MAB

For inversions, I find I use quite a lot of these. As well as a lot of mainly studded technic bricks/beams with holes with half pins in. I guess some might want a thinner inverter, although having studs around the edges can also help as you can build / decorate the edge in the +-x and +-y directions as well as the +-z direction.

For D2C, much later than regular retail.

That looks great. Nice posing too to give it a place in time. I wish light flesh legs with a good skirt pattern were more widely available.

I think they mean this one.

Possibly the most used non-LEGO piece for me is the BW plumbing. This looks so much better than a primitive spear and I think it looks like what LEGO would have made if they had done a full Roman theme, maybe between gaps in Castle. I'm happy with using them. I used to used third party Roman helmets and shields too. But once LEGO did their own, I switched. Same with LOTR. I had my own versions of characters (including some third party parts) until LEGO did theirs. Then I switched.

It may also be that the third party accessories like Spartan and Roman shields, swords and helmets from brickforge and brickwarriors are what convinced LEGO to make their own versions.

That's weird. I also went for 30 of each too.

I see. I think I'd prefer to have multiple (that is, two!) generic faction torsos without chains, or straps or rips, etc. so that they can all be used for any part of an army, especially where they can be differentiated by using a quiver for archers or different types of helmets or shouler armour, etc for other parts of the army. Although I'd prefer two different factions with one torso each, the one faction with two.

What more do you need for a new Black Falcon archer? As I just use the new torso, stick on a quiver and choice of head, generic black legs, then hair or a helmet.

All three Viking torsos were available to me (in UK) earlier. Now the 6399356 one is OOS, but the other two are still there.

That looks like a very precarious path. I like the simple but effective solution of not having the river spill out, and not needing to use a black (or other colour) base and edging to keep it all in.

Yet the LEGO group doesn't own the site, or gets to direct the conversations that people have here. If people enjoy enhancing their LEGO play with custom swords or custom radius train tracks or decide to cut their own ship sails from cloth or paper, or they use non-LEGO branded lights to light a MOC then I don't see a problem with it. If they are discussing buying a complete knock-off of a LEGO set because it is cheaper than buying the real thing, I can understand removing it. But a LEGO minifigure holding a non-lego weapon is not that big a deal. If LEGO want to run and moderate a mainly MOC-based fan forum site where only LEGO can be discussed, then they can start one or buy an existing one and impose whatever rules they like. I doubt it would be a very interesting site to visit though, once sanitised by LEGO. I think the moderators here do a decent job of allowing discussion around the hobby involving creative customisation without allowing discussion of the like-for-like ripoffs.

They have done different factions a number of times already, for example .... The last of the these three has a decent printed torso can be used as a separate torso.

I imagine the big one is the confidentiality and leaks policy. I doubt showing the LEGO logo in fan art is that big a deal (since it appears on every box opening youtube video and similar). Same with historical parts such as sails. I doubt they care too much if people create their own when it is not in direct competition with current products. Personally I think that extends to third party parts where they are enhancing the experience and not taking away from LEGO products. If this became a LEGO owned site then no doubt they'd remove all trace of third party parts just like they did on bricklink, but then they'd also need to lock down any MOC designs that impinge on third party IP too. But then I cannot see it being LEGO owned. What makes it great is that it is not LEGO owned, and has enough freedom that you can discuss things that LEGO would not make. Bricklink had a tiny fraction of a percentage that was sold that was not genuine LEGO, so implementing LEGO only rules was not that big a deal there. Removing download links for IP based MOCs from BL stud.io / gallery was not a huge deal. Whereas here, it would take them years to remove all the non-LEGO creative hacks that they would not allow, MOCs based on third party IP with links to instructions, and so on. And it would just come across as LEGO bullying the community, trying to change it by buying it. That part of the community would just leave and exist elsewhere. As to the status, I don't care whether LEGO recognises Eurobricks or not. They seem to have lost the products being sent for review and also lost the prizes for giveaways (like the Christmas raffle), so as a user it doesn't affect me that much - they have already lost them so I don't get the chance to read release day reviews but I can read them elsewhere and I don't get the chance to win a few minifigs in a raffle. Of course, the site creators do seem to want to keep RLOC status (maybe there are some other perks we don't see or need to know) and so it is important that we don't break the rules over leaks and similar, and I can understand users getting banned if they continually post images when they shouldn't.

I know it is a fine line, and different people have different thresholds. I always thought the Eurobricks ethos was that third party items are fine where they enhance LEGO but not where they are just (cheap) copies of LEGO items. And in that sense, I am fine with third party weapons and shields and other accessories that LEGO do not (or did not) produce. They enhance what LEGO make. For example, I bought a load of the Gondor soldier minifigures. I use the armour and helmets that came with them on genuine LEGO minifigures but I don't use the minifigures. That said, in the Special Themes sections, there are huge numbers of threads on creating decals with artwork from existing LEGO figures, how to create sails, capes, skirts and other cloth items. This is all about creating "fake" LEGO because the originals are too scarce and hence too expensive. There is a very long-standing tradition of creativity of making / creating parts here, which greatly enhances the hobby for many users even though it is copyright infringement. So Eurobricks is in no way purist throughout the site. Of course, if there is a contest and the rules are only genuine LEGO parts, then they should be adhered to. Eurobricks also publishes articles where LEGO's trademarks are infringed on. For example, they recently frontpaged those LOTR brickheadz MOCs. MOCs that had box art made to look like they were genuine LEGO items such set numbers, part counts, BH series numbering, and they were also using LEGO trademarks, and even Warner Bros and Newline Cinema logos to make them look like a genuine product when they are not. To some that is fan creativity, to others it is trademark infringement and clearly goes against the LEGO fair play policy concerning use of their logo.

