LEGO IDEAS - The Medieval Blacksmith

[Pulp Detective]

25 minutes ago, Vorkosigan said:

Its not a new piece, it was used in CMF Series 20, the "Tournament Knight." I am glad to see it again though. In the picture it almost looks chrome, but that is probably just a artifact of the rendering. 

Oh yea I completely forgot about the knight.Well I hope it becomes more widely available in the future.

[Lord Insanity]

2 hours ago, Lego David said:

From what I heard, the goat mold was actually destroyed years ago. The LEGO designer Mark Stafford wanted to include it in the T-Rex Rampage set from last year, but he couldn't. So don't expect to see any goat mold of any kind in this set.

I am sorry but that is just absurd.  Lego routinely makes single use new molds every year.  We can't get a highly versatile farm animal that would be usable in many sets across multiple themes?  Utter nonsense.

As for the color of the roof, it goes from black to dark blue to regular blue to sand green.  I love the weathered and lichen covered look compared to the original mostly dark blue roof.  This set wound up being everything I was hoping it would be.  It is certainly far more faithful than the Pirate Bay wound up being.  (Granted that is still an awesome set but for the ship not the actual pirate port town it should have been.)

[CopperTablet]

The final design looks good.  The original submission was too enormous to be incorporated into a lot of existing Castle stuff and the roof was unnecessarily complex.

[JintaiZ]

3 minutes ago, CopperTablet said:

The final design looks good.  The original submission was too enormous to be incorporated into a lot of existing Castle stuff and the roof was unnecessarily complex.

I agree the original roof may have been a bit complex to be made into a set, but I wish the final design would have at least used similar techniques...

[BlackGloveBricks]

LEGO usually takes liberties with their final versions of any IDEAS set. 

So you won't catch me crying about the differences between what they've revealed for the Blacksmith versus what was originally submitted. 

As an35+ year fan and collector of the LEGO Castle theme, and its sub/related themes, I'm ecstatic to see something new that isn't just another box castle, horse-drawn cart, etc...

Is it different and smaller to the fan submission? Sure. 

But is it still gorgeous and refreshing to this AHOL that hasn't been offered a great new Castle set in nearly a decade? You bet it is!

This is a day-one purchase for me. And rather than pick nits and point out what parts aren't perfect, I'm going to rejoice in the addition of some desperately needed evergreen to LEGO shelves that have been dominated by licensed themes for far too long.

[Aanchir]

36 minutes ago, Lord Insanity said:

I am sorry but that is just absurd.  Lego routinely makes single use new molds every year.  We can't get a highly versatile farm animal that would be usable in many sets across multiple themes?  Utter nonsense.

I mean, we certainly could — the fact that a goat mold got introduced in the first place even without a firm commitment to include them in more than just one set is proof of that.

But the likelihood of LEGO reintroducing a mold like that specifically for a product in a smaller and older-skewing theme like LEGO Ideas (without any other immediate uses in mind) is fairly low. Chances are, if they were to recreate the goat mold, it would probably be for the sort of "mainstream" KFOL-oriented sets that get a substantial budget for new molds by default — for instance, stuff like City sets or Minifigures blind-bags, which are produced and sold in batches of several hundred thousand copies each.

And it  would would also need to be for a set or theme that the designers feel would benefit more from a goat piece than from any other sort of new molds that the new molds budget for that set or theme could be spent on. The fact that they haven't reintroduced goats already isn't the fault of any sort of bizarre "anti-goat" bias — it's just that so far, designers for the themes where a goat mold COULD ostensibly appear have chosen to put their budget towards other sorts of new molds — including new or updated animal molds like the sea turtle, dolphin, big cat, chameleon, bulldog, husky, and baby velociraptor.

I definitely think new goats would be great to see — and perhaps the original mold not being available anymore might actually provide an opportunity to make some design improvements like removable horns so that you could create goats with no horns, smaller horns, or differently-shaped horns. But there are also plenty of other new animal molds that would be exciting to see in the future (including in historical contexts), such as sheep, calves, foals, squirrels, or mustelids like weasels, ferrets, and stoats.

