Latest CMF series impact on Historic themes

[Artanis I]

1 hour ago, Robert8 said:

I had very high expectation for the Dwarf... but I don't know... I just can't like it

The hair is weird, I don't like that beard piece and I don't really get why the guy is wearing shorts 

They can't be shorts unless his legs are VERY tanned. I think it might be the top of his boots folded over his pants or something.

[x105Black]

On 2/18/2017 at 11:23 AM, Robert8 said:

Sadly, the Elf Maiden doesn't seem to match with the S3 Elf

It's a loss, but not much considering how good she still looks.  And despite the sloped legs, I'm still excited.  I'm going to guess and say she has the taller new shield, but the angles and other pieces in the way are confusing the eye.

On 2/19/2017 at 2:53 PM, Shroffy123 said:

I kind of wish the dwarf was more generic to allow for army building. The gladiator looks good. Interested so see how the highway man fits into historical setting. Wondering why he wasn't disclosed? 

Same here.  I do like the dwarf's torso and pants, though.  The gladiator is solid, a very simple design well executed.  Looking forward to that Highwayman, though.

[BrickJagger]

22 hours ago, Robert8 said:

I had very high expectation for the Dwarf... but I don't know... I just can't like it

The hair is weird, I don't like that beard piece and I don't really get why the guy is wearing shorts 

He's alright....kind of video-game esque. I'll pick one up for sure, new dwarves are always appreciated.

[SirBlake]

I'm glad that the Elf Maiden doesn't match the original CMF elf. It's nice to have variety in design and color, and it's also good to get a unique heraldry on the shield. 

It'll be nice to see the full design, but based on what we can see, she looks more like a high elf compared to the earlier male elf who has more of a woodland realm sort of look. Kind of Lothlorien vs Mirkwood. 

[MAB]

If you want female forest elves, you can always pull the heads off the new ones and put them on the forest maiden torso and slope skirt.

I'm also a fleshie fan these days and the (sometimes tiny) yellow flesh on torsos will stop me getting them. I can understand it on ones like the shirtless gladiator or weightlifter. But on the French guy, cook, and even the elf, that tiny piece of yellow at the neck is almost an insult to anyone that wanted to reuse the torso with a fleshie head. The burger boy and surfer look perfectly fine without a yellow neck showing on the torso, I wish they could do this as a default.

 

 

On 19/02/2017 at 1:38 AM, josykay said:

The dwarf seems to be a little bit inspired by Warhammer slayers. Mohawk hairstyle, red dyed hair, no armor... Not  a fan of him as well, Especially of the beard design. In addition imo his legs are, as all short legs missing details.

3

The butterfly girl has details on short legs. And so does Bart Simpson, as pointed out earlier. Short legs can have detailed printing if lego want to do it.

 

[Ardelon]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

I'm also a fleshie fan these days and the (sometimes tiny) yellow flesh on torsos will stop me getting them. I can understand it on ones like the shirtless gladiator or weightlifter. But on the French guy, cook, and even the elf, that tiny piece of yellow at the neck is almost an insult to anyone that wanted to reuse the torso with a fleshie head. The burger boy and surfer look perfectly fine without a yellow neck showing on the torso, I wish they could do this as a default.

 I feel the same way about fleshie torsos (especially with LotR and PotC). But yeah, that would be a good solution.

[Artanis I]

13 hours ago, MAB said:

I'm also a fleshie fan these days and the (sometimes tiny) yellow flesh on torsos will stop me getting them. I can understand it on ones like the shirtless gladiator or weightlifter. But on the French guy, cook, and even the elf, that tiny piece of yellow at the neck is almost an insult to anyone that wanted to reuse the torso with a fleshie head. The burger boy and surfer look perfectly fine without a yellow neck showing on the torso, I wish they could do this as a default.

5 hours ago, Ardelon said:

 I feel the same way about fleshie torsos (especially with LotR and PotC). But yeah, that would be a good solution.

One thing you can do to get around that (incredibly annoying and unnecessary) yellow/flesh neck triangle is the addition of some body wear accessories or beards, obviously it doesn't always work.

I think the dwarf would fit in with the Hobbit dwarves if not for the yellow (he doesn't look to go well with any of the existing yellow ones).

[AmperZand]

On 21/02/2017 at 11:03 AM, MAB said:

If you want female forest elves, you can always pull the heads off the new ones and put them on the forest maiden torso and slope skirt.

That's pretty much what I did but using a LotR elf hair/ears piece. I had to recolour the ears yellow.

Quote

I'm also a fleshie fan these days and the (sometimes tiny) yellow flesh on torsos will stop me getting them...

I'm a yellowist, so exactly the reverse bothers me. Recolouring fleshy ears yellow works pretty well, but fleshy triangles at the neck are difficult to turn yellow; they always seem to retain a hint of flesh. I'm not even going to try to recolour decolletage. I'd like to do it for a Wonder Wonder minifigure but sadly I'm pretty sure it wouldn't look minifigure yellow.  

