ShrikeArghast

This is simply superb.

1) Admiral Thrawn. 2) Mara Jade.

Let's face facts: it's an army-building set. And a $15 set that offers 4 minifigs is nothing to scoff at. You wouldn't have to buy too many of these to assemble a sizable force. I'm considering getting at least one to have a squad.

Thank you. I have absolutely no iron in this fire, but I do think it’s worth talking about as it represents a slippery slope. It only constitutes a binding contract if the contents of that contract don’t involve a surrender of your rights. To employ another analogy, this kind of debate pops up from time to time in the TOU or TOS of online games and MMORPGs. Most online games now require users to ‘sign’ some kind of an agreement prior to logging into their games. And, as you might expect, there are people who frequently violate those terms. While a gaming company is free to expel these violators from their game or deny them future service, the ability to prosecute or seek damages based upon these contracts almost never goes the gaming companies’ way. As it turns out, just because you call something ‘law’ doesn’t make it so in a real court. A legitimate ‘warning’ that Baron could attach to his instructions would be something along the lines of “the contents of these directions are the sole intellectual property of John Smith, and are not to be reproduced or recreated without his specific permission.” Ergo, he can legally force people not to copy or reprint the instructions themselves. However, Baron is selling his instructions with the specific intent that people build these models after they receive the directions. They already own the Legos, and Baron cannot legally limit what they do with those Legos – even if it involves selling “his” model. This is the same reason that Lego the company can’t turn around and sue people for building their models and selling them on Ebay (not that they’d want to – the resale of Legos is big business, and only spurs future purchases). At the end of the day, when you create something and make money off of it (or give it away for free), you can’t then tell people how to use their item once they’ve bought it. I can go pay Ford 25k for a new Mustang, drive the car back to the field behind the house, and burn it to the ground should I desire. Would this be stupid? Sure. Would many at Ford be aghast at this heinous act? Of course (and rightly so). But they couldn’t say a peep about it because the car was mine. *Edit* I wanted to add that, while a lot of people think it would be ‘reasonable’ to ask buyers of user-created instructions not to resell those instructions, again, it’s not a legal request. If I buy a DVD, or a hammer, or a cardboard box, I am entitled to resell it. By giving it to me, a seller has surrendered the property into my care. I can’t legally recreate that item (I can’t build a factory to start making copies of that item), but I can sell the individual item because it is my property. This same rule of thumb would apply to user-created instructions. You can resell the instructions, but you can’t copy or reprint them. They’re the IP of Baron, and nobody is disputing that. Now, I’m not arguing what is the right or decent thing, mind you. I’m just telling you what someone can or cannot do with their purchased property. I can buy Harry Potter, read it and resell it. I can’t set up a press and reprint it. Simple as that.

The most recent A-wing. Total impulse buy, but I wanted the A-wing pilot.

You chose to release the directions. You either want people to build this MOC or you don't. If you want people building it, what difference is it if they sell it afterwards? The model is his property. The instructions, on the other hand, are your property. But both are not yours. This bears further examination, so let me employ an analogy, if I may. Imagine that you are J.K. Rowling, and your instructions are The Sorcerer's Stone. Now, as Ms. Rowling, you can sell your book (the instructions) or give it away for free – that's your call. However, what someone does with those books after they buy them is their business. If they want to, say, turn around and build a big, strange-looking fort out of those books, and sell them to someone else, you can't do anything about it. Your proprietary rights ended with the initial sale. The books belong to him; as does the book fort. The bricks belong to him, as does the model. You surrendered ownership by giving him the instructions for free. No problem. He deserves to not be harassed. You can say and think whatever you like. But the law is on his side. And, frankly, you attempting to bully and strong arm someone on these forums because they wanted to sell a few Legos is contrary the spirit of capitalism, if not the hobby itself. If you want to hoard your MOCs and dictate how they’re distributed, don’t give away the instructions. How is that difficult to understand?

The 2014 B-Wing. No, seriously: aside from the cockpit, it's obviously inferior to the original version. The wings are thin; the guns look weak and less complex; there's no stand to hold it up. It looks like the worst effort Lego has made on a Star Wars 'remake' since they started doing it.

