2023 Majisto GWP

[Classic_Spaceman]

6 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

How far off is the MTS? It's not this year, is it?

1HY 2024, though I cannot remember which month (April?). 
 

[zoth33]

24 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

The assumption is that the shield would be reused in the GWP if it were going to appear in the MTS. 

I still hold to the theory that Game of Thrones killed traditional LEGO Castle themes from around 2014-2021; knights and castles were still of interest to children, which is why we got Nexo Knights during this time, but more traditional Medieval settings were too reminiscent of GoT for LEGO. Only after the show ended with a flop in 2019 did LEGO start making traditional Castle sets again. 
 

Same - Black Knights are a better choice for the next big faction following the Black Falcons and Lion Knights, since their castles are black (thereby differentiating their set(s) from the LKC), and since they were the next faction to appear after the OG Lions and Falcons. Also, the Black Knights are better suited to a more realistic/daily-life set like the village; Dragon Masters could be a bit jarring in that context. That said, I do want them to reappear - Perhaps via a combination of Creator sets, GWPs, and CMFs? 
 

I really don't think GOT had anything to do with lego not doing castle themes.  Then why did they stop classic space and pirates also only to bring them back.  I think they brought in new people in management and they decided to try new things instead of keeping what had working for them.  This happens with companies all the time new talent wants to prove things and show what they can do.  I do agree with the black knights they were one of my favorites back in the day.  I just hope we get some new factions with some interesting heraldry coming the next few years either in sets or cmf's.  

[Alexandrina]

31 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

I still hold to the theory that Game of Thrones killed traditional LEGO Castle themes from around 2014-2021; knights and castles were still of interest to children, which is why we got Nexo Knights during this time, but more traditional Medieval settings were too reminiscent of GoT for LEGO. Only after the show ended with a flop in 2019 did LEGO start making traditional Castle sets again. 

I don't know about this. Lego's Castle offering has always been distinct from Game of Thrones (and if they were concerned about going too close, they could easily either cut down on dragons or go full-fantasy with trolls and dwarves again for a wave or two) but I feel like they missed a trick. A Castle theme would have had perfect synergy with Thrones, and got plenty of sales from young adults wanting to make Thrones-esque MOCs as well as older kids who watched the show (and as someone who was still at school when Thrones began, I can say with absolute certainty that such petty things as 'age ratings' were disregarded). Lego could have released completely unoffensive Castle sets and still raked in the money from Thrones fans.

What I think is more likely is that the last year of regular Castle sets flopped (they were mostly pretty terrible tbh), hence why in 2014 there was only the minifigure packs and in 2015 there was nothing at all. Then, Nexo Knights ultimately failed to live up to what Lego wanted it to be, but they considered it internally a Castle continuation. Then after two flops in a row they mothballed the theme for a while; the success of the recent Castle sets and the presumed Medieval Village next year should bode well for Lego trying again with a regular theme in the future, hopefully one which has better models than 2013.

(I do wonder if the rise of PAB indirectly led to the failure of the Castle line. Once it became easy for AFOLs to buy the minifigures in abundance on PAB, they'd have been less likely to buy lots and lots of a given set for the minifigures.)

[zoth33]

14 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I don't know about this. Lego's Castle offering has always been distinct from Game of Thrones (and if they were concerned about going too close, they could easily either cut down on dragons or go full-fantasy with trolls and dwarves again for a wave or two) but I feel like they missed a trick. A Castle theme would have had perfect synergy with Thrones, and got plenty of sales from young adults wanting to make Thrones-esque MOCs as well as older kids who watched the show (and as someone who was still at school when Thrones began, I can say with absolute certainty that such petty things as 'age ratings' were disregarded). Lego could have released completely unoffensive Castle sets and still raked in the money from Thrones fans.