[MAB]

53 minutes ago, AmperZand said:

That's pretty much what I did but using a LotR elf hair/ears piece. I had to recolour the ears yellow.

 

1

While at the same time I was recolouring my Series 3 CMF elves ears with fleshie paint. :-)

I've tried painting out the little neck triangles with fleshie paint, they look awful. A better method is to just remove the print (takes a lot of care) and leave it the base torso colour, or just sharpie it black if the torso can take it.

[SirBlake]

The detail on these is really impressive. 

Lion pauldron on the gladiator is good, tattoo and hammer detail on the dwarf is really fun, and the armor on the elf is maybe the biggest surprise.

If I'm being a weenie about it (and let's face it, I am), my only complaint is that as great as these are, none are good army building candidates. That's a small gripe though. Look how nice they are!

 

 

 

[Alfadas]

That is some impressive detailing... Wow. I really like the look of the elf. The hammer and torso of the dwarf are amazing too. Are they out yet?

[SirBlake]

Should be out in May. Some may find them a week or two earlier. 

[Alfadas]

42 minutes ago, SirBlake said:

Should be out in May. Some may find them a week or two earlier. 

Nice! Really want a couple of those elves

[Robert8]

I have to say I don't like the front of the Elf hairpiece. I wish it would have been like Legolas' hair. 

The back side is excellent though. 

And the printing in ther dress is just...  P.E.R.F.E.C.T.

 

The Roman Gladiator is quite decent. The printing is very detailed. A net was totally needed though

 

The Battle Dwarf.... well... is a disaster. I don't know what they were going for, but I just don't get the minifigure overall. We already have a Evil Dwarf in Series 5, why didn't make a normal "good" Dwarf here? It would have been more useful and recognizable as a character than this guy. The parts alone are good, but once you put them together.... I don't know. They just don't match

[thetang22]

5 hours ago, Robert8 said:

The Battle Dwarf.... well... is a disaster. I don't know what they were going for, but I just don't get the minifigure overall. We already have a Evil Dwarf in Series 5, why didn't make a normal "good" Dwarf here? It would have been more useful and recognizable as a character than this guy.

This guy is a pretty iconic design in the Warhammer universe, and almost certainly where the inspiration came from.

[Exetrius]

8 hours ago, Robert8 said:

The Battle Dwarf.... well... is a disaster. I don't know what they were going for, but I just don't get the minifigure overall. We already have a Evil Dwarf in Series 5, why didn't make a normal "good" Dwarf here? It would have been more useful and recognizable as a character than this guy. The parts alone are good, but once you put them together.... I don't know. They just don't match

If all the individual parts are good, then I don't see a problem. Just make combos that do work out for you. In fact, this very thread implies that the CMF parts will be put to use in Historic/Fantasy minifigs (not necessarily in their original configuration). 

 

[MAB]

19 hours ago, SirBlake said:

If I'm being a weenie about it (and let's face it, I am), my only complaint is that as great as these are, none are good army building candidates.

 

 

Why not? Replace the heads on the each of them for a little variety and they are all army builders. The elf only really needs a change in the head and she is perfect for army building. Mix and match the gladiator with parts from the original one and the barbarian and you have a whole range of slightly different gladiators. The dwarf's body is fine for an army builder (although I don't like it as much as the original).

[x105Black]

The Gladiator is the best army builder in this bunch.

[SirBlake]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Why not? Replace the heads on the each of them for a little variety and they are all army builders. The elf only really needs a change in the head and she is perfect for army building. Mix and match the gladiator with parts from the original one and the barbarian and you have a whole range of slightly different gladiators. The dwarf's body is fine for an army builder (although I don't like it as much as the original).

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that they don't qualify as good army builders in the way that the Rogue or Frightening Knight do. 

For example, I don't have nearly as much use for an army of elf chicks with the same dress and limited hair options, or dwarves with the same tattoos and crazy red Mohawk, or even gladiator as they all tend to have pretty unique looks in a way that something like a knight doesn't. 

By all means, army build to your heart's content, but they don't make the cut for me. I love them and will absolutely get one or two of each, but I'm not getting 8 or 10 of any of them like I have others that are better suited for armies. 

[Blakstone]

I agree that these make great addition to existing Historic / Fantasy LMFs, but I don't plan on buying more than 2-3 of each of them.

I am just not that into the elf's shield design and the wonderfully printed warhammer looks like a specific hammer. I might add one to the Evil Knight army as the pattern makes the hammer.

I am sure the Highwayman will be a great army builder.

[thetang22]

I think these particular entries have a nice design on the whole.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, in regards to the army-building talk.  Do they NEED to be viable for army building?  Can't they just be awesome in a way that makes you want to get 1 of each?  Is army-building the main measure of a figure's usability and awesomeness?  Is there not a sigh of relief that you can enjoy it without the nagging sense of obligation to get 5, 10, or even 100+ of the same figure (and thereby dodging the cost associated with that)?  No ill intent with these comments, merely a consideration for discussion.

