Ardelon

Apparently, the chin strap on the "bullet helm" was prone to breaking similar to the classic space helmet, as referenced by Benny's space helmet design), as I learned in a discussion here about nine years ago:

It actually might not be the falcons at all - notice that the bird is not half black/white. It could be a brand new faction sporting a white eagle (or falcon) on a red filed as their coat of arms. In any case, I suppose that our Polish fellow AFOLs would be particularly pleased with this torso and any follow-up torsos and shields and what not (though the bird is facing the wrong way, and missing a crown).

I actually think the Home Alone set could fit nicely in the WV as the house of the local Scrooge who needs to be reformed - or after his reformation, with him hosting a Christmas party in his front garden/courtyard, with a big Christmas tree, ice sculptures, and what not. Its not relevant to my purchases, but I just wanted to add another point of view on the set and its role in the WV.

What immediately occured to me upon hearing "moon warrior" was a collectible minifigure concept by Alexandre Boudon, who as I understand, went on to work for TLG. The figure I am referring to can be seen here - the rightmost figure in the second row from the bottom. Several other of his concepts have popped up in the series in more or less recognizable form over the years, so this is what I'm expecting - with the addition of a shield, apparently. Edit: Looking at that picture again the goblin in the second row from the top has a shield with a crescent moon. Hmmm...

I usually saw the mask as not having a mouth - the circle seemed to me as a consequence of the molding process (don't know if that's true) and I saw the smiley ridge as just part of the decorated engraved lines, as around the eyes. But looking at the shields and sails, the circle is so prominent that it seems obvious that it is supposed to be the mouth.

It's Seso from the 2010 Prince of Persia theme; specifically from set 7573 Battle of Alamut.

I would expect a more accurate Dalmatian for a future fire theme - probably a recolored Labrador (if not a new mold). Or, yes, a poodle (maybe with a female version of the CMF connoisseur).

It's from the Dino theme from 2012 - specifically, set 5884 Raptor Chase. And yes, it does look great for medieval minifigs!

I suspect that that somebody would come to the opposite conclusion after doing the research: its a community of people fighting for certain rights - that's the most political thing there can be. How a broader community (such as the citizenry of a polity) apportions rights between its members is an inherently political question, born from competing philosophies - unless someone believes in a deity or cosmic principle "legislating" rights from above. The thing is from my POV, if you say "this issue is not political" that can be interpreted both ways, as per my previous comment, as "its so obviously true that to politicize it is to relativize an objective fact" or "its so obviously false that to politicize it is to lend legitimacy to a movement that has none". Claiming an issue is political does not mean it is illegitimate (though it can be used that way in bad faith), I see at as the middle ground. Or perhaps the issue is that the term "political" is understood differently by different people, I don't know. In order to make this post less theoretical and more grounded, the thing I have issue with here is TLG claiming it doesnt do political sets or commentary, then taking a supremely political issue and moving the goalposts by saying its not political. By the same token, they could make military or religious sets and claim that the military or religion is above politics - not that I would object to such sets, just as I don't object to Everyone is Awesome, but the apolitical stance would become a meaningless platitude.

If TLG is arguing that the set is not political, I dare say that they're wrong. The issue is political simply by virtue that there are politicians and parties for and against LGBT+ rights all over the world, and these issues are fought over in the political arena. Furthermore the anti-LGBT+ political stance is still part of the mainstream in the West, and dominant everywhere else, not some kind of fringe view of extremists that can be discounted - even though I would prefer it was so. The fact that the LGBT+ rights camp wants to expand rights while the opposing camp want to restrict them is a crucial point, but that is not the definition of a political issue. One problem I see here and elsewhere is that the statement "LGBT+ issues are political" is seen as the opposition to "this is a fundamental right to identity and equality which is above politics". Actually, I suggest that the "LGBT+ stance is political" is the middle ground - the opposite viewpoint is that "LGBT+ is fundamentally immoral because it goes against our religion, or against our vision of the natural order, and is thus above politics". My point is that defensiveness towards the "this is political" stance can be misplaced (I am assuming good faith of both parties; I recognize that the "political" claim can be used as a smokescreen for bigotry) or even come off as conflict-provoking (understandable if someone feels their identity or rights are being attacked, but still). Having said all that, TLG can take any stand on any issue it wants, while reserving the right to not take a stand on others. I simply think they should explicitly recognize that this is what they are doing, rather than claiming the set is not political. Especially since to "feel included" can hardly be defined as a right - there can be a right to "BE included" (in something specific), but feelings are internal. I know I'm splitting hairs, but using kumbaya rhetoric against a valid point is not helpful either. But sure, the internal feelings depend on the surrounding environment, and this set helps. Still political, though. I do think TLG is on the right side of history here, even though the history is still being written and fought over. Though I wonder that the strength of the backlash will be. But more power to TLG with pushing the envelope - lets have some BLM sets, pride sets, religious sets, military sets, Ospreys, Crooks hideouts and more! As for the set itself, I have no strong feelings about it. I'm not into monochrome minifigs, nor into these bright colors. Its visually striking with a nice message, but not really for me. The hairpieces are what attracts me the most.

The 2013 Castle theme had the great helm in black.

How reliable was the orca rumor anyway? After all, it doesn't fit with the prehistoric theme of the animals we did get from the sets.

The columns are far and away my favorite part of this build, though the lotus roof is also a stand out. But I also like the palm tree trunks and the pools with the lotus-pads. One drawback is that the roof is rather plain - it would benefit from some tiling, or statues, or crenellations, or vegetation. But anyway, it's a very adventurous-romantic build! Is it part of an ongoing story, or just a quick backstory for the set?

Sea-monster-type or other aquatic villains seem to me to be the largest gap among the potential villains the theme hasn't done yet. This would also give an opportunity to create a wacky hybrid of a diving suit and a ninja costume to stand out among the other costume variants. After that, maybe a space subtheme.

A merchant ship is at the top of my wishlist, with plain or neutral sails - if added play value is necessary, it could be under attack from pirates on a boat or a small brick-built ship. Otherwise, something like a small port with tavern (looking forward to the alternate build of the creator ship), or a return of the islander or armada subthemes.