1 hour ago, Grover said:

I think they also missed the mark without brown grasses. Had they included the goat and left the more muted vegetation I probably would have picked up 5 copies.  Now I will have to wait to see if I will pick up 1 or 2, depending on the interior.  Cool, yes.  Great for parts?  Maybe OK.  Really amazing?  Not by these pics so far.

By "grasses" do you mean the ones that were represented with the old spiky shrub pieces (the ones that were used as seaweed/coral back in LEGO Aquazone)? Those could have been nice I suppose, but at the same time, the variegated colors would not have been possible since only the upper of those two molds has remained in production. Plus, I personally feel like those two shrub pieces tend to be better suited for use as spiky plants like yucca which grow in arid or sandy environments, and grasses or shrubs in temperate European settings can be better represented with other parts that showed up in either the original project or the final set like the curled reed piece, the flower stem piece, or the "plate with three leaves" piece.

The omission of some of those environmental details is definitely a bit of a shame, but I do feel like they're are balanced out nicely by other details which have been added in their place, such as the covered well, the more twisted and gnarled tree design, and the thick beds of moss on the roof and ground. And in the case of some of those features like the autumn leaves which were scattereed on the ground, roof, and the tree itself, there's still some hope that the set could include multiple foliage options for the tree like they did for the Tree House and Bonsai sets — particularly since this set seems to be aimed at a similar target age range to those two sets, and would require far fewer "extra" pieces to change out the leaves than either of those ones did!

I also appreciate how compared to the original set's foundation (which was mostly a flat, solid-colored surface with only surface details like stones and greenery to break it up), this set's foundation is more mottled and uneven from the ground up. That definitely helps it feel more rustic/natural, and less like a carefully tended lawn or garden. That said, I do sort of miss how the foundation of the original terminated in a slope. Although that would've looked cleaner and more stylized than this "layered plates" approach, I have a lot of fondness for those sorts of uses of smooth, curvy pieces (sometimes to the detriment of my own MOCing efforts), and I was thrilled to see the Barracuda Bay set use that approach for its coastlines. So I guess either of those approaches is sort of a give and take.

3 hours ago, JintaiZ said:

What I like about it:

-Finally something similar to the Classic Castle theme!!
-Overall pleasant color scheme
-Nice building techniques for the tree
-Printed parts

What I don't really like:

-I preferred the techniques for the roof in the original project...
-The base feels rather simplified
-A lot less complex
-Looks too clean for a medieval building; I wouldn't mind a messier one
-No minifigures - I don't collect them, but there are many people who will appreciate them
-If $149.99 is the actual price, it sounds a bit steep...
-I wish it was more similar to the original project in general; other than the size there are a lot of other things that changed

Overall:

The pros outweighs the cons by quite a bit, but I'll probably wait for official pictures to decide whether I'll get this set or not. While it's easy to appreciate TLG making things similar to the Classic Castle theme, after seeing the original project the set just leaves more to be desired...

Just my own thoughts.

Other than the roof, what parts of this model seem less complex to you? Because honestly, as many unexpected changes as there are, I was pleasantly surprised to see how many of them ended up INCREASING the model's complexity.

For instance, the half-timbered wall designs have added curved timbers in addition to the vertical and horizontal ones. This impressed me a lot, since I've been trying to play around with half-timbered wall designs on Stud.io for months now to figure out how to make more half-timbered walls like this SNOT techniques in place of either the printed panels that classic Castle sets often used or the more fiddly combinations of tiles and slopes that I've seen a lot of other AFOLs employ in MOCs. This design that LEGO managed to come up with far surpasses anything I was able to come up with — it's simple and versatile enough (and uses common enough pieces) that it would be useful in a wide range of other models, while still feeling detailed and authentic enough for a special AFOL-focused sort of set like this one.

Similarly, the attic uses hinges really beautifully to construct the rafters at each end of the roof. While it definitely looks "cleaner" than the original model, which used the same SNOTted tiles for those roof timbers as for the ones on the other walls, it also gets rid of the unsightly, uneven gaps between tiles in the original model's rafters, and creates a really beautiful contrast between the wider and sturdier timbers used for the main support posts and rafters, and the thinner ones used for the intermediate wall studs and trusses.

