuff like this ^^ is also super cool.
The problem with all five of those pieces is that they only have barbs on one side. Greg said there are curved barbs on the sides, plural.
I think Gilahu’s sword is my current favorite, and the most lore accurate imo. And if the barbs should indeed be pointed down, they just need to be rotated, no big deal.
I’d just like to pop in to register my thoughts on the recently instituted rule 5b, hopefully without starting an argument and getting sanctioned/banned:
Thoughts:
This is a good rule and I hope it will help avoid further controversy.
I think there’s a sliding scale of suggestive/sexualized MOCs/constructions, and I’d like to propose some benchmarks for the individual bases mentioned in the rule.
I’m guessing no one has a problem with builds on the scale ranging from Gorast to Gali Mata, which encompass less-than-humanoid to humanoid-with-extremely-marginal-suggestions-of-female-shaping. The next entry on the scale is, I think, Roodaka, which some people have problems with and which has already been noted as being subject to the rule:
I personally think that, while Roodaka’s construction is indeed suggestive of certain things, it doesn’t unduly emphasize them and hence is not overly sexualized. Moreover, she’s a canon build and a marketed set. I think MOCs in further contests (if there are any) should thus be allowed to use Roodaka-style chestplates, rear-claw-things, and the like (really, the claw is barely suggestive–it took me ages to consider that it might be meant as female shaping).
Beyond the Roodaka mark, the scale naturally grows more extreme and more divisive. Nevertheless, I think MOCs like this one also fall within the reasonable limit of suggestion/sexualization and should be allowed. Note that that one relies on shaping rather than definitive features. Some MOCs with definitive features are, however (at least in my opinion), also reasonable. This Helryx sports notable features, but the build and posing are classy and not wholly focused on such features. I think it’s an example of including suggestive features without really sexualizing them, and hence upcoming MOCs which may be of the same sort should be allowed. See also this mildly curvier but (if you ask me) wholly reasonable Roodaka revamp.
I readily accept that that Helryx MOC may be as far or farther than some people are willing to go, and I guess I’ll leave that as the cap for what I consider the “reasonable/legal zone” of the scale. Personally, I’d be willing to allow something as far as this MOC, again because the express intent of the build does not seem to be sexualization. I reason that, since Axonn is buff without being obscenely so, a canon female build could be curvy just as a facet of the character’s appearance.
As examples of builds that would be too much/more expressly focused on sexualization and thus would be inappropriate for canon consideration, see this, this, this, and this. (This is not to calumniate any of the builders of any of the four aforementioned MOCs; I personally like them, but I would not want them to be canon.) Those are the farther end of the scale, and since much of the community tends to dislike such MOCs and I’m not sure anyone genuinely wants to introduce such sexualized builds to canon, we can disqualify builds sexualized to these degrees.
EDIT: Sorry for dumping a novel, folks. If you read it all, have a cookie.
