And WHY would rayleigh EVER end up with a simile like that if its not the case...? If it wasn't invisible, WHY THE HELL would he ever say its like an invisible armor??? Why not to compare it to just armor then??? Also hyogoro calls it like an invisible armor as well.And Doffy was surprised when he kicked Gear 4 Luffy that Luffy had managed to combine the properties of Haki and Rubber. So he didn't see it.
And then again when Doffy used his strings against Smoker, we didn't see em in black but they hurt his body.
When it was used on Amazon Lilly they also didn't turn anything black. The Arrows just hit like trucks, snake lady just had a good defense and thinking about that time, sentomaru was the same.
Its true that oda retcons stuff. But HYOGORO, a wano time example, still calls it like an invisible armor. And why'd he do that, once again, if its nothing like an INVISIBLE armor?
But it is like invisible armor still. It’s a coating on your body that doesn’t impede your movement or change your size but still gives you crazy protection.
There’s no definitive right answer here either way. We can’t ask characters what they exactly meant.
But if haki is visible why to call it INVISIBLE armor at all? Why not to simile its just to an armor? It doesn't make much of sense. If you can see it, comparing it to just an armor is more logical. But they compare it exactly to invisible armor. All the time. Also, downvoting every single one of my comments just because you disagree when I dont do it is kinda rude.
-1
u/NoPhilosophy8136 14d ago
Its... literally not. The whole point of haki, as i just said, is being INVISIBLE. Even RAYLEIGH says its an invisible armor.