BIONICLE G1 Canon Contests Discussion & Questions

LEGO BIONICLE
, , , ,
9416

I know that. That’s why I’m arguing to disregard IRL engineering and retract the mandate, which is based on a logical inference about how a fantasy weapon that would never work as intended in the first place should be designed. The entire reason I’m bringing up its impracticality is because this rule makes an assumption about how it works in practice even though in kind of…wouldn’t.

In the context of injuring living things, there’s very little else that can mean, although I should concede that he might have imagined the sword sawing through armor. But, again, who even knows what goes on in that man’s head…

There’s no real way to test whether it would even work, but regardless of what the physical object would do, canonically, yes, it does what Greg says it does. That means that, no matter what shape the weapon is assigned, it will do that thing in-universe.

1 Like
9417

I mean, the point was to illustrate an example that doesn’t look like barbs, but just to show what that might look like:

barbflip - Copy

9 Likes
9418

That actually looks pretty barbed to me.

The line between a barb and a serration is sometimes difficult to distinguish, but I feel like most people instinctively know the line even if they can’t articulate it. A serration is still sharp along the edge, allowing it to saw into things. A barb is blunt along (at least the back) edge, remaining sharp only on its pointed tip so that it can catch onto and tear through flesh.

When shown a sword with the wide barbs like we’ve seen in the KhingK edits, the natural inclination is to assume the that the barbs are just blade extensions and therefore sharp on both ends. They wouldn’t really function like serrations at all, but people could be inclined to call them that rather than barbs.

2 Likes
9419

Coulda sworn I already replied to this…think I might be losing it.

Which is my point. The rule attempts to apply logic to the engineering of an illogically-conceived weapon in a highly-illogical fictional universe.

Since he might have imagined that the sword would saw through/pull off a GSR resident’s armor, I think I have to concede this point.

Again, this really just plays into my own point: Greg has already explicitly canonized what it does, or at least what it’s supposed to do. How it looks will not change its in-universe effects.

Also, uh, another post of mine got removed and I wasn’t told why, but that post happened to have all of my talking points in one place. I will put them under the cut in more succinct terms just so I can go back and remember what the hell I’m talking about 323947234 posts down the road.

📜
  1. The weapon could never work as Greg intends in real life however it’s designed; as such, mandating that the weapon be designed around sensible engineering principles is rather pointless.
  2. Like Willess just said, the technical definition of what a “barb” is doesn’t particularly matter in the context of an IP that doesn’t abide by definitions very closely, especially because the Hagah contest already went and disregarded the definition of “spear” entirely.
  3. Greg’s mind is unknowable and, frankly, kind of frightening. We can only guess at what he was thinking when he said any given thing, especially since he doesn’t appear to be very throughly-versed in science or physics.

I wouldn’t say a word on this ruling if it didn’t affect art submissions, but I believe that, if we don’t have explicit and well-founded reasons to impose a restriction, then it should not be imposed. I’m not convinced that this mandate needs to exist, and I will retract this position in light of hard evidence rather than personal inferences from something Greg said.

2 Likes
9420

I totally get where this argument is coming from, and all of it makes sense — sort of.

It’s true that BIONICLE physics is sometimes not like real life physics, but we still have to assume that it works the same until we’re explicitly given information otherwise. The simple mechanics of a downward-curved barb doing more damage coming out than going in is one of those things where you have to be doing some Olympic mental gymnastics to justify contravening it.

Likewise, I get the argument that unless Greg explicitly clarified a direction for the barbs, they should be allowed to face either way. That sort of argument could ring true for most things (such as the dual-edged or single-edged nature of Tuyet’s sword) but a barb definitionally faces downward when intended to inflict damage upon removal.

The argument that Greg would have to clarify otherwise is close to stating that because Greg only said that a Toa carries a bow to hit targets outside their reach, that they should be permitted to wield a long ribbon tied into a bow. Sure, that’s a secondary definition of the word, but the primary definition of a bow and the definition that’s relevant when meeting the criteria Greg set forward.

Addendum: Not really part of my argument but I see it coming up, “barbed wire” does not possess true barbs. Just reading about it you’ll find that barbed wire is “constructed with sharp edges or points arranged at intervals along the strands.” The word “barb” is pointedly not used. While “barbs” are used to describe the spikes in conventional speak, that doesn’t make any jutting length of steel a barb. Notably, the “barbs” on barbed wire are designed to lacerate and catch on clothing, and are only named for functional similarity to true barbs as on fish hooks. Barbed wire’s functional similarity to true barbs completely betrays the point of using barbed wire as an argument for upward-facing barbs, since a backward barb would not have functional similarity to a true barb.

2 Likes
9421

Makes sense to me.

