HawkLord Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I think technically, if you’re going to call a set an “army-builder” it should not have a named or unique character in it. Army-builders should be regulated to infantry or even elite army figures in order to boost ranks of infantry from other sets. However, I don’t find anything inherently wrong with named or unique characters in army-builders,but then those sets lose some of their army-builder nature and become sets that just happened to have alittle more infantry style minifigures than usual. Quote
Lord Butters Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Since I was a youngling Ive always preferred grunts over unique characters. This even spread to things like Star Wars figures and RPGs. Quote
Tuinman Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I actualy don't know what I prefer. On the one hand, I don't buy multiple sets, so a unique character is no problem, sometimes even the only way to get him. On the other hand though, I have Eomer and only one Rohan soldier, in that case I'd prefer at least two grunts, instead of one unique figure and only one "unique" grunt. Quote
Simon_S Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I agree that it can suck having a unique character in an army builder set. But I don't think that the Uruk-Hai army is a good example. The Eomer fig can easily be modified to a soldier and it's easy to incorporate him in a big army, while in the Cavalry Builder Set you get a Lone Ranger fig, of which you already have 5 and which can't be used in an army . So basically, I don't have a problem with unique figs in army builder sets, as long as they can be used in the same army as the standard soldiers. Quote
sj1984 Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 i voted no, but its okay if the parts can be easily use dfor other figures Quote
KristofBD Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I said yes, as they are an excellent means to recuperate some of the money spent on the set. Helps obviously that I never buy more than two or three of the army builder sets. For people who buy gazlions it is obviously not helpful. Quote
Rogue Angel Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I would say that some of the best LotR torsos for army building have been off unique characters (Eomer, Haldiir, Thranduil) Quote
CMP Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I would say that some of the best LotR torsos for army building have been off unique characters (Eomer, Haldiir, Thranduil) Yeah. I've never understood the argument against Eomer. So having a bunch of nameless Rohan Guards (all identical) is fine, but having a bunch of Eomer (also all identical, but they look a lot better) is the worst thing in the world. I don't really mind it, but I don't buy these sets to build armies. Quote
SirBlake Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah. I've never understood the argument against Eomer. So having a bunch of nameless Rohan Guards (all identical) is fine, but having a bunch of Eomer (also all identical, but they look a lot better) is the worst thing in the world. I don't really mind it, but I don't buy these sets to build armies. The problem is that Eomer has unique armor among the Rohan army, it's quite distinctly different. It works at a distance, but if you like the details (and who among us doesn't?), it's far from ideal. Quote
Deathleech Posted January 4, 2014 Author Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah. I've never understood the argument against Eomer. So having a bunch of nameless Rohan Guards (all identical) is fine, but having a bunch of Eomer (also all identical, but they look a lot better) is the worst thing in the world. Eomer is fine imo. Actually he is better than fine, I think he is a perfect example of what Lego SHOULD do. They should give us a character who is unique, but at the same time looks plain enough to serve as a normal soldier. I just mix and matched Eomer and Rohan Soldier heads, helms, torsos, and legs and it made for a decent looking army. I kept the cloak off all but one figure and the one that does have it is my "real" Eomer. Thranduil on the other hand is a terrible example of what Lego should do. The only head piece he has in the set is his crown and hair which are super distinct looking. His head also has the bushy eyebrows which aren't terribly noticeable, but still more unique looking than Eomer's face. This figure is incredibly hard to use as anything but Thranduil, especially if you are using him strictly in a LotR/Hobbit setting. Quote
Fletcher Floyd Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 One unique Character is okay, as far as I can change him easily into something else. In MEA theres only Thranduils Crown that becomes useless, if you buy multiple sets. That's okay. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.