davee123

Just looking for clarification-- you mentioned the LEGO store, do you mean that you asked LEGO S@H, or LEGO Brand Retail? Or a mix? Generally, speaking from a retail perspective, when someone acts uppity, angry, and/or rude, you try to go out of your way to do something nice for them so that their overall experience is still a good one. Management in particular will bend over backwards to try and turn an UN-satisfied customer into a satisfied customer. If you're "FURIOUS", and sound that way on the phone or in person, I'm not surprised that this will earn you extra little LEGO knickknacks. In what way does giving customers both the information that they're looking for AND a bonus perk give you the impression that they don't "actually care" about their customers? And further, in what way does it demonstrate that they care about "their money" more than their customers? I see only the EXACT OPPOSITE being demonstrated in their behavior. Did they actually NOT give you the information you requested? You never actually said, I guess. I could see your point if you were complaining that they couldn't or wouldn't answer your questions-- is that your complaint? If so, I'm not sure it's been made clear in your post, although I could understand that certainly. DaveE

In looking around further, it sounds like the UV light is merely providing the 'activation energy' for yellowing. Once that energy has been transferred to the flame retardant, the bromine bond breaks, and can hook up with stray oxygen. Hence, if you had your LEGO in, say, a tank of hydrogen gas, or a vacuum, you could hit it with UV rays, and you wouldn't get the yellowing, since there's no oxygen for the bromine to bond to, which results in the yellowing. The other caveat is that UV light probably isn't the ONLY way of getting the 'activation energy' necessary. I don't know the chemistry, but it could be that excessive heat or radiation could also provide the same activation energy, and cause the bonds to break. I believe that means that while boxed elements are technically less likely to get hit by UV rays (since the box protects them), it's possible to be exposed to other forms of energy that can cause the same reaction to happen. Just store your LEGO in a vacuum, and you'll be all set! DaveE

Well, it's still there, but it's not really usable, and isn't quite ready for "go live". I believe it's pretty CPU intensive, so it should probably get an interface that's out of the way and has some overhead in using. Also, in its current incarnation, it only accepts sets as input (which were used as a test)-- so there's no way presently to upload a custom DAT or part list. I mentioned it to Dan-- dunno if we can work something out or not to make it visible and useful to other Peeron users, but if it looks promising, I'll post an update. DaveE

Is the solution to the yellowing the same? As in, can you use something like Retr0bright to reverse the yellowing? (That is, chemically speaking, is it caused by the same broken bond in the bromine?) Are there any other examples of it happening on MISB sets? Or is it just those two sets that you got on eBay? Were they from the same seller? If it's just the eBay sets, I'm inclined to think that it may have something to do with cigarette smoke, since the tar residue might explain the extra clutch power. DaveE

Hmm... are you trying to figure out which sets you COULD build, or which ones the original owner likely had? A long time ago, I helped work on a feature for Peeron that might be modified to help you out, but I forget the details of the interface. Basically, its purpose was to take a big list of parts, and tell you which sets you would be the MINIMUM you'd need to buy in order to get the list you entered. It was really intended for you to (say) upload a DAT file (or inventory file? I forget) of a MOC you wanted to build, and then tell you the cheapest way to get the parts using sets. Anyway, it would certainly work in your case, assuming you could tweak the cost/year weighting down to 0. Basically, it ought to just spit out the set list that you're likely to have, and how many copies of each you've got. ... However ... I apparently have no idea where it is on Peeron. I remember testing it back in 2004 or 2005, but it was still in "beta" at the time. Maybe it never made it public? I'll see what I can dig up. DaveE

Do you have more information about this? What sets specifically has this been noticed in? Is it only a factor with white elements, or other colors as well? It says "1989-1996" in the summary, what's that based on? Otherwise, I'm curious about the chemistry involved there-- is it known to be oxygen? Or is it a reaction to some unknown agent in the air, and deemed oxygen based on assumption? (IE, could it be, say, Nitrogen that causes the damage?) Why has this been attributed to be more common with "smoky" environments, and what sort of "smoke" is implied? Wood-burning fireplace smoke? Cigarette smoke? I've still never seen nor heard of this happening with anyone I've known personally in the hobby, similar to hairline cracking in various elements that's being confirmed elsewhere-- Could it be regionally based (IE have some component of climate/temperature/etc)? DaveE

