I’m personally not a fan brickbuilt stuff but I think it’s a pretty good rendition of it, though I’m biased towards my own.
Up to you, though judging by how good your masks are, I think it’d be a pretty good sword.
I’d be ok with a Zaria in either color and agree it could be cool to judge between them.
Not very surprising considering we have almost 10,000 of discussion on random details, colors, quotes, etc.
that is… an unfortunate quote for me ahaha. It’s okay, I can adjust accordingly. In this case I do think there is reason to adhere to Greg’s quote as well as what Zaria’s stated colors are in the story. I was pushing the envelope a little bit unintentionally
Okay but hear me out
Retractable barbs
You stab someone, press a button, and bam!barbs pop out for more shredding power.
I’d love to see someone make this.
Late to the party on Barb Direction discourse, but:
Let’s say Greg lost his absolute mind at some point and said “Tuyet is purple so that she could fly”. We could debate for hours about the fact that being purple doesn’t actually grant you the ability to fly, but that would be wildly irrelevant. As we are merely recreating her appearance, the only important thing is that, apparently, she is purple.
Whether or not inward facing barbs function in the way Greg thinks they function is irrelevant. The important thing is simply that he said they curve toward the hilt. So long as the final version (the final version being the art) has that, nothing else regarding functionality measures for the purpose of the contest here. Could warrant an interesting discussion topic elsewhere though.
That being said.
Genius. Please. Yes. Build it. I need.
Well what he said was accurate… regardless of what some people believe. Barbs in fact deal more damage when being pulled out. And by definition barbs are angled away from the main point
But he didn’t say that. That’s the entire point of this discussion: he stated their function without describing exactly how they achieve it, leaving us to speculate on the direction of curvature.
It being called a barb tells us at the very least that they are angled away from the tip of the blade and not towards it.
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