Even the stonework on the ground floor has been enhanced considerably — for example, the original set's arched doorways and windows used prefabricated half-arch pieces, while the new design uses Dark Stone Grey tiles and curved slopes to create much more detailed textures representing the individual stone blocks and keystones that form the arch. Again, this is something I've played around with in my own MOCing efforts quite a bit, with the specific aim of coming up with "brick-built" alternatives to the sorts of printed arches and window panels in older Castle and Pirates sets — but LEGO's designers were able with a solution that's much more satisfying than any of my own attempts.

Similar SNOT techniques have been used to add detailed Dark Stone Grey quoins to the corners of this story in place of the simpler building techniques on that part of the original project. And on a more minor note, Olive Green and Earth Green bricks are now used for this story in addition to the two shades of grey, creating the impression that the same mosses or lichens which are growing on the roof shingles and ground are have also begun to take root on some of these lower walls.

In general, there are just so many more details to take in the original project, which despite its really amazing textures and patterns, seems at some points to have used those textures and patterns in a much more "uniform" way. It feels like nearly every time I look at the set I spot a new, clever part use or technique which I hadn't noticed before, and I expect that will continue as pics of the set from more angles begin to show up. After all, even a lot of details from the original project that DID make it into the final set, like the stone staircase and the arched doorway beneath it, were ones that weren't visible in the project page's "main" photo, only from the pics showing alternate angles!

[Lord James]

If the $150 price is accurate, I'll definitely pass. By comparison, the Medieval Market Village cost $99 when it was released. That's about $122 today when adjusted for inflation.

[JintaiZ]

Just now, Aanchir said:

 

Other than the roof, what parts of this model seem less complex to you? Because honestly, as many unexpected changes as there are, I was pleasantly surprised to see how many of them ended up INCREASING the model's complexity.

 

Other than the ones I've stated, I still feel like the the tree is much more complex than the original one. It does look a better but the original one was definitely more detailed...

[Grover]

6 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

By "grasses" do you mean the ones that were represented with the old spiky shrub pieces (the ones that were used as seaweed/coral back in LEGO Aquazone)? Those could have been nice I suppose, but at the same time, the variegated colors would not have been possible since only the upper of those two molds has remained in production. Plus, I personally feel like those two shrub pieces tend to be better suited for use as spiky plants like yucca which grow in arid or sandy environments, and grasses or shrubs in temperate European settings can be better represented with other parts that showed up in either the original project or the final set like the curled reed piece, the flower stem piece, or the "plate with three leaves" piece.

The omission of some of those environmental details is definitely a bit of a shame, but I do feel like they're are balanced out nicely by other details which have been added in their place, such as the covered well, the more twisted and gnarled tree design, and the thick beds of moss on the roof and ground. And in the case of some of those features like the autumn leaves which were scattereed on the ground, roof, and the tree itself, there's still some hope that the set could include multiple foliage options for the tree like they did for the Tree House and Bonsai sets — particularly since this set seems to be aimed at a similar target age range to those two sets, and would require far fewer "extra" pieces to change out the leaves than either of those ones did!

I also appreciate how compared to the original set's foundation (which was mostly a flat, solid-colored surface with only surface details like stones and greenery to break it up), this set's foundation is more mottled and uneven from the ground up. That definitely helps it feel more rustic/natural, and less like a carefully tended lawn or garden. That said, I do sort of miss how the foundation of the original terminated in a slope. Although that would've looked cleaner and more stylized than this "layered plates" approach, I have a lot of fondness for those sorts of uses of smooth, curvy pieces (sometimes to the detriment of my own MOCing efforts), and I was thrilled to see the Barracuda Bay set use that approach for its coastlines. So I guess either of those approaches is sort of a give and take.