What I think is more likely is that the last year of regular Castle sets flopped (they were mostly pretty terrible tbh), hence why in 2014 there was only the minifigure packs and in 2015 there was nothing at all. Then, Nexo Knights ultimately failed to live up to what Lego wanted it to be, but they considered it internally a Castle continuation. Then after two flops in a row they mothballed the theme for a while; the success of the recent Castle sets and the presumed Medieval Village next year should bode well for Lego trying again with a regular theme in the future, hopefully one which has better models than 2013.

(I do wonder if the rise of PAB indirectly led to the failure of the Castle line. Once it became easy for AFOLs to buy the minifigures in abundance on PAB, they'd have been less likely to buy lots and lots of a given set for the minifigures.)

That's an interesting theory I had not thought about PAB like that in terms of the Castle line.  Personally I would still buy the sets even if the minifigs were on PAB.  But that may contribute to less sets being sold.  

The villains from Nexo Knights were really nice though the red and black lava guys are great have several of them and the rock gargoyle guys also had some great prints and are great for a fantasy setting.  I know Nexo knights didn't do well but I liked some of the sets and my youngest son liked the theme as a whole.  

[MAB]

18 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

It was still about that male/female discussion. To make it short: Historically seen it is a fact that Knights were, with some exeptions, male. That beeing said while fantasy can do what it wants, it is based on the medieval here and I personally would prefer that - and I don´t really need a wizard in a castle set - although I have nothing against it either and indeed I really like Fantasy Era.

 

This set is not based on medieval times. It is fantasy. If you don't need a wizard in a castle set, then this set is not for you. If you want male soldiers and no wizards, then you can wait for a historically accurate set. You might be waiting for a long time though.

[Black Falcon]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

This set is not based on medieval times. It is fantasy. If you don't need a wizard in a castle set, then this set is not for you. If you want male soldiers and no wizards, then you can wait for a historically accurate set. You might be waiting for a long time though.

You are failing to understand what I said. First of all: I wrote that Fantasy is based on Medieval times, not that the set is (although the set is ofc based on it to some extend too). Second: I especially made clear, that while I don´t need a wizard in castle Sets,  I don´t mind having him. To make it more clear, I like both Medieval based and Fantasy based Sets, hence I menationed that I really liked Fantasy Era.

And third: I wrote in several comments now, that while I prefer when there are more male knights, I don´t really care that Lego has their reasons to do it different, which I understand and which are perfectly fine to me. I never once complained about the dragon knight beeing female, because it doesn´t bother me at all. 

[Roebuck]

10 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

1HY 2024, though I cannot remember which month (April?). 
 

It is not known, however since info has come already I am sure it will be at the start of the year.

I still think LOTR killed of both itself and Castle..

[Black Falcon]

24 minutes ago, Roebuck said:

It is not known, however since info has come already I am sure it will be at the start of the year

Well rumours said March or April, with one later stating it would be april - we will see if that is true.

Quote

I still think LOTR killed of both itself and Castle..

Why?

[Roebuck]

1 hour ago, Black Falcon said:

Why?

I would say 2009-2012 Castle peaked with several of the best sets ever made in the theme. Well in 2012 we only got one set to wave the good times goodbye and LOTR hit the stores. Afols liked LOTR, but they where not so numerous a decade ago and the kids did not like them apparently. So Lego introduced a new Castle wave rather <insert that tiresome argument> for the younger kids in 2013 with the buyers divided none of them sold enough and both were canalled. They kept the hobbit around for another year to benefit from the last movie and canned that as well.
If they had kept on producing high quality Castle sets and not introduced LOTR the Castle theme could have lived on I think. However the dark ages are over and both Castle and LOTR have returned probably better than ever

[Black Falcon]

9 minutes ago, Roebuck said:

