Weil

Calm down it's a preliminary heraldic symbol for a one-off minifigure and nobody knows how the minifigure will end up looking. I think it's perfectly valid for some people to instead want to opt for something that will be new but that is more likely fit in with what they already have.

It doesn't look like that piece to me (and I don't think a compound bow would be screen accurate for her). To me it does look like a new piece that is a recurve bow with rectangular cross section limbs rather than the existing round cross section moulds.

Yes the rumoured piece count doesn't quite match up but I wondered about a re-release of baracuda bay. I know it hasn't been that long since it retired but given that it's original lifespan seemed quite short and coincided within when many countries had COVID restrictions perhaps they think they could draw more people in this time with it on display in shops etc.

cool

Earlier in this thread someone definitively stated that it would be available in Europe, at least from the Lego online store. Though they didn't indicate how they knew that.

The result has now been announced and the Viking Village has won.

thanks Thanks for trying. Are the box dimensions available when you go to purchase online? That would be news to me!

Perhaps a strange question - but does anyone have the dimensions for the box of the set?

Sounds like it could be from the musketeer in CMF series 4? https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=973pb0840c01&idColor=7#T=C&C=7

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't think this follows from anything I have said. TLG don't need it to be the case that all of their products have the registered shape, they just need to keep it the case that if it has the registered shape, people will recognise it is a TLG product. That's why TLG will go to great lengths to keep it true tomorrow, if they think that this preserves the value of its brand.

I have some comments on this. As people may be aware, TLG's designs and patents that cover the bricks and minifigures themselves have expired. Trademarks don't expire (if they are continuously used and recognised as being trademarks). Therefore, TLG is very keen on keeping their trademarks. In at least some jurisdictions, TLG has a trademark for the shape of a minifigure. It is unusual to be able to trademark a shape of goods - and requires the shape itself to be distinctive as a sign of commercial origin. Where TLG do have a trademark for a minifigure shape, the law currently considers that if goods have that shape, people will recognise those goods commercial origin as being from TLG _because_ of that shape. If this stops being the case, TLG lose the trademark. TLG don't want this because it will allow other companies to make products in the shape of minifigures. A trademark does not protect non-commercial activity. So you can do whatever you want in this regard in personal/private activities. You are allowed to re-sell products that are protected by trademarks as a second hand sale of those products. Trademarks generally only cover the initial sale of a product to the consumer. However, if you modify a product and re-sell it, that might be a new initial sale of a (new) product. This is a problem if the modified product still has the original trademark (in this case, the registered shape of a minifigure). What other lego products may or may not be considered a minifigure is irrelevant to this. What counts is the shape that is registered as a trademark (the classic minifigure shape). Selling products with only part of that shape is less risky than selling products exactly with that shape. However, if the shape of what you're selling is still distinctive and associated with the registered shape then you're still in trouble. This is analogous to labelling products with a recognisable part of a protected logo but trying to say you're in the clear because you didn't use the full logo as it is registered. Therefore, selling e.g. only a torso of a minifigure does not necessarily mean you're in the clear.

I think this means it is less likely that one will be used in a new set than if designers wanted to use them at the minute but were not allowed. If the desire was there but some sort of "rule" stopped them then you could see that "rule" being changed. However, if it's freely decided that it's not desired to use them for these two sets then it's hard to imagine what potential set might make them decide to use them in the near-ish future. I think the most likely re-introduction of raised baseplates would actually be them just being sold by themselves in various designs to assist people with creating their own models/layouts with limited bricks, similar to how all other(?) baseplates are now sold.

The best helmet for me is the pointed visor. However, I think it needs the breastplate pairing for the look of it to work. I think the great helm looks better when relying on torso printing without the breastplate piece. I think the rarity of the bullet compared to the conical influences the relative love for them to some degree. I think if the conical was rarer it would get even more recognition for how good the design of that helmet is. That said, I also think the bullet is great - and would love to see it in modern metallic colours. In any case, I think it's rather impressive that castle armour pieces from the early 90s still look great alongside modern minifigure designs, some 30 years later.

The result of which idea they are going to approve to make as a set (based on the vote) is due in August. I don't think the results usually leak early, rather it is that after a set has been approved and begun design/production that it may "leak" before the official marketing release.

I think the 3 in 1 castle is one of my favourite post 1995 castles to date. I think we could get a forestmen figure in a 3 in 1 creator set (would have worked well in the current 3 in 1 castle), and that a 3 in 1 forestmen set would be great. However, I think an out-and-out forestmen 3 in 1 creator set is quite unlikely. I don't think it has that widely recognisable feel of a stand-alone set characteristic of a particular genre, like a pirate ship or a castle.

I would love there to be an awesome print under there, but that would certainly make this character have an incredibly extensive costume... Though perhaps that could be said of many of the costumes of cmfs.

I remember reading in a Lego book, I think "I love that minifigure" that Lego does not consider skeletons to be minifigures. It was a surprise to me at the time and is probably why that nugget of information stuck with me. Though maybe the definition has changed over time, or perhaps not even everyone at Lego is aware and some mistakes creep through.

Thanks for the info

Really? I had a quick look and none of e.g. 40529, 40530, 40528, 40484, 40487 have an 18+ age rating. All have lower age ratings. I saw after your comment that 40533 has an 18+ recommendation though, which also seems bizarre to me.

The box in the image above says "18 years & up" While no doubt many of these will end up in the hands of AFOLs, does TLG really not recommend this set for under 18s? It's based on a set that was recommended for ages 7-12. . Is this meant to be some sort of in-joke?

I hope we get a solid colour version of the helmet for the latest viking CMF (I.e. without the gold print). Having that mould available and not making use of it (for what may be one of the few chances to do that) would seem a strange choice.

@Alexandrina. I like this torso too. According to Makoy's index it's only one year old and first started appearing in April 2020 - so the reason it hasn't made its way onto bricklink is probably because BAM hasn't been very accessible for most people in the past year. The index also shows a corresponding lavender skirt piece that also appears to be currently exclusive to BAM in this colour. This is showing up in small numbers on bricklink (part# 36036). There's a pic of the torso and skirt together that someone posted on page 23 of the BAM thread Here. If there's no luck through CS then I'm hopeful it will start being accessible via BAM and, following that, bricklink once BAM is more accessible again.

Good insight Lego are currently selling new cannons individually via bricks and pieces (at least in the UK) Design # for carriage is 2527 and for cannon itself is 29978.

Counterfeits aside (which no doubt done help), I think there's lots of other reasons Lego might have besides doubting the profitability of a potential set. It might just not fit into a wider business strategy - e.g. the designers that they would want to work on this are working on other things already and won't have availability any time soon. We simply don't know the reason.