I wasn't aware of another type of yellowing-- what is it that causes this? Something to do with "smoke"? Does this imply that you're in an environment with smokers? If so, I certainly have heard that the tar from cigarette smoke can cause discoloring, although I'm admittedly surprised if it made it through an MISB box. DaveE

If I understand the chemistry correctly, the reason the yellowing happens is exposure to UV. The UV light transfers energy to the flame retardant, which can cause the bond with the bromine to break. Since bromine is by nature a yellowy-brown, that color will start to emerge in the bricks as the bonds are broken. (I think the bromine bonds to itself forming Br2?) Hence, if you avoid exposure to UV, you should be fine. I've opened various MISB sets as old as 18 years, and never had a problem with yellowing. That's largely because (I think) the elements are protected from UV by the surrounding cardboard box. If you've got (say) polybag sets, where the light can get into the bag and hit the elements, you might be at risk for yellowing. Or maybe if you keep your box lids open. The other thing to watch is moisture, which has nothing to do with yellowing. In theory, humidity can affect the bricks, but not very noticeably. Effectively, it can cause slight warping if left in a humid environment. Fortunately, the effects aren't really noticeable, IIRC. I believe it has more to do with things like clutch power, rather than pronounced warping. DaveE

I don't really see a problem. I think the difference between now and (say) before 2005 is that LEGO has been producing more awesome sets that you're all drooling over. IE, they're making a LOT of high-priced LEGO sets like the Modular Town buildings, UCS sets, Winter Village sets, Architecture series, Landmarks (Eiffel tower, etc), and other amazing sets for adults like the carousel, Medieval Market Village, Imperial Flagship, etc. They're also making more cool themes, like PotC, Alien Conquest, Space Police III, LEGO Games, LEGO Minifigures, Indiana Jones, etc. Back in the 90's, most people stuck to a scant few genres, and ignored others. But now, it's just LOADED with cool themes. Finally, LEGO's been growing. Not only are they producing more awesome sets, they've also just been producing MORE sets. So there's even MORE that you want and are drooling over. Essentially, you now have tons more desirable stuff. As for the prices of individual sets, I don't really think we (here in the USA) have a right to complain in the slightest. If there's been an increase in the last few years (it seems there has been, albeit not all that much compared to the late 1990's), that'll just get us more in line with other countries' prices on LEGO, and I'm all in favor of that. LEGO's always been an expensive toy-- I'm glad that I've been as lucky as I have been in the past, but I don't necessarily think it's fair to assume that that's how we "ought" to be treated price-wise. DaveE