How do you know they are gay and not just friends? In the set itself there is no proof. I don't watch any related media, so obviously could have missed it if their sexualities are stated there. And isn't that the point. They are gay if you want them to be. But they are straight if someone else wants them to be. One might be a hairdresser but still straight. A boy that likes playing hairdressers might identify with him, but that doesn't mean the boy is gay ... or straight. It means he likes playing hairdressers.

This is an issue with using somewhat extreme stereotypes to indicate sexuality (if that is what LEGO are doing). People are assuming Olly is gay because he likes sewing and fashion and wears pink. Straight boys and young boys that don't know their sexuality might also like sewing and fashion. And not all gays are into what is often looked at as more female pursuits. The most flamboyant kid in my class when I was a kid is now a father to five by three different mothers, it turns out he wasn't gay! If they really want to push boundaries with characters and they are defining their sexuality, have a "normal" looking boy - normal as in no extreme stereotypical traits, have him in plain old blue jeans and a shirt, have him be the sporty one and put him in a set with football/soccer training, and have him turn out to be gay in the associated media. A fairly normal looking kid, turns out to be gay. Just like most gay males in real life. Not flamboyant. Not into wearing pink. Not into doll collecting or sewing. Just a kid with interests like most other boys his age. Not really anything to tell he is gay, unless he tells you he is gay. It will also be interesting to see how far they take the sexuality side of it, as in will they be defining it for the characters. As it is, they have introduced characters with traits but without yet indicating sexuality. If you are a boy and you like fashion, it is OK. You are just like Olly. It doesn't mean you are gay. It doesn't mean you are straight. But there is also the issue of how do they indicate sexuality. Do they have characters pair up and say these are romantic liaisons? If Olly has a friend (that is a boy), is he gay or are they just friends. It gets very messy for a toy line when you have limited characters. If these are being marketed at 5+ kids and those kids are seeing them as representative of themselves then I don't think I'd want media showing two boys kissing, just like I don't want two girls kissing or a boy and a girl kissing. Something else I'd like to see in future if they really want to be honest about difference is other body types. They have started doing disabilities but everyone is still stick thin. Minidolls (as opposed to minifigures) could easily be moulded to portray larger children too. We have kids with glasses, hearing aids, missing limbs, wheelchairs, neurodivergence, and so on. Lots for children to identify with. Yet weight issues still seem to be hidden in Heartlake.

I agree. Running concurrent LOTR and Castle in the past indicated at least back then they did not think one would damage the sales of the other. Also in 2013 Kingdoms had a set with a red dragon and that was still on the shelves at the time they did The Lonely Mountain in The Hobbit range, with another red dragon (Smaug). And in the past they have had Prince of Persia and HP on the shelves at the same time as Castle, despite having slightly similar styles. But then they have also had lots of cars at different scales in different themes, licensed and unlicensed spaceships in different themes, etc. I can understand them not doing an elf based fantasy Castle theme if they were also doing a full blown LOTR theme at the same time. But there are plenty of other genres within Castle that they could do.

They'd have to pad it out a bit to get the piece count up. So they'd probably add Legolas's quiver and Gimli's axe-head. :-) Maybe let's just not think of such things!

Are they unpopular though? Given how long and how many they have made, they must have sales data about them and they keep on making more across a range of subjects and types of themes (licensed and in-house). To me, that suggests that they must be selling well enough to keep going.

From what I have seen, a lot of adults like the larger detailed designs and prefer them as static display pieces rather than as model trains to drive around a track. And adults that want model train sets tend to buy decent scale models rather than LEGO. LEGO has never really hit the mark with model train enthusiasts. Of course, there are LEGO train enthusiasts and some of them make amazing MOCs but it seems to be an area LEGO doesn't want to be involved in.

Isn't it a RLOC?

The simple solution is don't buy it. I like the Christmas jumper characters, and don't want normal designs that appear in regular sets in an advert calendar. It makes the advent calendars stand out as different to regular sets. Some of the mini builds are crap but some are reasonably decent, especially if you add them to microscale builds.

I agree. Sales on BL for a current set are fairly meaningless when it comes to an indicator of how well something is selling at retail stores. BL sellers need to add on aabout 10% before they break even, to cover paypal and BL fees. Unless the set has been discounted at a retail store (so rare for D2C sets), current sets will nearly always be better value at a retail store than on BL.

I doubt it. If they are thinking of bringing it back as a theme, but decide to judge interest in a whole range of sets by releasing a $500 set, then frankly they are idiots. A $500 set will tell them how many people are up for a $500 set and not how many people would buy into a range of smaller sets.