...
What effective examples of Ki Spam do we have?
I'm genuinely curious. I only recall the failures.
One Strip! One Strip!No he didn't...just beamed at two of them.
Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.Really feels like you're ignoring context in both of those examples and only looking at the final result.
Vegeta didn't get wrecked because he used the technique. He was outclassed, and at least held off Boo with it. If Boo had just powered through the technique it'd be one thing, but he used his regeneration to get around it. What other technique would have helped?
Against Cell, not only did Goku manage to pressure him, but his barrier also left Cell exhausted after it, so the technique still had an impact even though it was blocked.
It was a noticeable advantage. He was able to run rings around Goku when demonstrating his speed.
Edited by Saiga on Sep 13th 2018 at 10:39:50 PM
Untrue. The Worf Barrage can be a single attack, an isolated incident, et al. It can even be a single instance of an attack that in other situations is effective, though depending on the execution that can sometimes skew more towards So Last Season.
All that's required for it to be an example of the trope is that is flashy, seemingly powerful attack that when the smoke clears does zero damage to the target, thus showing how powerful the target it.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 6:27:17 AM
You should probably completely re-write the trope description, then.
An attack qualifying for The Worf Barrage if it's used that way once calls into question why such a trope needs to exist.
A good example of a single usage of The Worf Barrage is UIO Goku using the same Kamehameha that eliminated Kafla on Jiren and Jiren easily overpowering it.
![]()
Having just reread the trope description when posting that, in order to verify it, there's zero need for that.
From the description itself:
There's nothing there, nor in any of the paragraphs in the description, that specifies that it must be a single thing used in multiple instances. This is because the trope is a situational trope, describing a kind of scene, rather than describing a kind of item The only thing in the description that could lend itself that way, but only arguably, is this passage:
Which, while referring to the trope in the general sense, could be misunderstood to mean a specific thing. I doesn't specifically do so, but I could understand the confusion. But it's immediately followed by this clarifying passage, so that's far less of a problem than it would be on its own.
In short, the issue isn't in the actual trope description. In this case, what's actually the issue is in its usage and overall perception.
People tend to see it as the weapon equivalent of The Worf Effect: the Worf Effect is also a situational trope rather than a character trope, but is often used as a character trope (that is to say, it's often used as "this character is The Worf of the show" where the trope - while accommodating for that definition, and indeed having the bulk of its examples be that way - is for clarity purposes a more general "this is a situation where a character is the Worf," due to the former being far less useful as a trope description). As such, people often use the Worf Effect as the equivalent of a character trope (that is, this weapon is a Worf weapon) when the trope itself is actually more general.
The short answer to that is because a trope specifically about weapons that fit that description rather than scenes that use that device is specific to the point of being useless as to relate the thing it's trying to describe. It's the same reason The Worf Effect, which iirc used to be simply The Worf, was changed as well.
There's little need for such specificity in a plot device that is, simply, far more universal than such technicality demands.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:09:30 AM
The oopening paragraph completely contradicts the idea of the technique being useful in other instances.
The description is also clear that it DOES refer to a distinct attack/weapon, which helps distinguish it as a concept.
The Worf Effect was also named for a character who filled this role constantly, and I disagree with expanding it to any instance of a character worfing because there is a pretty notable difference between using it once and having a character specifically fill that role. Worf and Wolverine are infamous for it and I think that should be recognized.
There is similarly a big difference between a normally-effective attack failing and an attack/weapon constantly failing for suspense.
Not every attack that worfs deserves to be labelled as The Worf Barrage.
Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:24:48 AM
Depends. Are you taking the "all powerful, etc, etc" bit literally? Because you're not supposed to. The trope isn't specifically about Infinity Plus One attacks failing. That part is embellishment - or more accurately, that part is meant to key the fact of that trope that the attack used is flashy, huge and supposedly powerful.
It's the kind of exaggeration for fun/humor that's rather, and as always it's acceptable as long as its mitigated by the clarity of the rest of the description. Which, as I've noted, it does both in the paragraph that part is included in and the rest of the description itself. But if you feel it's a step too far, feel free to remove that small part.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:25:05 AM
I'm talking about the idea that the attack only gets used in No One Could Survive That!!.
If it also gets used effectively, it doesnt fit
Also, referring to the trope as 'that attack' means it is referriing to an object, not a situation
Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:27:34 AM

The Worf Barrage has to constantly be ineffective to count. That isn't the case for ki spam, even if there are examples where it is ineffective they are offset by effective examples.
It doesn't have a particularly different track record to other ki attacks.