Weil

Of course not, don't be silly. However, the render of the forestmen's stag has been destroyed - so it's completely impossible for lego to ever print this again. Also, they picked to give the archer a "green" torso design so what more do you want? In any case, a forestmen figure is included in set 60271 so a forestmen set is currently on sale already. Why don't you just buy that? Plus we really recently got a CMF forestmen figure in 2010 so how many more do you need? I also don't know whether lego could accommodate a set with a print of a stag alongside existing set 10275 either, which itself includes a stag. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Yes I noticed it appeared this way too. However, there's a second round to this and I think bionocle is probably quite polarising - so there may be a lot of "non-bionicle" votes that all get effectively transferred to an alternative to bionicle, once the options are reduced. In any case, every vote for a theme will probably help indicate a demand for that theme. This could potentially lead to some positive outcome for that theme in the future, even if it doesn't win the vote.

Ah okay. Sounds like you know more about this than me. I agree the torso isn't characteristically medieval. I just didn't find it jarring either.

What doesn't look medieval about the archer's torso? Maybe I am missing something but a lace up collar shirt and sleeveless buttoned waistcoat seem okay to me. I also like the dual molded legs over printed ones for that figure. Of course, if you wanted something so characteristic of female medieval clothing that it could only be that then that's a bit different and I can see why you're dissapointed. I understand that it's a bit frustrating that this looked like a good opportunity for new civilian medieval figure parts. However, If using pieces already in production for the archer meant they had the budget to do the new black falcon figures then I can see why they did that. Regarding the amount of figures, i think the official set has twice as many as the ideas submission - so it seems very reasonable to me. I too love the MMV but I'm not sure comparisons with MMV are that fair when they were trying to recreate the idea submisson as a marketable set, not recreate the MMV. If they wanted to include even more figures then they presumably would have had to drop the piece count and deviated further from the original idea (and some people have criticised how far they deviated as it is!). In terms of value compared with MMV, you seem to have not recognised this set has more overall parts (an increase of over 25% more, as it happens!). However, I agree that the MMV probably offered overall better value (it was a great set!). There's a few little things I still don't like but having now seen the more detailed pictures/videos I think it's a very nice set. I think the inside is very well done and they've actually managed to achieve quite a lot with the ground outside the building without using much space.

I struggle to imagine a set for pirates that would better meet this brief than the already released barracuda bay - but would love a corresponding imperial set of the same quality (preferably based on the imperial trading post).

Like some others have suggested, I feel a better way to have done this would be to vote for a broad theme category in the first vote (Space, Castle, Pirates, Action/Adventure, Town etc.) and then vote for a narrower sub-theme in the second round. I'm not sure when it says the second vote is not "transparent" that means they're giving themselves license to disregard the vote, as some have suggested. Else am I just being naive? I thought that just meant they're not going to reveal the winner, until they reveal the set - but they're still committing themselves to respecting the vote?

I think the expectation comes from what was included in the fan model submission. I think you're leaning a bit too far the other way in suggesting it wouldn't make sense. The fan model had a goat, some chickens and a hare/rabbit. The blacksmith has to eat and seems a reasonable small amount of livestock/wildlife for an individual rural household in a medieval setting. I think the animals and the green bases in the fan model helped give the model that rural feeling. I suppose the soldiers turning up in a cart helps with that a bit in the final model. I don't disagree with you that the inclusion of animals was more important for the Village raid set though - and the animals were a reasonable thing to cut in this to help bring the price down (assuming that was the reason). I still like the set. The building itself looks very nice to me, the horse looks good and I also like the inclusion of black falcons.

I like this set. That said, I don't like the shoulder armour and I agree the rumoured price sounds a bit high. Think I would have to hope to see one built in store and know the confirmed price before deciding whether to buy it.

Ah, okay. That's all good then. I just personally would have been more interested if it were otherwise.

Yes, but perhaps worth pointing out it is a sticker before people get too excited.

Okay, sorry. I thought you were trying to use your first paragraph as a strawman for the question you asked in the second. I.e. you were saying a lack of relevant facts was an indication of a lack of legal possibility. I just misunderstood, my bad.