I would say 2009-2012 Castle peaked with several of the best sets ever made in the theme. Well in 2012 we only got one set to wave the good times goodbye and LOTR hit the stores. Afols liked LOTR, but they where not so numerous a decade ago and the kids did not like them apparently. So Lego introduced a new Castle wave rather <insert that tiresome argument> for the younger kids in 2013 with the buyers divided none of them sold enough and both were canalled. They kept the hobbit around for another year to benefit from the last movie and canned that as well.
If they had kept on producing high quality Castle sets and not introduced LOTR the Castle theme could have lived on I think. However the dark ages are over and both Castle and LOTR have returned probably better than ever

Hmm, well I kinda think that it was more Ninjago that killed it of. With Castle sets beeing more aimed for kids - and likely adults not looking for them as much as they do now - I think with the limited amount of money most parents are willing/able to buy sets/presents for their kids you kinda have to decide if they want one ot the other. And with Ninjago beeing popular then and now among kids I think maybe castle didn´t got enough sales then (and there are other themes like city around aswell).

Also they tried to bring castle back with a more modernized aproach instead. But I think another point is that they just have so many different themes around now, with an limited amount of sets you can produce that the real reason might be a lot things coming together.

Quote

<insert that tiresome argument>

Well I´ve read that somewhere else already, so what exactly is the tiresome argument you are talking about here?

[jodawill]

7 minutes ago, Black Falcon said:

Well I´ve read that somewhere else already, so what exactly is the tiresome argument you are talking about here?

The forum replaces the word "juniørized" with that text.

[DaleDVM]

It was a combination of factors that caused the pause in the castle line.  GOT had little to nothing to do with it IMHO. 

A weak castle line in 2013 that many considered juniorized was one factor.  Hobbit/LOTR sets on shelves competing for the same LEGO dollars as the 2013 line was another factor.  The Hobbit movies being a disappointment for many also factored in.  Neither line performed very well.  The 2013 castle line actually did worse than the Hobbit. 

Then Nexo Knights theme was introduced, it had zero appeal from adults but did okay with kids.  It didn't sell well because adults have a bigger affect on LEGO purchases than TLG understood at the time. 

All while Ninjago was already well established (released in 2012) and competing for the kids battle themed dollars.

All 3 castle "ish" lines did not sell very well but for different combinations of reasons.  TLG management couldn't comprehend there being multiple reasons for the failures, especially since those failure were made by them.  

So...  As usual TLG took the wrong message and thought castle/fantasy/historical/medieval was no longer popular.  Leading to the castle drought.  

Now that people constantly vote up castle Ideas sets TLG is slowly getting the message.  

PAB could be having an effect from army builder types.  I am one of those.  However, I think we are a small minority in the overall LEGO community.  Yes, this decreases buying of sets.  But, TLG should have that data, and be very aware when we are buying torsos, shields, weapons, etc. from PAB in huge quantities that castle IS popular AND we want lots of figs too.  This is why they should always provide battle pack sets along with the castle theme releases.  

[Black Falcon]

2 hours ago, jodawill said:

The forum replaces the word "juniørized" with that text.

Ah ok. Well that replacement doesn´t really work well, since it really breaking the reading flow. (And actually in the post underneath yours, it isn´t replaced at all)

1 hour ago, DaleDVM said:

A weak castle line in 2013 that many considered <insert that tiresome argument> was one factor.  Hobbit/LOTR sets on shelves competing for the same LEGO dollars as the 2013 line was another factor.  The Hobbit movies being a disappointment for many also factored in.  Neither line performed very well.  The 2013 castle line actually did worse than the Hobbit. 

Well I actually like the 2013 castle line. And to complain about playsets for kids as <insert that tiresome argument>, I really don´t see the sense there. Anyways, sure I understand that the Kingdoms Series was a bit more detailed, and especially the castle of the 2013 line is lacking Minifigures. The main issue I see with that one actually is the Siege IMO.