Pretty much. I don't think it's fair to say that the elements were "going out of production". Some of them never WERE in production to start with! They were referred to by AFOLs as "spring cleaning" sets (even though they came out in the fall). They were packaged sorta like this, although the box on top in this picture looks different-- I think the one pictured below is the 2005 version (or maybe a European one?): LEGO came out with these in the fall of 2004, packaged in combination with set 4679, and in the USA these were exclusive to Toys R Us. It's important to make the distinction that the actual TUB is a normal LEGO set, but that the "Bonus Box" packaged with it had random parts in it, but did not have an identifying set number. The bonus box had a WIDE mix of parts. Here's a gallery of the 2004 incarnation: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=98635 The parts in the bonus box were distributed quasi-evenly, however. That is to say, if you bought 10 copies of the tub from the same exact store, they would generally have very SIMILAR pieces. But if you bought 10 copies from 10 DIFFERENT stores, you'd get different mixes of things, and they'd be less similar. One thing that they often had was plain minifig heads in strange colors, like Bright Green and Tan. But they also had annoying things like LEFT-handed corner slopes, but NOT any matching right-handed corner slopes. The response from AFOLs was incredible-- people bought them up like wildfire in the hopes of getting rare or never-before-produced elements. Toys R Us stores in our area often sold out in the first day or two, thanks to AFOL raids. Shortly thereafter, LEGO released 4562 (also late 2004), but this time as an exclusive to Walgreens. This set was an actual *set* (not a tub with an attached bonus box). However, the pieces in this set weren't truly random. There were 5 particular types of baggies that COULD come in the set, with each baggie having a fixed inventory. The set itself came with 3 baggies inside (I think?), effectively randomly chosen from the 5 baggie types. Not nearly as cool. Then, in 2005, LEGO tried again, but differently. They again attached "bonus" boxes to set 4679, but this time the bonus boxes did NOT have a random inventory, they had a fixed inventory: Response from AFOLs? Meh. People initially started buying them, until they realized that the inventories were fixed, at which point they lost their appeal. In a recent discussion with Jamie Berard, he said that the "truly random" boxes were a nightmare for LEGO's packing department. They usually verify piece counts using weight, but (obviously) thanks to the random nature, this couldn't be easily done. I don't know the details, but supposedly it was an incredibly messy process that took WAY too much time in order to guarantee that every box had 500 random pieces. From the sounds of it, the attitude at LEGO is "NEVER AGAIN!" DaveE

Yeah, and also people have used it to describe when they "haven't built anything in a while", or "haven't been paying much attention to LEGO lately". I'm just being anal, really. I generally don't like seeing the term diluted, or else it won't mean anything anymore. Like, I dunno, if people started referring to models that they built from LEGO instructions as "MOCs", or if they called LDraw files "LDD" or something. It's also a problem with things like LEGO colors (thanks to the color change) and LEGO part numbers (thanks to LDraw and LEGO terminology). Anyway, whenever I see people misusing the term, I feel like making sure that they know what the term was really intended to be used for, just in case they didn't already know, and were using it because they implied a definition. In this instance, it's possible that perhaps you read people describing their personal "dark ages" (which coincided with the 1997-2004 timeframe or something), and interpreted it to mean that that was "THE" dark ages for LEGO in general. DaveE

That's not really the right terminology, actually-- your "dark ages" is the period of time when you're totally out of the LEGO hobby after childhood-- typically when you're a teenager. Going by the LUGNET set database from 1996, and looking ONLY at LEGO System sets (excluding accessories like baseplates, motors, etc) for which there are also piece counts and MSRPs, I get average "price-per-piece" by year of: Year Sets Avg by set Avg by total ========================================================== 1996 68 0.272564009738978 0.126279692204751 1997 79 0.138421882343282 0.139844486333647 1998 96 0.127015090266955 0.116948198198198 1999 79 0.259996568455826 0.145192150449714 2000 90 0.174928130786745 0.138409456887718 2001 56 0.170067411645591 0.11877506379876 2002 69 0.272275693888329 0.137918912584954 2003 68 0.23817233249987 0.106228093825829 2004 70 0.1312592274928 0.108088346528163 2005 73 0.116621992488719 0.0996402246402246 2006 85 0.14092782620312 0.0896391320678397 2007 77 0.217813634394424 0.0995006473090438 2008 103 0.105812324698842 0.0918723827591791 2009 106 0.145686835747679 0.111354465328661 2010 115 0.176916115181533 0.117713516502007 2011 74 0.222636246694222 0.115922920892495 So, no real noticeable over-arching trend there... DaveE

Just like Space Police, Maersk Blue, Castle, Blacktron minifigs, and Pirates! DaveE

