It’s been discussed much earlier that this quote is not a clear indication that she had her sword, since “slashing attack” could mean a slash with her hand (as has been written in BIONICLE media before).
This took place after her return from who knows how many alternate universes, where she may have acquired a new sword or not. It is never mentioned as being with her in Reign of Shadows.
I think you raise a fair point, but typically when say someone is “pulling out” a sword, you’re referring to the aftermath of stabbing, not cutting, so I highly doubt that’s what Greg was describing.
…If that happens, that’s not ‘pull’ the sword, that’s ‘push’.
Compared to the saw… it’s difficult to match completely because saw has each pushing saw and a pulling saw.
(At least in the East, pulling saws are common)
Ironically, Tuyet attempted a “slashing attack” in the story.
Although I don’t completely agree with the rules, I respect TTV’s decision, and if it must be consistent with Greg’s explanation…
There is very little information about Barbed broadsword, and it is based on Greg’s quote, so it would make sense to presuppose pulling, not slashing
So here’s a question: what are people’s thoughts on having the barbs on the flat sides of the sword, instead of the edges? Most people seem to put them on the edge, but side barbs would work just as well, I think.
Ima be honest, I really dislike the idea of mandating which direction that the barbs faces. But, I haven’t been able to find a reason better than SirKeksalot’s on my own, so … assuming this mandate does go through then, just in the mind of branching us away from a circular discussion.
First a small question: If the barb direction is mandated, will it be in the art portion or the moc portion?
Then my big question: how are you going to police which direction the barb is facing? The easier way would be some kinda specific degree (like, the mathematical term “degrees”) to be mandated as “facing towards the hilt”?
Personally I believe 90 degrees away from the hilt would make most sense.
@Takutanuva, what’s your source for saying that the Nui Kopen’s tail is barbed? I haven’t been able to find a quote from canon material that uses the word “barb” to describe its tail. However, if this is canonically a barb, then it’s pretty easy to say that barbs can be up to 90 degrees away from the handle in universe.
On top of that, a 90 degree limit would make it a lot easier for both the people entering and the auditors to tell what’s wrong and what is right.
If Keksalot doesn’t find a loophole to get rid of requiring barb’s direction, I don’t think anything past 90 should be allowed. However, I think anything up to and including 90 degrees should be permitted.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
I’m a big fan. Unless there’s another Greg quote that mandates which face of the sword these spikes need to be on, I’m doing this. My only reason for doing it is that it looks dope.
Im down for it. Its why I was running the silver krika blade as a sub
That was an error, it only became barbed when a specific one got mutated. Its not the standard and we didnt get an appearance from what I can tell, so disregard that
well, one of the most common stand-in pieces (that was almost canonized, in fact), is the Krika blade, which has the points on the sides (and the front and back too, it has points on all four sides)
Personally, I’d say it’s not really a matter of which direction they’re “pointing” but which direction they’re “curving”, which would be a lot easier to identify.
Like, using my example from earlier:
These barbs start out pointed toward the tip, but they’re curved toward the handle.
both of these pieces would still need to be modified for the art, as the barbs are supposed to be curved.
Mmm. Well, that’s a bit unfortunate. But, I still think a 90 degree limit should be what we base it off of to make it easier to police these contests.
Plus, it would allow for the inclusion of parts like the Krika blade and the Brutaka sword, both of which are popular swords purists have been using.
In my opinion it’s a clear indication that the weapon was only wielded by an openly evil, post-Toa Empire Tuyet and not the prime universe one, but I’ve been outvoted by a couple of poorly-phrased questions to Greg
Ambiguity of her possession of the sword in that scene aside, if you slash someone with a barbed tool it’s going to do just as much damage going in as going out, so specifying “when you pull it out” (which was also specified outside that scene’s context) wouldn’t make sense.
Yeah, that would honestly almost make more sense to me (not that barbs on a sword make sense in any event).
that rule is for art (is it right that I remember)?)
Just draw barb slight bend toward the handle based on the existing part.
I’m beefing with this not because it’s a big issue, but because it’s this really tiny thing that’s been given this oddly specific mandate. It’s a strange rule that might rain on someone’s parade; I know at least one guy who will have to change his own custom sword because of it, and frankly, it was a fine design as it was.