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, Black Falcon said:

Ah ok. Well that replacement doesn´t really work well, since it really breaking the reading flow. (And actually in the post underneath yours, it isn´t replaced at all)

I wonder if it's a holdover from the early days of the forum. If you revisit really old topics (stuff from 2004/2005) there's a lot of broken emoticons - where the emoticon no longer exists on the forum - and a sense that the forum's culture was different, much more informal, probably due to the significantly smaller membership. This is also the time where the 'juniorification' of sets was an issue, with lots of bigger parts in sets (and Jack Stone fresh in the memory).

The html tags appear to be broken too, which suggests that it's residue from an older time.

[Sir Blew]

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

are you advocating for all minifigures coming with both male and female heads? Because if not, what you're saying is that men are the default but women can have representation as an 'alternate'.

Not necessarily, just where it makes sense. Eg characters representing traditional roles. Eg I wouldn't expect alternate bearded heads for the medieval maidens, but a bearded head on a nurse character makes sense. 

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

This also comes with a litany of other problems. How does this intersect with minifigures who have exposed backs of their heads? Is it done with two heads or a dual-sided head? What about figs with visible hair? Do Lego include hair styles for both male and female minifigures, or do we just only have one or two hair styles like it was in the 90s?

These are not insermountable problems. You're overcomplicating it. I'm sure they are perfectly able to make sensible decisions on these. Alternate gendered heads can be used where there are exposed heads. Visible hair is already gendered. Alternate hair is a great idea too.

If the price of Lego goes up by $0.10 per extra piece to account for the extra head pieces then that's fine by me.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

What about box art, instructions and promotional material? How does Lego decide which figures are male and which are female on the box?

Is box art gendered? Some of it may lean that way (eg Friends), but in the case of Castle it appears pretty non-gendered to me. A mix of genders on the box is fine (and good). Again, this is about not about having a mix of genders, it's about enforcing non-traditional genders on historic roles or characters.

Keep in mind that we're primarily discussing updated retro sets here. Sets which were previously non-gendered and are now gendered.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

Or alternatively, they could just ignore the gurning from people mad that there are women in their plastic block kits and continue with equal representation.

That's a strawman argument. Nobody is "mad that there are women" in the sets.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

Not a good argument. Castle is fantasy and encompasses the fantasy genre and its trappings (it always has; even the earliest Castle sets were an idealised storybook world rather than any sort of accuracy.) Witches and wizards and dragons are appropriately fantasy, as are trolls and dwarves and ghosts, and if Lego ever felt the urge to include elves and fey in a regular Castle line they'd be appropriately fantasy too.

Storybook worlds which were mostly derived from historical legends and folklore, not from modern gender equality idealism. The fantasy is impeded by imposing modern standards on the folklore. Again, that's fine if you prefer it that way, but that shouldn't mean the rest of us be forced to as well.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

Spacemen are not genre appropriate. You yourself presented them as the endpoint of your slippery slope. When spacemen appear in a medieval-esque setting, it's invariably either somehow deconstructing the genre or it's a science-fictiony genre with medieval dressing (Time Cruisers, for example, could get away with this.)

The point about spacemen is relevant to the question on where the fantasy begins and ends. Absolute accuracy is impossible to achieve in Lego, therefore everything will have some element of fantasy. Your argument uses fantasy as a reason to impose non-traditional genders on characters or roles by arguing that, if there is any fantasy element, then we must extend that to gender fantasy. Why must we, when instead we could achieve the same goal by including alternate heads/faces for those who prefer them?

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

Women are appropriately fantasy. Women not only really existed in the time period the genre is based on

Not in the roles or characters in question here. That's a key point that you're missing.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

, but (especially in recent times) there's been an increase in representation of women as knights and guards (the Critical Role TV show, for example, has women as guards just as much as men; so do video games like Skyrim) and entire books/series where women don armour and fight just as much as or more than men exist in the genre. The Priory of the Orange Tree, for instance, has plenty of women as fighters. The Wheel of Time has an entire culture where the women are more fearsome fighters than the men.