By grasses I meant element 15279, which I think could have been very cool in tan, dark tan, or reddish brown.  Those are still in production and would only require a recolor, which I think could have been a homerun.  I do agree, the twisted and gnarled tree design is great on the trunk.  I'm less in love with the foliage on it.  It reminds me more of a bonsai tree than a European style deciduous tree of any kind.  Thinking about it now, the foliage choices that I am least in love with are the more spring like colors, rather than the fall.  I really enjoy the colors of fall, and I think that the oranges and browns in the original set captured that.  I understand why the set was made brighter overall, and I think that this set is more true to the original than Barracuda Bay, but I would have liked to see the fall colors, especially since they are in production right now in both the limb elements and the three leaf varieties.  Reds and bright yellows could have spiced up the colors without cutting to a lime green, which reminds me more of springtime.  If they include multiple colors for foliage, I would be very happy.

I don't really see the green on the roof as moss.  It seems too regular for that to me.  I'd like to see more irregular shapes or some small foliage for that.  The thicker curved slope in the original design was kind of cool, but I'm just as happy with the irregular baseplates.  I do agree with you, the curved plates are pretty neat, and a thick base would be interesting and unique. 

Overall, I think they did a great job with cutting down the design, and my judgment is reserved for the official pictures.  As I stated above, however, with a goat, I would have bought 5 of these!  I think, too, that a new mold is not out of the question for these sets now, so it would have been a great place to include it. 

2 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

I am sorry but that is just absurd.  Lego routinely makes single use new molds every year.  We can't get a highly versatile farm animal that would be usable in many sets across multiple themes?  Utter nonsense.

As I understand the rumors, the lack of goat int he T-rex set was not due to not making a new mold but rather that the decision was made too late to cut and test a new mold before production began.  That I could believe, for as you say, a new mold is not out of the question for TLG at all.  I think a goat would be a smart addition to the animal lineup since it would be quite usable across themes, and could even be reshot in different colors like gold and grey for statuary.

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, JintaiZ said:

Other than the ones I've stated, I still feel like the the tree is much more complex than the original one. It does look a better but the original one was definitely more detailed...

Alright! Personally I disagree about the tree, though… I feel like a curvy design like this which requires using unusual parts and SNOT techniques feels more complex than the original model's more traditional "studs-up" design built from basic slopes, bricks, and arch pieces. I also feel like a distinctive design like the one in the final set helps the tree to measure up better to uniqueness of the building techniques and style of the rest of the set, if that makes any sense.

That's not to say that more traditional way of building trees is bad, of course! I have loved seeing trees built similarly to the original project's in sets and MOCs over the years (including in recent themes like Ninjago and Elves), and that sort of build remains my "go-to" option when trying to design trees for MOCs, unless I need the tree to be a more specific type or a more specific size than that type of build would allow for. And it's great to have an option as simple and versatile as that when you need a tree design that's easy to build in larger quantities (like for a forest setting), rather than just a stand-alone tree like the one in this set.

Also, the reason I feel that the green parts of the roof seem like they are intended represent moss or lichen is that they seem to have the same color and "bumpy" texture as some of the greenery around the model's foundation, but also roughly match the shape of the shingles themselves — as if they represent a rough-textured material applied on top of that more smoothly-textured surface, but not in a dense or thick enough layer to really alter the general "form factor" of that underlying surface.

-----

By the way, I didn't mention it my earlier post (because it was running long and I needed to take a break to order dinner), and this isn't directed at any one person's comments… but in regard to the roof, I really get the feeling that the biggest changes were probably made due to structural necessity. I've seen some people compare to the Old Fishing Store and wonder why a similarly dilapidated roof wasn't an option here. But the original Old Fishing Store project's roof was made of fairly solid plates covered in large tiles representing wooden boards, and only a few of those tiles were attached by single studs so they could be left "askew" instead of in neat horizontal rows. If anything, the final set's roof ended up being a lot MORE uneven and dilapidated.