My concern is not that it’s a limitation, merely that it’s an unnecessary one. I backed the mandatory Metru torsos because Greg said, in no uncertain terms, that the Hagah were all Metru builds (no, I’m NOT starting that argument again, if you quote that I will set rats upon your property). I am contesting this ruling because it was made, apparently quite quickly, based on an inference from something Greg said that he probably didn’t think too hard about.
Which only states that
With what we know about how Greg thinks (or rather, what he doesn’t seem to think about), and with how Bionicle weapons and even physics clearly disregard our own with the utmost flippancy (IIRC Greg outright said real-world physics don’t apply), it seems odd that this inference is being mandated because it’s rooted in practical engineering. Greg has said what he wants the sword to do, and you’ve inferred form from that function when form and function simply don’t go hand-in-hand in this universe.
There are so many odd things in Bionicle that I don’t know why we draw the line at how a certain blade is shaped.
I assume PF is point-facing, and HF is hilt-facing? Because “Hero Factory Barbs” doesn’t really make much sense here…
Anyway, as you concede…
…so the barbs were put there merely to fulfill that function, not that they were optimized for this purpose. Consider that a lot of Toa tools are just modified from what a Matoran has on his person upon transformation, e.g. Takanuva, and aren’t manually designed; the BBS’s barbs, as such, may not have been intentionally added, but merely have a certain effect.
You can pull things out at a different angle from how they went in. That’s allowed when you’re, like, killing people and stuff.
But we don’t know that. Like we don’t know how much consideration went into the Hagah build decision. It’s casting aspersions without actually knowing.
My issue with this is that it assumes that because some items don’t have human-level accuracy in description/appearance, none can. Are we now not calling a Toa’s leg a leg? Or a hook a hook? Greg has given a description to us using human words that us other humans have a definition for, and can now apply to an unknown.
Again, this is casting aspersions and suggesting that just because a Vahki staff doesn’t look like a stick, barbs can’t be barbs despite us having a function that matches the definition of a barb.
Because the author that thought it up told us how it works and it coincides with our understanding of what an item with barbs would do.
Mata’s tools were given when Mata were created.
Metru chose their tool.
Inika’s weapons were in the canister, and they were overcharged and transformed.
among things we’ve seen, only Takanuva’s staff of light has been transformed from a Matoran tool to a Toa tool.
edit
Looking at this, I suddenly start to worry about the digitigrade leg Lariska…
The Hagah were also given their tools when they assumed their new roles. It seems common for Toa to choose or otherwise obtain a tool that suits them.
So like
Why are we trying to assume that Greg doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
What is the rationale behind saying “well, Greg didn’t know what a mammal was that one time, so we can’t take anything else he’s ever said at face value”?
If you asked any person in the world what direction barbs would be facing to do more damage when pulled out, they’d say “toward the handle, of course”. There is ZERO reason to just assume that that’s not what Greg meant when he said “barbs curved to do more damage when you pull it out.” He’s describing HF barbs.
Maybe when he was describing how HF barbs work, he was actually picturing PF barbs. And maybe when he wrote “broadsword” he was actually imagining a giant club. Or maybe he meant exactly what he said, and exactly what he described, and it’s both illogical and unfair to him to say that he didn’t.
There’s a line between “trying to allow creative freedom” and “looking for loopholes to do something that you’re not supposed to”. The author’s intentions could not be clearer here.
I haven’t read in detail what the arguments are, but… is there seriously being discussed if it should be mandated which direction the barbs of Tuyet’s sword face?
Why?
Well, a digitigrade leg is still a leg, still functions as a leg. I’ve never been a fan of digitigrade Lariskat myself, but I don’t see why there’d be any issue with it aside from it being less likely to have my one vote.
Basically just because it was never explicitly stated.
There are very strong clues as to the direction of the barbs, but some people are recommending that these clues be ignored because of Greg’s, and the Bionicle universe’s, spotty history of making sense with real-life science and technology.
As far as I’m concerned:
Barbed broadsword = sword with short metal things sticking out to the sides of its blade.
Facing upwards (if sharpened) = more slashing damage
Facing downwards = rip and tear (though I’d argue for a slashing weapon like a sword it getting caught on an opponent might not be ideal)
No direction = more puncture/impact damage
This is the basis for the face-down mandate. Greg specifically said that the purpose of Tuyet’s barbs was to cause damage when being pulled out of a victim’s body.