This is more argument that's basically arguing that, if you have some fantasy, then you must have gender equality fantasy. Providing alternate heads or faces doesn't take away anything from those who prefer equal gender representation, or even Wheel of Time style mostly female representation, if that's what you prefer.

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

Lego Castle has always been fantasy. Lego themselves explicitly prioritise play experiences for kids over realism.

What does Lego explicitely prioritise for retro sets labelled "18+" and "Adults Welcome"?

On 11/10/2023 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

And having women be knights is both improving the play experiences for girls who want to see themselves, and true to the genre of the theme.

It's not true to the genre of the theme at all. Again, I have no problem with improving the play experiences of girls who want to see themselves, but I do have a problem with Lego enforcing non-traditional gendered roles on historical characters, particularly with retro sets which were non-gendered to begin with. More than anything else, I'm mostly annoyed that I have to seek and purchase a bunch of male heads every time I buy a retro style set. A problem that's easily solved by alternate heads and/or faces.

[Roebuck]

Rather frustrating after they quit the monthly store calendars to plan purchases 
I know from leaks what the promos for the next 2 weeks are most likely however Lego has not confirmed it yet. So we might end up in a situation where we do not know the Black Friday deals for sure when the insider weekend starts

[MAB]

21 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

You are failing to understand what I said. First of all: I wrote that Fantasy is based on Medieval times, not that the set is (although the set is ofc based on it to some extend too).

Fantasy castle may have some elements based on some long gone period of history, but the key phrase is "based on". If there weren't changes to known history, it would be a historical set and not a fantasty set. If it is acceptable to have non-historical elements such as a wizard in fantasy, then it is just as acceptable to have female warriors. It can still be based on Medieval times but use females in some of the traditionally male roles. The change from factual to fictional makes it fantasy.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Sir Blew said:

1. This is more argument that's basically arguing that, if you have some fantasy, then you must have gender equality fantasy. 

2. What does Lego explicitely prioritise for retro sets labelled "18+" and "Adults Welcome"?

3. It's not true to the genre of the theme at all. Again, I have no problem with improving the play experiences of girls who want to see themselves, but I do have a problem with Lego enforcing non-traditional gendered roles on historical characters, particularly with retro sets which were non-gendered to begin with. More than anything else, I'm mostly annoyed that I have to seek and purchase a bunch of male heads every time I buy a retro style set. A problem that's easily solved by alternate heads and/or faces.

1. The alternative argument is that it is OK to any amount of fantasy that LEGO likes to reach the maximum possible audience for their product. The argument is not that there must be gender equality because that would be fantasy, but this is a fantasy set/theme and having gender balance in non-licensed / generic themes leads to better sales.

2. It is marketing, the same as for modulars, botanicals, etc.

3. There are no historical characters here. They are fantasy characters. Where these fantasy characters were not gender specific in past versions of the set, what is to say they were not intended to be female? If they weren't gendered, they were not male.

This is a GWP set with a reasonably high purchase threshold. So if you are buying direct from LEGO to get it, add an order of for example 20 male heads from pick a brick. The cost is small compared to the threshold. Then you don't have to worry about it now or for the next few years. 

[R0Sch]

[R0Sch]

The scroll is just a sticker on a 2x2 tile and the interior looks just as bad as the original set. The second floor is completely empty. 

[Alexandrina]

4 hours ago, Sir Blew said:

Nobody is "mad that there are women" in the sets.

People absolutely are, which is why this argument comes up every time Lego has the audacity to include women in historical sets.

4 hours ago, Sir Blew said:

The point about spacemen is relevant to the question on where the fantasy begins and ends. Absolute accuracy is impossible to achieve in Lego, therefore everything will have some element of fantasy. Your argument uses fantasy as a reason to impose non-traditional genders on characters or roles by arguing that, if there is any fantasy element, then we must extend that to gender fantasy

No - fantasy is a genre which has a lot of conventions. None of those conventions have to be included, but none of them are out of place. Women at arms are a part of the fantasy genre, as are dragons, witches, wizards, goblins, etc., and so Lego including any of these in a regular Castle theme wouldn't be out of place. Because they belong to the genre. Spacemen are very much not in the genre, so they would be out of place.