[Agent Kallus]

The bunny could work well in a historical setting, and a printed serving tray could make an interesting unique shield in the future.

The elf's shield is the older shorter one.

[Exetrius]

7 hours ago, SirBlake said:

For example, I don't have nearly as much use for an army of elf chicks with the same dress and limited hair options, or dwarves with the same tattoos and crazy red Mohawk, or even gladiator as they all tend to have pretty unique looks in a way that something like a knight doesn't. 

Fair points, couldn't have worded that better. 

38 minutes ago, thetang22 said:

Do they NEED to be viable for army building?  Can't they just be awesome in a way that makes you want to get 1 of each?  Is army-building the main measure of a figure's usability and awesomeness?  Is there not a sigh of relief that you can enjoy it without the nagging sense of obligation to get 5, 10, or even 100+ of the same figure (and thereby dodging the cost associated with that)?  No ill intent with these comments, merely a consideration for discussion.

Also a very valid remark. Personally, I prefer to have a diverse bunch of characters that have some kind of common theme (a pattern, colour scheme, insignia). For relatively well-established genres (i.e. medieval Castle), CMFs are useful for expanding the diversity and bringing in uniqueness, which is great.

However, consider the Roman and the Greek LEGO genres, both born from the CMF line. The Romans started with a Gladiator, but then followed the Soldiers, the Centurion and the Emperor. The Greeks have a Minotaur, Medusa, a Cyclops, Poseidon and Athena (basically). So: the Roman genre has 3 massable figures, the Greek genre has almost exclusively one-of-a-kind characters. Without duplicates, you can in both cases populate a small vignette. Now, try populating a 1m² Acropolis, compared to a 1m² Forum Romanum, with CMFs alone. You will find that your amount of Romans can grow with the size of your MOC, while the Greeks cannot. I think that's the main reason why the massable Romans appear to be more successful minifigs then the diverse Greeks.

In conclusion, I would say that if you want to establish a new genre, like non-licensed Elves or Dwarves, it is essential to have a few army building figures as a base.   

 

[SirBlake]

5 hours ago, thetang22 said:

I think these particular entries have a nice design on the whole.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, in regards to the army-building talk.  Do they NEED to be viable for army building?  Can't they just be awesome in a way that makes you want to get 1 of each?  Is army-building the main measure of a figure's usability and awesomeness?  Is there not a sigh of relief that you can enjoy it without the nagging sense of obligation to get 5, 10, or even 100+ of the same figure (and thereby dodging the cost associated with that)?  No ill intent with these comments, merely a consideration for discussion.

Certainly not. They're great figs on their own and really lack nothing. It's just an extra (or at least, different) bit of fun when there's an army builder in there. I'm not so much lamenting the absence of one as I am commenting that none exists in this series. That's ok by me. 

[x105Black]

5 hours ago, thetang22 said:

I think these particular entries have a nice design on the whole.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, in regards to the army-building talk.  Do they NEED to be viable for army building?  Can't they just be awesome in a way that makes you want to get 1 of each?  Is army-building the main measure of a figure's usability and awesomeness?  Is there not a sigh of relief that you can enjoy it without the nagging sense of obligation to get 5, 10, or even 100+ of the same figure (and thereby dodging the cost associated with that)?  No ill intent with these comments, merely a consideration for discussion.

While I agree that unique characters can be just as good as more generic army builders, I still think that many in the Historic (especially Castle) community prefer the army builders.  Good reasons are above, but here are more.

With the lack of representation in sets, the CMF line is the only place to find relevant minifigures (except for the odd character in a set here and there), and even still there are generally only about 2 or 3 in each unlicensed series (of which there is only 1 every year at this point).

It is nice to get excited about new CMF minifigures, and to want to purchase multiples, but when there are no army builders, there is no incentive to purchase more than 1 or 2 of each.  Comparatively, when there are army builders, there is a desire on the part of builders to purchase an army of them, which makes both the customer and LEGO happy.

Basically, many Castle fans (and it's not necessarily exclusive to Castle) want to flesh out their worlds.  We want to be able to buy several minifigures every year to do so.  Not including army builder minifigures restricts our ability to do so, thereby inhibiting LEGO from making the money they could make by including even 1 in each series.

That said, I still think the Roman Gladiator is the best army building option, and I could see some people buying a couple more of him than others (I'll only buy 1 or 2, and mostly for the hair and arms).  And while I'm not entirely excited about the Elf Girl's shield design, I'll still want at least a small handful.  The Battle Dwarf is the least useful, and I am not sure I can find a use for even 1 (I'm not much for using Dwarves in my world).

Edited April 6, 2017 by x105Black