4 Likes
9422

Definitions, again, hold little weight in this context. And, again, why didn’t real swords have barbs, if that’s what barbs would do on a sword? Because that sounds like a useful thing to have on an object that’s supposed to kill people, but such weapons weren’t militarized, which either tells us that 1. that doesn’t work on swords for one reason or another, or 2. isn’t worth it despite whatever benefits come with those barbs.

This isn’t remotely the same. The different definitions of “barb” are pretty similar, but there is no way someone would ever read “bow” and think Greg doesn’t mean a pretty ribbon.

9423

Whether or not its practical isn’t the question because she does have it anyways.

2 Likes
9424

Yes. That is my point. She has it, that can’t be changed, and because it’s such a ridiculous weapon, there’s no point in trying to make it make sense.

9425

Do you want a real reply to this? Because I can provide one. The reason really isn’t that complex.

Like I said with arrows, once the penetration happens, the damage is done. If you stab a guy with a sword, he’s dead. Barbs or no barbs.

Arrows were barbed because the added difficulty in removing them meant that the wound couldn’t be easily addressed, which ties up valuable time, resources, and manpower in a conflict. It also ensured that non-lethal arrow wounds, if not removed properly, turned an existing wound into a bloody mess. Swords would not benefit from this addition, and the barbs would make a sword harder to extricate from the opponent’s body. The only reason to put barbs on a sword would be to deliberately provide an image of cruelty and sadism, which is in keeping with Toa Empire Tuyet.

With regards to this, I’m pretty sure almost everyone else that has participated in this thread is on the same page with me. It’s just not reasonable to assume the barbs don’t face downward. No rational person would come to that conclusion.

7 Likes
9426

Just because you don’t agree with the concept of the weapon does it mean we should try to avoid making it correctly for the sake of saying some people don’t like Greg’s decision because it may not be super practical

5 Likes
9427

Upward-facing barbs would act like a fork, you would get stuck at the bottom of the first barb, and the barb, because you never threaded over it, would guide you upon removal to minimize damage.
Outwards-facing… well they’re curved, so moot.

4 Likes
9428

to add to what Keplers said, I think the real reason is just like you said: getting your weapon stuck in an enemy is kinda a bad thing, because that means you can’t use it.

However, Toa are far stronger than people. It’s entirely reasonable that Tuyet could pull her sword out when hooked on something, where an average human wouldn’t be able to.

Edit: this post was originally a reply to something Kep said that I realized didn’t matter. Hence why it’s showing as a reply to Kep

Edit 3: by that I mean what I was originally going to say didn’t matter, not that what Kep said didn’t matter.

Edit 2: Wolk pretty much sums it up: a weapon with downward facing barbs would work the way Greg described. It might not be the most practical weapon for a Toa, it might be really impractical IRL, but it would do what Greg said the barbs are intended to do. Upward facing barbs would not work the way Greg described. The barbs have to be downward.

3 Likes
9429

Barbed arrowhead actually existed, and Barbed broadsword would be close to making it big. It makes the wound bigger.
It doesn’t matter at all whether it existed in reality or whether it was practical.
Technically, most of Toa tools are just magic wand.

Just, she chose an overkill weapon.
That sword is a symbol of her cruelty.

I’m opposed to specifying rules about the direction of barb (it can lead to excessive restrictions).

However, I fully agree that barbs should face downward to become a weapon that causes more damage when it is pulled.

What’s important now is not whether it’s practical or not. It’s about whether it should really be regulated.

if it’s banned at all, as I said a few hours ago, there will be many people who don’t like it.

I hope it’ll be a contest that will satisfy as many people as possible.

7 Likes
9430

…which would probably apply to a Bionicle character, although to be fair, we don’t see them get impaled much, so for all we know, all their vital organs are in one place that’s hard to stab.

There is also no rational reason to say they absolutely cannot face upwards, simply because rationality doesn’t seem to apply to Bionicle weapons. I want to make it clear: I am not arguing that the barbs MUST not face downwards. I am arguing that we should be allowed to submit art for a sword with upwards barbs if it would benefit the weapon’s appearance.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, and I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to argue. That’s not me trying to be testy, that’s me genuinely not getting what this post means.

I think you’re convinced that I’m just arguing because I don’t like the weapon? So, I’m gonna try again to put my argument in the least uncertain terms I can: The BBS is a weapon that probably would not operate as intended, or work very well, if actually used on a Matoran or other GSR resident. The TTV ruling is based around maximizing the weapon’s effectiveness for its intended usage. Bionicle weapons are always designed around rule-of-cool, and not practicality.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to require that the weapon be designed in the art submissions around the presumed engineering principles of a weapon we have yet to see. 90% of BBSs I see have downwards-pointing spines, so a majority of entrants are unlikely to be affected, but the popularity of Khing’s sword tells me that a good number of people like, or are at least ok with, upwards spines, and should have that option free to them in their submissions or votes.