Yeah, a Star Wars monorail would probably be pretty focal on the *monorail* itself, which wouldn't be very familiar to most Star Wars fans, I'm betting. My guess is that for the same money that would go into a monorail set, they'd make MORE money releasing something different-- especially when you consider how expensive the set would be. I remember there being pretty balanced reaction-- there wasn't really a definite consensus, people were sort of on the fence about the set. Many people saw it as a ploy to spend big bucks on the only set with both Lando and a "new" Boba Fett with printed arms. I find that for a lot of the "playset" items, there's often a group of people are are just unimpressed-- they like swooshable vehicles more. I think part of the problem (not sure how much) was due to the fact that merchandisers were confused with the monorail sets. They were often NOT placed in the "LEGO" aisle, but were instead placed in the "Toy Train" aisle (I distinctly remember that from my childhood, drooling over the 6990 in the "train" aisle of Toys R Us). So for a parent/grandparent/etc looking to buy LEGO for a child that's known to like LEGO, they won't seek out the train aisle-- they'll go right for the LEGO aisle, and see what's there to buy. Also, they were pretty expensive. 6991 cost around $180, at a time when the largest set OTHER than the monorail was typically $100 or less. Even for someone that buys LEGO, that's pretty pricey. As to the target audience, I would guess they probably did quite a bit of research to figure out whether or not kids would think they were cool in the space or town themes. I was DEFINITELY a space-fan as a kid (and not so much of a town-fan), and I remember REALLY wanting the Futuron monorail when it came out (as did other kids in the neighborhood). Hence, my guess is that they probably didn't really miss the mark so much with the target audience, but I admittedly don't have any hard evidence. Certainly from an adult hobbyist perspective (not necessarily a *LEGO* adult hobbyist), I definitely agree that monorail might be more suited to train fans rather than space-fantasy folks. DaveE

That's really the biggest problem I have with Heroica-- While reading the rules, we kept asking questions about co-operative play (can the druid heal other people? Can I give my friend a potion? Etc.), but when we finally sat down to play it, it was essentially just a game of whoever can get to the end first. For points, I had earlier suggested this: - Each completed mission counts for 10 points - Each monster killed counts for the number of points equal to their power - Each remaining health point is worth 1 point - Each gold piece is worth 2 points - Each un-consumed item (keys, torches, potions) is worth 1 point - Each purchased weapon is worth 4 points We also said the game completes when all the available missions are completed (we play all 4 expansions "simultaneously"), although I do like the idea that perhaps there's a *single* mission that signals the end of the game. Hence, you can go off on side-quests all you like and gather up points, but the game can be cut short by someone triggering the end-game. DaveE

Ohh, someone with developer skills! I'm actually playing around with possibly making an online JavaScript version of Heroica, and I'm playing with the AI. I'd send you a PM, but I see you're new, so I'm not sure if you can PM me back? Anyway-- right now I'm trying to figure out the statistical weight of obstacles. That is, what's the path that a computer player should take when playing the game? Should he go an extra 16 spaces back and forth to obtain a key to unlock a door, or should he simply wait at the door until he rolls a shield? If two paths of equal length contain monsters of levels 2 and 3 on one path, and 1, 1, and 1 on the other path, which path is preferable? Etc. Locked doors, rock piles, and magic doors aren't actually difficult obstacles to compute. But monsters seem to be giving me inconsistent results, depending on how I calculate them. Any thoughts? At the moment, I've broken it into 4 parts: 1) The number of turns you lose simply by walking up to the monster and stopping. IE, if you're only 1 square away from a monster, and you roll a shield (assuming you can't use your special power or anything), then you move 1 square and stop, rather than moving your full 4. So you've lost 3 squares of movement, just because you had to stop and fight a monster (regardless of whether or not you won). Obviously, this depends on the probability of being close to the monster, and the probability of your roll. 2) The number of turns you lose by losing a battle. Basically, if you lose a battle (regardless of whether or not you lost all your health), you lose some amount of turns by having to move backwards one square, depending on the probability that you won the battle. 3) The number of turns you lose by having to stop and heal. If you lose all your health, you have to wait a few turns while you heal. And that's dependent on your health going into the battle, the probability that you lose, and the strength of the monster you're fighting. 4) The number of turns you lose by having to do (1), (2), and (3) all over again if you lose to the same monster repeatedly! Mostly, those are straightforward, but I seem to get differing results. Also, there's a tricky issue when there are 2-or-more monsters adjacent to the square you're standing on. In that case, (1) basically would apply to ONE of the monsters, but not the other monster(s). Any thoughts on how you'd approach that? At the moment, I'm using a "guesstimate" based on some simulations that gave me: Power 1 - 1.355968 turns lost Power 2 - 1.603074 turns lost Power 3 - 1.850181 turns lost DaveE