Lol @ copyright claims on Lego build instructions. Pretty sure there's no law protecting the intellectual integrity of items produced from instructions released to the public, PARTICULARLY when the thing you're claiming to copyright is actually the intellectual property of Lucasarts/Disney. Something tells me that, if anyone here was going to get litigation of some weight dropped in their lap, it'd be you Baron, and not ISDAvenger. FYI he's selling the bricks, not your instructions. And as the bricks are his possession, he can arrange them as he likes, and sell them to whom he pleases. If you don't want people doing that with stuff produced from 'your' instructions, then don't release them.

You've upvoted the frigate on Cuusoo, right? It's absolutely superbly done.

The front leaning grille is a little strange. The rest is great.

Really like the original truck with the chrome.

I've never understood the draw of articulated engines, to be honest. I'd rather see two smaller locomotives doubling a train,.

Those crowns are going to look a little silly. Frankly, If I had to guess, it would be cheaper to build an elven army either via Ebay or BL.

Couldn't a vertical castle feature an open rear for access to interior scenes, or a dollhouse-style split opening with hinges? As a former child and current manchild, I fail to see how the present castles feature enhanced playability. To be honest, the reduced realism that current castles embody (as opposed to the more believable baseplate-founded castles of yore) would seem to me to be a step in the wrong direction. The most 'playable' castles I ever owned were either King's Mountain Fortress or Black Knight's Castle, neither of which could open or be rearranged. Flexibility ≠ playability.

Some of these are so epic I want to cry. You should put the whole lot as a 'variety pack' on Cuusoo.

I have one just because I wanted the Thranduil figure. Having said that, the cowled elves aren't... well they aren't really elves, you know? They're just the standard tan minifig in a hood. The set really only comes with two elves, and one is really a unique figure that can't be turned into an army. It actually seems like an expensive way to build an elven army.

I had always hoped that with the introduction of the Roman figures we might see a Lego Rome. But, alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I suppose at least by keeping the castle stuff relatively consistent over the years it at least makes everything work well together.

Yeah, but Orthanc is really just a tower. I was talking about a more vertically-oriented fantasy style castle. Something like this but less elaborate.

Why doesn't Lego ever mix up their stock castle designs a bit? Over the past two decades, we've basically seen variations on two themes: 1) a castle built on a baseplate, or 2) a castle with hinged or connected walls that can be opened up. Something that they've never seriously attempted is a castle on a smaller footprint that's a bit taller. You know, sort of a wizard's tower, or compact, high keep. Even something like this, even though it's constructed on a standard castle plate, has a much taller keep than we're used to seeing. I've really wanted to get back into Castle sets for a while, and have wanted to start off by buying a large flagship set, but was hoping for something a little more unique than the typical fare. I realize that there isn't going to be a new castle in 2014, but '15 seems likely. What do you think are the chances Lego changes things up?

No idea why people are disappointed with this. IMO it has way more play potential than competing products like the tow truck, and the color scheme is accurate to the real world. I frankly find this review nit picky, particularly the bit mocking the chair as 'naïve.' How is it naïve? It exists in the real-world example, and I'd imagine that Lego guys would get up there the same way their real world counterparts do -- upper body strength.

Love it. Looks a lot like one of the early 70s versions. About the only thing I'd alter would be the headlights -- maybe use 2 of the 1x1 circular flat clears, and 2 of the 1x1 circular studded clears. The yellow just looks kind of gaudy. Otherwise, though, it's fantastic. Have you considered posting this to Lego Cuusoo? I daresay I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat. However, as others have said, it probably would need to be made to fit minifigs first.

I like everything but the cab, which seems on the smallish side to me. Having said that, dockside and industry critters can come in so many shapes and sizes that anything is probably possible. I really want to see someone take on a trackmobile next, considering they've supplanted small switchers in a lot of places, and are neat to watch work.

What is a 'gleam?' As far as I know, when used in the OP's context, the word doesn't make any sense.

Narrow gauge track.

Great model. Would love to see Lego just release six-wheel trucks already, though.