Willess brings up a good point about that, as well as the problem of the sword getting stuck:

If the barbs point up, Tuyet can just pull the blade out at a different angle for a sawing effect.

Regardless, let’s take this mandate to its logical conclusion: if we’re mandating that the weapon be designed to effectively serve the purpose Greg describes, what is stopping TTV from mandating that the tool be perfectly designed to do its intended function in every way, from the tang to the point to the balancing…that’s why I found that rule so jarring. No contest has had one quite like it so far.

This is all I really care about.

9431

Throughout this discussion, there has not been a solid argument that canonically supports the barbs not being proper barbs. All sources are canon, and the definitions line up.

Just because someone isn’t a fan of decisions Greg Farshtey has made, or because other weapons don’t always line up with their respective name, does not make for a good enough argument against mandating the direction of the barbs.

This is fairly clear-cut, more so than most things have been. Again, if you are looking to enter a MOC/Art contest that has no restrictions and will allow you to be as creative as possible, these aren’t it.

Even in contests like Tuyet’s, which by comparison has far fewer restrictions than most, there are still pieces of information that form a canon framework that the community will be tasked with bringing to life in visual form.

Ultimately, this seems like a very minor thing to be upset about. There is still a great deal of creativity to be enjoyed even in this framework.

We don’t know what the weapon looks like. We don’t know its design. But we know aspects of it, and those are what will go into its design. The way you’re discussing this comes off as though there is already a consensus on the visual and this mandate drastically alters it. I know that’s not what you’re claiming or arguing, it’s just the impression based on the way this is being argued.

The ruling is based around its canon description.

Because we don’t have a description for those things, and the rule isn’t to make it functional. It’s to keep it in-line with how the author that created it has been describing it in the story. Again, these are canon contests for canon that has been stated.

We’ve never had specifics like this thus far, either. Hence why this is being mandated.

I understand where you’re coming from, that our worlds logic shouldn’t impact BIONICLE. But it does anyway, in a variety of ways. There are so many odd things in the world already, so I’m not sure why properly functioning barbs on a sword is where you draw the line as too realistic to our world.

We’ll still let the conversation continue, it’s been civil and thorough, but there hasn’t been a convincing argument as to why Greg’s description should be ignored. The barbs being barbs is canon, based on his description.

15 Likes
9432

image|nullxnull

I’ve found BB :rofl: :wink:

17 Likes
9433

Okay but like unironically:

  • Possesses a guarded hilt
  • Wielded in one hand
  • Has barbs along the blade
  • Long, single-edged blade

This is literally matches the criteria

This argument is just absurd, and circular. Just because rationality does not always apply to BIONICLE weapons does not mean we must assume the weapon is irrational and that the basic mechanics of a hook do not operate like they do in real life. In fact, we have evidence directly contrary to that in Greg’s rationale for the barbs: they cause extra damage coming out. Again, as I’ve iterated before, you would have to do some insane mental gymnastics to justify a backward-facing barb doing what Greg is describing. The authorial intent here is perhaps clearer than it ever has been, and yet you want to make the argument that it’s somehow muddy.

Edit 2: I just keep editing this thing.

I agree. That’s why I specifically said that the only reason to put barbs on a sword is to openly project cruelty and sadism.

5 Likes
9434

I think the reason for that is simple: we’ve never had a weapon described in such detail before. Everything so far has been just “a spear, a mace with spikes, a hammer.” If the only thing we had was the name “Barbed Broadsword”, then I’d agree with you, there’s no reason to mandate anything about the weapon.

You are correct, PF barbs would do more damage than a regular sword when removed. But here’s the thing: let’s go back to the wording of Greg’s response which I can type from memory by this point.

A sword with curved barbs on the side, so that when you pull it out you do more damage.

Greg doesn’t just say that the barbs do more damage. Their intended purpose is to do more damage, specifically when removed. PF barbs would be designed to do more damage going in, and HF barbs would be designed to do more damage specifically going out.

Honestly, given the fact that Toa typically don’t kill, my headcanon is that the BBS is a tool from some other species that Tuyet just took to use as a Toa Tool. Who knows, maybe she just thought it looked cool.

2 Likes
9435

It seems like people are assuming the “when you pull it out you do more damage” quote specifically refers to the broadsword being used to stab though someone. But as far as I know, the only time the sword is described as being used is as a “slashing attack” in Reign of Shadows chapter 9:

Helryx avoided Tuyet’s slashing attack

If Tuyet is slashing someone, rather than stabbing all the way through, the barbs could be curved in either direction and still do more damage when pulling it out. Think chopping with a knife, rather than poking a hole. This is my proposed evidence against mandating curve direction.