How so? I would think the opposite, in fact, due to the fact that with larger boxes, the bricks have more ability to move around, and can thus bash into each other, increasing the risk of scratching (not to mention allowing the instructions and stickers to flop around and get folded over and bent). The one that I'm curious about is the small baggies that aren't explicitly labeled as "recyclable". Why not? Are they recyclable but not printed as such? Or are they truly not recyclable? If not, why not? And, most places won't recycle the labeled baggies because they're too small (even if I have boatloads). Where can I go to recycle them? DaveE

I technically came out of my dark age around 1995, when I started buying sets for myself-- but I didn't start collecting like mad until I got out of college and got a job in 1999. From 1999-2003, I wolfed down LEGO sets like nobody's business, especially when the sets featured gray, dark gray, brown, or tan. I'd buy just about every System set that came out, and if it had a bunch of those colors? I'd buy multiples. So when the color change hit in 2004, it was a shock. My buying habits have since changed quite a lot-- I buy very few multiples, and these days don't buy nearly every System set. I already had a substantial collection of about 300,000 pieces, so I didn't really NEED to buy more. I begrudgingly decided that I would bide my time and keep buying (a lot of fans at the time vowed to stop all together, trying to boycott LEGO into changing the colors back), and "someday" have enough of the new colors to use them instead of my old colors. Since then, I've started getting quite a lot of BOTH the new and old colors, surprisingly enough. I typically build a model in EITHER old OR new colors, but not in both simultaneously. I still don't really like looking at a mix of the two. The biggest problem is sorting. Brown and Dark Gray aren't too hard to tell apart, but Gray is very difficult without the right lighting. It makes for a constant battle with the color change, so effectively EVERY time I want to build with LEGO, it's a thorn in my side, constantly reminding me of how much I hate the color change. I now have about a million pieces, and I'd guess it's an even split between new and old colors-- or, sorta. The distribution of old colors is towards basic brick, but newer sets have contained fewer basic stuff and more specialized elements like slopes, curves, and other odd things. Gray I probably still have more old than new. Dark gray, probably 50/50. And brown, I definitely have more new brown, since old brown was only just starting to be used commonly prior to the change. DaveE

Depends, I guess :) I honestly love the monorail because it's an elevated rail, it's compact, it's very high quality (friction is WAY down), and of course, it has nostalgia value. But the monorail wasn't overly flexible (only 1 large radius of curve, and 1 increment of height variation), and I'm not sure how much life or power you get out of a 9v battery (I've never tried to overload my monorail to the point where it won't go uphill). If LEGO came out with a new elevated rail, I could see getting into it if it were compact enough and high-quality enough. I can imagine a lot of selling points that could make for a BETTER monorail: - More flexibility in the track geometry - Remote controlled - Multiple speeds - More flexible car size - Integration of PF and/or NXT If they put the right effort into the system, it COULD totally eclipse the desire for the old monorail in every way (except for the nostalgia factor, of course). I'm getting all worked up just thinking about it! DaveE

