icm

Same here.

I'm pretty sure you can already filter it that way. There's not a big button inviting it, but it's one of the filter options.

Could you please post a picture of all three Bounties beside each other? If you have the Land Bounty too, that would be great.

I bet it comes with the tram but no rails.

When I'm sorting the parts of a large set for storage, intending to put it back together in the future, I sort by color. When I'm sorting loose parts for use in creative building, I sort by part type.

My perspective was that I could stick any old minifig in the cockpit but I needed the real deal if I wanted the ship to be more than a tiny misshapen multicolored lump ....

Speak for yourself, I always wanted the ship more than the characters. Shrug, different strokes for different folks.

Here's an interesting read about that: https://kitbashed.com/blog/a-complete-history-of-the-millennium-falcon

The whole reason I bought the Temple of Resurrection in 2018 was because I'd just finished reading the unabridged Journey to the West in translation and the set reminded me not only of Stone Monkey King's cave paradise on the Mountain of Flowers and Fruit but also, really, of all the other demon cave strongholds and hidden monasteries the travelers encounter throughout the 100 chapters. There are so many! I'm not a minifig collector, so I don't feel the need to get any Monkie Kid figures to go with the Monkey temple that is that set. Thanks for posting!

The word you're looking for is dieselpunk.

They would look pretty two-faced for sure, but the German Peace Society would be just fine with it. On their website, they specifically highlight the 2017 Air Race Jet (the Technic F-35 lookalike) as just fine by them, and they specifically say a generic tiltrotor without the license would be just fine too. So going by that there's no reason for the Creator 3-in-1 airplane line to stop. But now I'm talking about Creator, not Technic, in a Technic thread, so I'll stop.

Fair enough, we're just disagreeing on what choice "A" is. You seem to define choice "A" broadly as strictly avoiding anything "violent or military" in any form, while I define choice "A" narrowly as not producing a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey for the reason that it is an aircraft exclusively used by belligerents in today's combat zones without any realized civilian application whatsoever. I think we can agree to disagree on that (that is, on a broad or narrow interpretation of choice "A").

You misunderstand me. If you have been making wrong choice "B" for several months while thinking about making right choice "A", and after incurring large sunk costs from wrong choice "B" you switch to choice "A" at the last minute, you are to be commended for your integrity in switching to "A" before the choice becomes irrevocable. Your history of making wrong choice "B" is not to be commended. With 42113, Lego has been making choice "B" at least since February before switching to choice "A". I am not commending them for their integrity in making choice "B" for many months. I am commending them for their integrity in switching to choice "A" in the end. Perhaps that nuance did not come across in my previous posts. The sentence "However, it's a commendation for integrity that, were the standards of integrity at the company higher in the first place, would not have to happen (i.e., not pursuing the license in the first place, and going with a fictionalized Coast Guard tiltrotor from the beginning)" was intended to show that I do not "buy their story hook, line, and sinker."

Maybe not "in touch", but "aware of" - i.e., it's not like TLG first heard from the Society in mid-July and then two days later canceled the set. They were aware of the Society's objections months ago.

Some thoughts - 1. If TLG and the German Peace Society have been in touch since February, clearly there have been a lot of questions about the set for months. Perhaps they hoped it would all blow over. Maybe the NGO had threatened to put out a press release opposing it if it wasn't canceled, and the executives at TLG thought they'd call the bluff. When it wasn't a bluff, they decided to pull the set - - - but it certainly wasn't an overnight decision, rather the prompt to back out of a deal they weren't entirely comfortable with anyway. With that in mind, I commend Lego for their integrity in making the last-minute call to cancel the set despite already incurring the losses of production and distribution. However, it's a commendation for integrity that, were the standards of integrity at the company higher in the first place, would not have to happen (i.e., not pursuing the license in the first place, and going with a fictionalized Coast Guard tiltrotor from the beginning). 2. Last year there were wild rumors that because of a breach of confidentiality, the Stranger Things set would be canceled at the last minute. Those were dismissed by those in the know as not only false, but ridiculous. Why would Lego cancel a big licensed set just days before its release, when they'd lose so much money from the already-completed production and distribution? Now that we know it's possible for a large, complex, widely-anticipated set to be canceled after it's already been sent to stores and all the promotional material has been distributed, I wonder how license negotiations will change in the future. Will potential license partners drive a harder bargain now that TLG has shown itself to be willing to not only cancel their sets at the last minute, but renounce them?