The original Medieval Blacksmith Shop project's roof, on the other hand, had a much more chaotic roof design, with lots of individual shingles made up of smaller tiles (e.g. 1x2 instead of 1x4 or 1x6), and MANY of them attached "askew" by single studs. This sort of off-grid connection is inherently less secure than it would be using larger tiles, since instead of having individual tubes and anti-studs underneath which can function as a fixed "pivot point",1x2 tiles attached by a single stud can tilt or slide around much more freely. Also, the previous version of the blacksmith shop's roof was broken up into four hinged segments on each side, using various 1x2 hinge pieces.

For an official set, these sort of hinge plates would typically need to be locked together both above and below, making the roof itself at least a full brick thick at many points even BEFORE adding the shingles. Otherwise, not only would the shingles themselves be prone to coming apart when you go to hinge the roof open or remove the entire attic to view the interior, but the connections between the structural elements of the roof would also break pretty easily when interacting with them.

Because the original project only existed as a digital model, the project creator didn't really have to reckon with these sorts of structural concerns, but it's a dilemma that a set designer would have no choice but to confront — and it's quite possible that retaining more of these aspects of the roof design would've meant having to omit interior access entirely so that builders would not need to touch or interact with the roof at all after the model was completed (a sacrifice that I know many MOCists end up having to make to allow for that level of detail). For my part, I know I'd much prefer a simpler roof construction with fewer hinges if it meant that the interior space could be more fully utilized.

And if we consider the roof design from a diifferent perspective than just authenticity to the original project, the original model's dilapidated-looking roof probably wouldn't be especially realistic anyhow. I mean, it's not as though people in medieval times were somehow too "barbaric" or "primitive" to build or repair evenly-shingled roofs. So a run-down, slipshod appearance like the roof of the original model feels more like something you'd find on an abandoned ruin or haunted house than something you would have actually seen on a beautiful medieval house of this sort back when it had been more recently constructed, and was still being actively used for a home and a place of business.

In other words, if we'd describe the mottled colors and mossy peaks of the final set as unrealistically "fairy tale" styled, then we could just as accurately described the dark, run-down, patchwork look of the original project as unrealistically "gothic horror" styled. That's not a mark against either sort of stylization, but wanting something to be more realistic and less stylized is very different from wanting it to be just as unrealistic and stylized, but from a different direction!

Edited January 2, 2021 by Aanchir

[Totoro]

It's gone from looking authentic, to looking like a fake Disneyland recreation. I absolutely hate everything about it. This is by far the worst change from the original design. I don't think that LEGO should be allowed to make such significant changes to what was voted on. I bet a lot of people that voted for the original design, would not have voted for the LEGO redesign. 

[Vorkosigan]

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

...

In other words, if we'd describe the mottled colors and mossy peaks of the final set as unrealistically "fairy tale" styled, then we could just as accurately described the dark, run-down, patchwork look of the original project as unrealistically "gothic horror" styled. That's not a mark against either sort of stylization, but wanting something to be more realistic and less stylized is very different from wanting it to be just as unrealistic and stylized, but from a different direction!

Thanks for your detailed and well reasoned analysis! I like the looks of the model and agree both versions have their own styles that are not necessarily more realistic than each other. 

[Lacdaran]

People seem to be keying in on the fact that original had a more muted pallette.  Darker brown wood trim, darker blue roof, more olives and browns in the tree and grass.  The switch isn't bothering me much, but it is interesting that we've seen that a few times now on ideas projects.  Barracuda Bay in particular comes to mind.  Is there a reason for that?  Brighter colors are cheaper resin?  Focus groups prefer those colors?  Better aligns with the old pirates and kingdoms theme sets?

[Grover]

16 minutes ago, Lacdaran said:

People seem to be keying in on the fact that original had a more muted pallette.  Darker brown wood trim, darker blue roof, more olives and browns in the tree and grass.  The switch isn't bothering me much, but it is interesting that we've seen that a few times now on ideas projects.  Barracuda Bay in particular comes to mind.  Is there a reason for that?  Brighter colors are cheaper resin?  Focus groups prefer those colors?  Better aligns with the old pirates and kingdoms theme sets?