Yeah, I have to agree with Aanchir's point about demand-- AFOLs might want monorail, but beyond that, I'm not sure kids and parents would jump on it with the same enthusiasm. Monorail track elements would be difficult. If all we needed was (say) the 8-long straight track, I could see them possibly bringing the element out of retirement if it could be worked into a set somehow. But there's a lot more than that in order to make a functioning monorail: - 8-stud long track: This mold should be pretty reasonable to bring back. - half-curve left: This wouldn't be too difficult of a mold, other than the fact that it's a bit large. - half-curve right: Ditto above - 32-stud long track: This is a pretty large element, which I believe gets pricier. - full-curve: Again, large element, even bigger. - ramp top: Another large element. - ramp bottom: Another large element. - start/stop: I'm not sure how many individual molds are needed for this element-- I'd guess a minimum of 5 molded parts (probably more), plus assembly! Expensive! - left switch track: again, a lot of separate molds, and assembly! Plus the individual molds are bigger than the stopper. - right switch track: same as left switch - Monorail base end: this has quite a bit-- I think it's something like 9 pieces (2 of which are metal axles?), with assembly required. - Monorail central hub: this is by far the most expensive, thanks to the motor. In addition to the motor unit, you've got... 4? other parts which are again assembled. On top of that, the new monorail would be in the NEW gray color (or something else entirely), which decreases the desirability for AFOLs, and also brings back the old 9v system which they've abandoned in favor of the new PF system. So... I'm thinking it's not happening. We all heard how expensive it was to make ONE new part for AFOLs in the Emerald Night (actually, it was 1 mold, 2 different parts). I can't imagine that they would go through the hassle of tooling 25-30 elements (many of them large), doing the assembly required on those elements, AND bringing back the old motor system, ALL because of AFOL demand. The demand just isn't there to offset the cost. BUT! With that said, there's no reason I can see that they wouldn't make a new SIMILAR system if it appealed to kids. That I could see them doing-- it just wouldn't be compatible with the old monorail. DaveE

Probably. LEGO has been very adamant that monorail is NOT coming back. I think it's conceivable that they might do another elevated-style rail someday, but from what I've heard, you won't be seeing the monorail system from the late 80's and 90's returning. I hadn't heard the "destroyed by fire" story. That sounds a little suspicious to me, honestly-- they were last used in a set released in 1994, which means they were probably still in production as late as 1996, and I'd kinda think anything on that level would be noted by the fan community at the time since RTL was well established at that point. But certainly they occasionally destroy molds when they're sure they won't bring something back. Reportedly they would use molds in poured concrete foundations of new buildings, although I'm not sure if that's just rumor or not. DaveE

Well... this Dacta set had a really large number of chrome-- BUT! Make sure you get the original 2003 version! LEGO released the set (with the same set number!) a few years later with a DIFFERENT inventory which had little or NO chrome in it: http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9320-1 According to Peeron, the sets with the widest VARIETY of chrome parts are: 8 different chrome elements: Model Team Giant Truck - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5571-1 Model Team Big Foot 4 x 4 - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5561-1 UCS Naboo Starfighter - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=10026-1 7 different chrome elements: Dacta Journey Into Space - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9320-1 6 different chrome elements: Belville Luxury Cruiser - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5848-1 And the sets with the MOST chrome elements (again, according to Peeron) are: 44 chrome pieces - Journey Into Space - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9320-1 32 chrome pieces - Model Team Giant Truck - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5571-1 23 chrome pieces - Model Team Big Foot 4 x 4 - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5561-1 17 chrome pieces - Belville Luxury Cruiser - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5848-1 16 chrome pieces - Radio Control Racer - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5599-1 16 chrome pieces - Radio Control Racer - http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5600-1 DaveE

Of course, what would be really nice is if there was some sort of pro-active identifier that knew the attributes of the head/torso/etc in question. Basically a search form sort of like: 1) Are there eyebrows? (Yes/No/Any) 2) Is there stubble? (Yes/No/Any) 3) Glasses of any type? (Yes/No/Any) 4) What color is the head? (Yellow/Flesh/etc) 5) Is it distinctly female? (Yes/No/Any) ... etc ... Of course, that would mean going through every single head and figuring out its identifying characteristics, as well as every torso design and doing the same. Quite a lot of work for someone to undertake! DaveE

I was thinking one of these, since they're conveniently Heroica-sized: DaveE

There was one earlier today where I noticed that both BrickLink and BrickSet were down at the same time. Since they're both hosted by NorthStar, it's a good bet that NorthStar was doing some network maintenance (or something similar), and that it wasn't really BrickLink techs per se working on it. DaveE