Except we know in Bionicle barbs specifically have a slightly different definition. As it’s been brought up before, the Nui Kopen set an in-universes precedent for barbs that are straight and run perpendicular to the tail they’re mounted on. There’s another example too. As ToaArcan says;
So we know that in Bionicle the definition of a barb is slightly looser than it is in our world. We actually have a pretty good baseline for barbs in Bionicle. They can point downwards. They can be curved. They can also be straight and perpendicular. It’s not like anyone’s suggesting a sword covered in raisins because in Bionicle definitions are meaningless. We just want a loose enough definition to allow the use of official parts that would’ve fit the description before this pedantic debate. Based on my understanding of the rule, many popular depictions of the BBS would have to be phased out in the art. This would be fine if they didn’t fit the description of the BBS. But they all do.
This rule just seems like a silly one to enforce. As it’s been brought up before, I’m concerned about enforcing it. What if the barbs curves are brought into question? What if we have to DQ a possible winner because plenty of people inevitably won’t draw a BBS with this degree of specificity?
Nice work chopping out the entire justification for that point, my dude.
I said it shouldn’t be a rule because it’s impossible to depict in MOC form with existing parts, and because Greg has consistently described what are visibly angular spikes (Krika’s armour) as “curved blades.”
False I should never have brought this up. I was very very wrong
It was in reference to a specific Nui-Kopen in a story with a mutation, not the regular combiner
Yes, they’re an option. They’re not mandatory. A 3D-printed part should not be required for entry. Especially since half the argument in favour of requiring the sword has been “If you can’t/don’t want to make a sword, you can just slap a Rotate Blade or an Air Saber on her and call it a day”, which should absolutely remain an option. Unless accessibility isn’t something we want now.
It is something we want, but it shouldn’t take precedence over canon accuracy.
Just to be clear, I’m not using this as an argument for or against any specific rule. Maybe the Air Saber should be allowed, maybe it shouldn’t be, but the desire to use it shouldn’t affect the rules. If the final ruleset allows for its usage, then fine, but it has to be in that order: the rules affect the usage of the part, they aren’t shaped by it.
Im all in favor for not requiring the sword be in the moc contest but be required in the art.
But if someone tries to design the sword they can have it be required for the art or choose it to be redesigned
Can I just point out that the prototype Krika did have curved spikes, and Greg has stated before that he sometimes writes based on prototypes?
Also: even if Krika spikes curved in-universe and the piece doesn’t portray it, we aren’t canonizing a piece, but an art. Even if it’s difficult to build, there’s no reason not to draw it correctly.
I don’t mean to single you out, Jerminator, since many people have been saying things to this effect, but I think it bears repeating that regardless of mandates, there is precisely zero canon precedence that the barbs of Tuyet’s Barbed Broadsword were pointed in one direction or the other, let alone that the Tuyet of the prime universe even wielded a Barbed Broadsword.
Ok, so what have I missed? Been working on something, that I will get to but its still a WIP but I’m getting side tracked.
On the topic of the BBS, I would like the following to occur(These are wants so they are not up for debate at this moment, we can discuss the intricacies of the pros and cons of them at a latter time if you may.):
Required in both moc and art
Direction of barbs not mandated. Them being curved however should be mandated.
A consent system so moccist can lock their sword design in place if they want.
Lastly not really a want so argue this to the ground if you want.
There is plenty of ways to create a bbs with curved spikes using existing LEGO parts. Some may say well but then all the swords would be samey to which I say and the problem is exactly? Isn’t this contest about determining the best representation of a character if we all have a unified design for the sword in mind wouldn’t that just make the end result just so much more accepted?
Any how back to the light hearted thing. I actually wanted to talk about:
Do you guys remember this inorganic Suletu concept?
Well here is my progress so far, 3d modelling it, enjoy:
Again, I didn’t say that as an argument for or against barb direction, or any other mandates.
My point behind that specific statement is that we shouldn’t tailor the rules around what parts are easy to use, or what weapon is easiest to design. The rules should be determined on their own, and then it should be determined which parts do or do not fit those rules. It shouldn’t be the other way around.
Maybe the final rules will allow for the Air Saber (as a specific example), or maybe they won’t. That’s the purpose of this discussion right now. But the existence of that part shouldn’t be used as an argument to determine whether or not the part can be used.
I’m not really a fan of this reasoning. If we follow this train of thought to its conclusion, someone could literally enter a barbed axe as the BB. Like if we assume words don’t mean what they mean … then why even mandate the barbed broadsword at all?
Imo Metus’ sword, Norik’s spear, and the Vahki staffs should all just be looked at as what they are; mistakes or limitations of the design process. As such they should be treated as outliers in this conversation.
99% of the time what Greg wrote, he meant. I really don’t want to have to mandate the direction of these spikes, but like, the only arguments we have against it deal less in canon and more in assuming Greg didn’t mean what he said, you know?
I only logged off for a few hours. It said 40+ when I woke up. Y’all.
Everyone’s locked into the pattern that keeps happening: once everyone says their arguments, and brings in their evidence, they just talk past each other, and continually throw the same evidence they did into the discussion the day before, hoping that, maybe, the evidence everyone has already seen and discussed will convince everyone, this time, to change their minds.
I’m not pointing this at any one person or group. Pro down-barbs mandate, anti down-barbs mandate, and every variation upon the two, is guilty of this. i’ve been guilty of this. I will almost certainly be guilty of this again.
Unless someone has something genuinely new to contribute, there is nothing any amount of arguing will do to change the outcome of whatever decision about the barbs ends up coming to pass, whatever that decision may be. Each piece of evidence that can exist has been brought up 10+ times each by now.
What’s frankly more important is the bigger picture. Every time something comes up that genuinely merits some discussion, this happens. Even after some of these topics are no longer relevant, this happens.
As a community, we need to figure out a better way to discuss these topics. I have no idea what it would be. But hundreds of posts arguing the same points back and forth over what direction barbs on a sword should face feels more like arguing for the sake of being right than arguing for the sake of reaching a consensus. And that’s not helpful.
But in seriousness, I 100% agree. Isn’t it like, a whole gag, at this point, about the ceaseless arguments? One everyone takes part in? And yet no one seems to be doing anything to make a change to it all.
Agreed. This is becoming a topic I dread reading, and I know many others feel the same. I have no idea how it could be improved. But there have probably been a few hundred posts about the barbs on Tuyet’s sword.