Probably sells more sets to kids.  For me, I dislike the choice of blue on the roof because it makes no sense to me that the lighter blue, which is presumably the original roof color (since things darken as they get older and dirtier), would be next to the 'moss' (which is too regular for me anyway), and then the roof gets darker as it goes down.  The moss should be next to the darkest spots if you ask me, and any spots that are untouched and pristine should be the brightest colors.  As it is, the blue seems to stick out to me.  I was also disappointed that they appear to have gone with a spring theme rather than a fall theme, but if they include parts to make both, I will be happy.  I still like the set and think it's a good medieval building (and about time).  I hope that this does well and brings more castle/medieval sets, but I am a little concerned that, as someone mentioned in another thread, that in changing this so much, they have missed the mark on target audiences and made it less appealing to everyone.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Grover

[Modal]

Seriously how is this the same price as the Old Fishing Store? That one is significantly bigger than what we’re seeing here.

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, Lacdaran said:

People seem to be keying in on the fact that original had a more muted pallette.  Darker brown wood trim, darker blue roof, more olives and browns in the tree and grass.  The switch isn't bothering me much, but it is interesting that we've seen that a few times now on ideas projects.  Barracuda Bay in particular comes to mind.  Is there a reason for that?  Brighter colors are cheaper resin?  Focus groups prefer those colors?  Better aligns with the old pirates and kingdoms theme sets? 

It doesn't really require any sort of complicated explanation. In a lot of cases, brighter colors make for a better model. On a basic level, it improves the amount of visual contrast between different parts of a model and helps them stand out. Also, since people rarely build or display sets under optimal studio lighting conditions, using brighter colors ensures that differntly  won't be completely washed out or indistinguishable from one another under those less-than-ideal conditions. If you've ever had a hard time distinguishing between colors like Dark Stone Gray, Olive Green, and Sand Yellow/Dark Tan while building a set; or between Black, Dark Brown, and Earth Blue/Dark Blue, this should be fairly obvious!

Also, with digitally-rendered proposals like this one, you have to account for the difference between transmissive color (the color of an object that emits its own light, like a lightbulb or computer screen) and reflective color (the color of an object that produces color by selectively reflecting the ambient light around it, like a LEGO brick or the printed page of an instruction manual). In general, white and other light colors look much brighter as transmissive colors like pixels on an LCD screen than as reflective colors like inks or dyes.

By contrast, black and dark colors invariably look much darker as inks or dyes than they possibly could on a computer screen (since even if you turn a computer screen off entirely, it's often just a dark gray, and the light of surrounding pixels also keeps black images on a screen from looking as dark as the screen itself would be if it were turned off).

So even if a model built with lots of dark colors might still show lots of detail andd strong contrast as a rendered image on a computer screen, that's no guarantee that a version built from physical bricks will look that good in real life. And similarly, even if a render or high-quality photograph of a set using lots of bright colors looks a little overwhelming on a computer screen, it might not be nearly as much so when built from real bricks or printed on a sheet of paper.

Long story short, colors are weird and the context in which you see them can make a BIG difference to how they actual end up looking, even if the colors themselves remain the same between different contexts! It's entirely possible that if the creator of this set had designed it as a physical model in the first place, they would have found those initial colors too drab and chosen to use brighter ones in their original proposal to begin with — I've definitely ended up making changes to some of my own MOCs when I went from an initial digital design to building them in real life for the first time, and realized they didn't actually look like I wanted or expected them to.

That said, I am not an expert on color theory myself by any means, nor can I claim to have all the answers! These are just some basics that I've picked up over the years from art classes or other sources, and there's probably a lot more nuances to this stuff that I wouldn't even begin to know how to explain.

 

One final note: While some of us might disagree about whether the roof colors of this final set look better or worse than the ones in the original project, there are two facts that seem important to keep in mind about this:

1. Monochrome Earth Blue roofs have showed up in plenty of other sets from themes like LEGO Creator and LEGO Friends without any issues, including brand-new 2021 asets like Heartlake City Park and Andrea's Family House.
    
2. This set DOES include plenty of Earth Blue shingles, so there's no reason to assume there were any sort of limits on designers' access to those parts

So it stands to reason that using Black and Bright Blue shingles in addition to Earth Blue ones in this specific set was a very deliberate aesthetic choice — not any sort of reluctant compromise or corporate mandate.