5 hours ago, Sir Blew said:

Again, I have no problem with improving the play experiences of girls who want to see themselves, but I do have a problem with Lego enforcing non-traditional gendered roles on historical characters, particularly with retro sets which were non-gendered to begin with.

We're not talking about historical characters, we're talking about fantasy characters who have a historical aesthetic. If this was a case of Lego specifically representing actual historical figures like William the Conqueror or Robert Guiscard (or Jeanne d'Arc or Queen Matilda) and changing the gender of those real figures while ostensibly still representing them I'd be on your side. Even if we're talking about specific folklore (such as sets that are explicitly Robin Hood and his band of merry men, rather than nameless Forestmen). The figures in this set aren't that.

16 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

<image snipped out>

Now we can see inside I think the set looks even better (even if there's a weird perspective glitch on the interior image that made me think for a moment we were getting 1x2 tiles with masonry profiles). Majisto's scroll looks like a sticker which I'm sure will upset people but I have plenty of the original so if I end up getting Majisto I'll probably keep the plain white tile and sub in one of my spare originals.

Are the dark bluish grey masonry bricks a new element or have I just had terrible fortune getting any in the past?

[Yperio_Bricks]

13 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

Are the dark bluish grey masonry bricks a new element or have I just had terrible fortune getting any in the past?

They are not a new element and come in 90+ sets.

[Alexandrina]

23 minutes ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

They are not a new element and come in 90+ sets.

Huh. Somehow I've just avoided getting any then.

I should have known it was odd given dark bluish grey is such a normal colour to have in the brick.

[Black Falcon]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

Fantasy castle may have some elements based on some long gone period of history, but the key phrase is "based on". If there weren't changes to known history, it would be a historical set and not a fantasty set. If it is acceptable to have non-historical elements such as a wizard in fantasy, then it is just as acceptable to have female warriors. It can still be based on Medieval times but use females in some of the traditionally male roles. The change from factual to fictional makes it fantasy.

You are still failing to understand. It was my personal preference for more knights being male in my medival based fantasy world (as in actually most other fantasy worlds to). I´ve never once said, Lego should make them male, nor that it is bad they way they are doing it. 

[Classic_Spaceman]

On 11/12/2023 at 9:14 AM, DaleDVM said:

PAB could be having an effect from army builder types.  I am one of those.  However, I think we are a small minority in the overall LEGO community.  Yes, this decreases buying of sets.  But, TLG should have that data, and be very aware when we are buying torsos, shields, weapons, etc. from PAB in huge quantities that castle IS popular AND we want lots of figs too.  This is why they should always provide battle pack sets along with the castle theme releases.  

I think that PAB is only killing the small army-builder sets and Minifig packs of old; siege equipment, prison wagons, watchtowers, carriages, and other small-to-mid-size sets would still sell as they have something to offer beyond just the Minifigs. 
 

On 11/11/2023 at 7:18 PM, Alexandrina said:

I don't know about this. Lego's Castle offering has always been distinct from Game of Thrones 

On 11/12/2023 at 9:14 AM, DaleDVM said:

It was a combination of factors that caused the pause in the castle line.  GOT had little to nothing to do with it IMHO. 

I mean that GoT changed the public perception of Medieval fantasy; Classic LEGO Castle was very heavily inspired by literary tropes, as those were the popular associations with the genre pre-GoT. After the show became a global phenomenon, those classic tropes were replaced by the more ‘mature’ themes of GoT in the public consciousness; LEGO wanted to avoid the connotations now inherent to Medieval fantasy, so they ended the Castle line in favour of Nexo Knights (a space theme with knights more than a castle theme!). I actually went into more detail on this theory in a couple of Instagram posts last year.