GregoryBrick

Considering "purist" often means "building in ways similar to official LEGO sets" then it's difficult (impossible) for TLG to not be purist, that is, for them to make a set they won't make. Whether TLG incorporates balloons into YouTube idea-videos or whether R&D cuts and paints bricks doesn't really change things for people who like to build according to the above definition, and I don't think the videos above reflect any attitude about that.

If you don't know any mini figures you want what makes you want to collect them?

I've heard this a lot too and I don't get it. The model looks far more like the Beetle than a 2CV - the headlights, hood and trunk shape and detail, windows, roofline, and fenders (not to mention the number of doors) are faithful to the VW and only somewhat similar to the Citröen. If someone built this model without saying what car it was, there would still be no doubt it's a bug.

#9 - 1 point #16 - 2 points #17 - 1 point #24 - 1 point

Great review WhiteFang. I just got this set and think it's good - something different in concept and lots of neat parts.

They're all available on Pick A Brick online and have been for at least a few weeks now.

Whether BNP is actually intended for this or not, it's not an unreasonable interpretation. If a new set is missing an element or if an element is faulty, then TLG would replace it for free. If you lost some bricks down the drain or when moving, then BNP would give you the option to buy those (I wouldn't expect TLG to foot the bill for that). In neither case would someone need to buy a dozen of Rare Element X, so a system could flag such attempts.

So, there aren't any city buildings, with the exception of all the city buildings? There are also modulars and increasing types of buildings in Creator especially in the last two years; I don't see how a few snack bars or fix-it shops from two decades in the 80s and 90s are significantly different. I get there are others who share this point of view, but I don't, so when I read comments like this, I hear "I want this, I need that, LEGO should give me what I want". (EDIT: beaten to the punch by AndyTheNorth). Personally I think the proposed 2016 sets are worth looking forward to. I'm particularly interested in the small speedboat set - it's at a price that means there could be more going on than the 34-element 4641 from 2011 (which was still a fun little set).

It looks like a fun set to me and on par with the other seasonal sets this year.

16: 10 11: 6 1: 4 20: 3 17: 2 10: 1

Have you ever seen someone roll down a hill in a tractor tire? Same thing. A tire like this would work fine, I bet. If not that, then a minifigure in a stack of tires on a hand truck or something similar would work as well.

Nice review, thanks for the image of the inventory. Interesting element use for mounting the robot arms (this element here).

Thanks for the review WhiteFang. I thought Kai's Fire Mech from 2013 was excellent value; this looks to be the same in a slightly larger set.

Absolutely. If you have the attitude to work with what you have, you'll always find a way to build something fun. If you have the attitude that you need parts from somewhere else to make things work, you'll never have the right parts.

Hi everyone! I am sharing an alternate build I made from set 31009: Small Cottage. Eurobricks user Rufus wrote a great review of the set here. It is one of my favourite modern sets, as I find it quite charming and to have a lot of potential in its relatively smaller size as buildings go. This build may appear simple, but was rather challenging to get just right. Allow me to show you some of the features. Below you can see the exterior, with the large sliding steel door, the utility lamp hanging alongside it, and the small pool which laps at the side of our building. Here you can see some of what was challenging - getting that red stripe all along the eaves while still being structurally sound took some patient rearranging and allocation of elements. Here is the interior. You can see the roof cutaway (and if you look closely, see some pot lights in the rafters), as well as the sink with water and faucet for cleaning up. Another challenge is present here - getting that cutaway symmetrical and stable, and having sufficient red elements for the gables. Every inventor's garage requires tools, and this one is no different. We have a drill press, a tool chest with an oil can, some shelving, and some crates of various material. All of this fits easily inside the garage. If you have a robot garage, you'd better build a robot! And here is what was left over. Not too bad, I think. This was a lot of fun to build and share. I hope you enjoy the pictures and description.

Did you go to those states and cities in the 1930s? And even if you did, it doesn't matter whether you saw it or not, this colour remains as accurate as similar features of other modulars. And moving the goalposts so that now it only counts if there's such a building in a big city which is a business? I don't mind hearing people's opinions, and if you don't like the colour that's fine, but it's hard to fault LEGO when the standards by which AFOLs judge this set are inconsistent or arbitrary. If you don't like the colour because you think it's not accurate, it should be a good thing to find out that in fact it is accurate. I don't really get the point of discussion which says "here are my thoughts, but don't respond to them because we're going to buy it anyway". Might as well shutter the forum then.

I'm not sure how serious you are - the blue used for the building is in line with the blues characteristic of the Art Deco era (i.e. the post-War 1930s), and yes, they were used on buildings. I really don't see how this modular is an exception - all the modulars are different from each other, this one no more so. I don't see any criteria which all the other modulars meet but this one doesn't.

What's the issue? It's probably a 1x1 brick with studs on four sides, so the spider legs go in two of the studs and the 1x1 green studs can go on the others. Then the 1x1 brick goes on the neck bracket's stud.

If you're that concerned about the feasibility of this device, rest assured that there are plenty of spiral cutters which cut laterally to their axis of rotation, so you could make something that looks like Drillex's machine which would bore holes. I believe you would have to cut and eject the center core, but that's getting pretty close to overthinking it.

It's not about whether LEGO is physically harmful. One person with some expertise in child play said some things about recent changes to LEGO in the linked Guardian article. Posters decided to discredit 'child experts' as a whole (and by implication these specific comments on LEGO) based on the idea that playgrounds are now unnecessarily safe, or that while there are reasonable ways to protect children, child experts are unreasonable. There was no evidence offered in defence of this, just some stories about how children learn through exposure to risk/harm, therefore intuitions about what's optimal for children obviate any need to actually check to see if these intuitions are justified.

Has anyone else encountered trouble with the shop.lego.com layout? Product display pages don't show up correctly, with the product details container appearing below the product image (rather than to the right of it). This happens in Firefox, safe mode, and has been like this for weeks.

You say the AFOL wouldn't have had the choice to recolor a part, but as has been said, the amateur AFOL also doesn't have to go through the process of getting a new element/colour approved. The shade-tree modification isn't comparable to the decision to introduce a new element (or colour of an existing element) in the way you've presented them. So, I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't think anybody is ignorant that new elements are produced and I don't see how it conflicts with anybody's principles on this.

LEGO designers operate under a much different set of constraints, including playability, stability, and the cost and count of elements used. What 'the right part' means to average AFOLs who can't get their bricks to do what they want seems a lot different from what 'the right part' means to a LEGO designer trying to hit a number of much different goals. Furthermore, most new LEGO elements appear in a number of sets, not just in one part of one set - it seems to me the introduction of new elements has far more to do with optimizing the LEGO System's parts palette than it does with solving a specific problem in one creation (which is how I interpreted the thread starter). Those with knowledge of the new parts procedure and the role LEGO model designers have in this, feel free to correct me.

No, if I had to modify a piece it would be proof that I couldn't make a MOC work.

Good review. The furniture is nicely done. I hadn't come across those Lamp Shade elements in the light fixture before, though it seems they are pretty rare - Brickset says this they are available in clear in only five sets.