I don't know but you previously invited critique of a statement you made about legality, not about policy or historical actions. I think there was also a situation with the Ghostbusters fire station that even if not part of an "in-house" theme might be relevant.

I'm not sure if there's a different agreement you're referring to but if the terms of service agreement for the ideas platform is to be taken at face value then you assign (transfer/sell) all of your IP rights in your idea to LEGO simply in exchange for using the ideas platform. They decide more or less what they want to do with it. I guess if LEGO decided to use an idea for an in-house theme set rather than an ideas set and the idea contributer felt they weren't getting the proper recognition and had been misled about what could come from their use of the ideas platform then that could be problematic. However, I think LEGO choose to use ideas submissions for ideas sets and not for in-house theme sets more for marketing, PR and internal organisational/creative reasons than for legal reasons. Whilst LEGO may well have a particular policy regarding this, I don't see why the law couldn't accommodate LEGO using an idea submission for a set in one somewhat arbitrary theme instead of another if there was a desire to do that. I imagine a separate assignment is signed that is more specific to the contributer and the product that incorporates their idea when an idea is decided to be commercialised anyway, rather than relying only on the terms of service agreement.

Thanks so much for this

This is a great spot! I'm sure people can come up with some fun/interesting explanations for the apparent gender swap, such as the ones you suggest. However, I think that the designer said in one of the interviews something along the lines of some of the new minifigures being "continuations" of old minifigures that are meant to be the same character (redbeard, tattooga etc.) and others are "inspirations" that are inspired by (but not the same character as) old minifigures. I think the "Robin Loot" minifigure is probably intended as an "inspiration" rather than a "continuation" and I think the bio gives a hint of this already (which you've now picked up on) without having to hammer it home and without sounding strange to anyone who doesn't recognise it as a reference to the past. That said, only the designer will know for sure and I'm sure the idea of people creating their own individual ideas and backstories of what's happened in between the old sets and the barracuda bay are completely in line with the spirit of what this set was meant to accomplish.

Yep, same for me. I imagine things are taking a little longer than normal for obvious reasons.

Great. I'm glad we can agree on some things. I would now just say that, while it's fine for you not to like the set, I don't think that dictates that it is a failure on a wider scale.

A lego pirate set that looks like a lego pirate set is not a failure. I think that your assertion that it is apparently essential to appeal to the "average customer" is unfounded. TLG has a vast product range. It would be counter productive to make every set appeal to the same "average customer" because sales would saturate such that additional sets would not lead to higher overall revenue. Instead, TLG does of course target at least some different products at different consumers. Indeed, sets that try to appeal to too broad a range of customers may end up appealing to none at all compared to rival products that are each aimed at specific demographics. A better question is therefore whether a proposed set has a large enough market, even if that market is niche in some regards. TLG will have considered this and judged that they believe that this set does have a large enough market. I'm not sure that anyone here is in a position to say that they are personally better informed? In this regard, I also note that the set is not necessarily even required to sell well compared to an average ideas set to be considered a success. If there is a suitable number of people who buy this set who would have otherwise not bought any set, that is likely of greater value to TLG than if people buy this set instead of some other lego set. Indeed, any creation of new "goodwill" or attention to the lego brand would be valuable in itself, on top of the actual sales of this particular set. I don't see many, if any, people here asserting that the set will be a runaway success and I am not going to do that either. Instead, I merely see people stating that they *hope* that it will be successful. It rather seems that it is you who is making the assumption that because this set does not appeal to you, it will also not appeal to others.

My first pirate lego set was also my first lego set. 6258 smuggler's shanty. Great little set.

I think these offers are typically "while stock lasts" and the stock may now have ended. It looks like I was a little too late for these too but I wasn't particularly bothered.

Just made my first ever day one purchase of a set . Very excited. I love what they've done with this.

Yes a mould like the gammorean guard is what I was suggesting. I wouldn't worry though, as I think this guess is probably wrong.

Could 4) be a knight that has the shield that has mysteriously showed up in "build a minifigure"? https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=18836pb03#T=C&C=86

I didn't know if the head would be provided as a "mask" piece rather than directly as the minifigure head, albeit the "mask" having a face on it. I think I'm coming round to the idea it's not a likely candidate now though.

Would a terracotta warrior be "red" do we think?.. or was that ruled out already?