57 minutes ago, Grover said:

Probably sells more sets to kids.  For me, I dislike the choice of blue on the roof because it makes no sense to me that the lighter blue, which is presumably the original roof color (since things darken as they get older and dirtier), would be next to the 'moss' (which is too regular for me anyway), and then the roof gets darker as it goes down.

In real life, older roofs often DO tend to develop darker streaks or stains towards the bottom, usually due to dirt, algae, mildew, and stuff making those shingles darker than they had been originally. So this seems to line up pretty neatly with that. Perhaps the moss and/or lichen growth near the top of the roof might have even helped to soak up moisture from those shingles near the top, preventing algae or mildew from developing up there?

In any case, it definitely doesn't seem like the placement of the various colors was an arbitrary or random decision. Once the set is "officially" unveiled, it'd be neat to hear what sort of references the set designers might have turned to to inform some of those sorts of decisions. By the way, has there been any speculation yet about who the designer for this final version of the set might have been? It doesn't seem to have any obvious "calling cards" for the designers I'm most familiar with, so that's an aspect of the set which is still a complete mystery to me.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Aanchir

[Modal]

15 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

By the way, has there been any speculation yet about who the designer for this final version of the set might have been?

I think someone mentioned Wed Talbott?

Edited January 2, 2021 by Modal

[Mr. President]

I like the final version of the set. Honestly, I find all the excessively complex MOCs that get posted as ideas to be very off-putting. A lot of submissions don't look like actual Lego sets, but the kind of models that AFOLs post on forums to get praise from each other; and they lack the features that Lego sets are supposed to have. The platform is at risk of becoming just another place for AFOLs to show off their building skills and congratulate each other.

Anyway, I definitely intend to get the set.

[Blazej_Holen]

1 hour ago, Modal said:

I think someone mentioned Wed Talbott?

My guess is Caesar

[Roebuck]

1 hour ago, Blazej_Holen said:

My guess is Caesar

No need to guess, it is Wes:
https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-ideas-to-release-medieval-blacksmith-set/

I wonder if this 3-4 figs and a horse rumour is just something the "IG leakers" picked up at stonewars where they assume that some figs and a horse also is included (from what I get out of translating the article). Have not seen the IG posts, but that is typically how one feather becomes 5 hens there

[Aurore]

I personaly prefer the set to the original.
The overall shape of the building looks more harmonious with the added curved details, and I love the colors of the roof. It reminds me of (but is less elaborate than) the polychrome roofs of some 15th century buildings.
Just like @Grover, I would have loved autumn foliage though.

Now awaiting photos of the minifigs and hoping for more animals than a single horse!! 

[Another Brick In The Wall]

 

15 hours ago, Lego David said:

From what I heard, the goat mold was actually destroyed years ago. The LEGO designer Mark Stafford wanted to include it in the T-Rex Rampage set from last year, but he couldn't. So don't expect to see any goat mold of any kind in this set.

I just bricklinked the price of a used goat.......oof!

15 hours ago, JintaiZ said:

-If $149.99 is the actual price, it sounds a bit steep...

Double oof!  

 

 

[Lego David]

7 hours ago, Lacdaran said:

Focus groups prefer those colors?

If this were a normal LEGO Castle set, I would believe that. But it is actually a LEGO Ideas set that will presumably be rated as 18+. So I don't really see how focus test groups could be behind this when the set is probably going to be aimed at AFOLs, and not kids. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Lego David

[LettuceBrick]

Just now, Lego David said:

aimed at AFOLs

Focus groups of AFOLs? Do they even do that? Or would everything just get leaked during the first [AFOL equivalent of recess or whatever]?

[Lego David]

Just now, LettuceBrick said:

Focus groups of AFOLs? Do they even do that?

As far as I know they do invite the original submission's designer to help out with designing the LEGO Ideas set, but that's about it. I don't think they do any AFOL focus test groups of any kind, otherwise this set would have looked a lot more different.