davee123

How do the Friends figures ride bicycles? I forget whether or not their feet separate, but their hands certainly won't be able to hold the handlebars! DaveE

I got the impression that it was more recently than 6 years ago, but he didn't say when. Plus, I expect that even though they're "re-classified", that doesn't really mean that everyone's going to stop calling them "Technic Bricks". That's what they've probably been called for the last 30+ years, so the name's likely going to stick. As for the re-classification, that came about in a discussion regarding Technic sets that I had with him in January of 2012. He sort of went off on a tangent (which I think many AFOLs must ask him about) regarding studless Technic builds, and why studded Technic beams aren't used as frequently in Technic sets these days, compared to smooth Technic beams. He said that the old Technic bricks drove the designers crazy, because the alignment of the holes isn't QUITE correct (at least not by their current standards), and isn't as nice as the smooth beams, which are "cubic" rather than rectangular in their dimensions. Hence, Technic designers can accomplish more with the smooth beams, and get less of a hassle from QA for being "In System". Anyway, during the course of that conversation, Jamie informed me that the Technic bricks were actually re-classified as "System" rather than "Technic". Actually, I shouldn't say that. He simply said that they were re-classified as "System". He didn't say that they were classified as "Technic" beforehand, that's just an assumption on my part. As for WHEN it happened, I don't think he explicitly said. The impression I got was that it was somewhat recent (like, the last couple years), but that's just inferred by me. Essentially, it makes sense to me, because these days, Technic bricks are more commonly used in System sets than in Technic sets-- whereas in (say) 1997 and before, Technic bricks were the "core foundation" of most Technic models, and were used more sparingly in System sets. Also, I don't really know what "re-classifying" means in the context of the LEGO company. Does it mean that it will appear in a different area of LDD? A different category in BrickFinder? Will the item get a new descriptive name? I don't know enough about how an element's "classification" at LEGO changes anything. Certainly they aren't about to stop USING them, or start changing how they're used (they already did that in the late 1990's). So, take it to mean what you will. DaveE

According to Jamie Berard, "Technic Bricks" have actually been re-classified by the LEGO company as "System" rather than "Technic"! DaveE

Yeah, 6018 is one of the long-disputed sets in terms of allegiance. As I recall, someone even found a catalog where it was listed with a *Crusader* logo next to the set, thus making it potentially belong to THREE different factions. However, although he wrote the note, he probably should have been consistent in terms of either putting *both* the figs *and* the set into the same category (or into both categories), rather than putting the figs in with Black Knights and the set in with the Black Falcons. DaveE

D'oh! He's inconsistent on how he categorizes 6018! On the list of sets, he lists it as belonging to the Black Falcons, but then in the list of minifigs, lists them as being Black Knights! DaveE

Technically? They can get pretty tight. The tightest curve I ever saw built with 1x2 bricks is roughly a 12-15 studs radius. BUT! 1) That was done by a LEGO Master Builder. And as we all know, LEGO Master Builders have no regard for being "nice" to their bricks. I'm pretty sure if you try and do that, you'll warp your bricks. But Master Builders don't have to worry about that, because their bricks just stay built in a static display. 2) The build in question was REALLY difficult to do, even for him. He built it two or three times before deciding that he would have to use *GLUE* in order to prevent it from literally EXPLODING from the strain. And even then, small bits of it would explode now and again, making it take a long time to assemble (in addition to gluing, which takes a long time already!) As for where? The LEGO Millyard, in Manchester, NH, USA-- built around... late 2004 or early 2005 I think? I forget which "phase" build that was done in. I think I drummed up a picture of it once for this very topic some time ago, but I don't know which picture I found. It's probably out there somewhere. <Edit>Ahh yes, here's the thread. And here's the image! Doing some extra checking, I'd guess it's a 14-stud radius. That building's "Building #3 (SEE)" in this image, which measured the footprint of each building. I'm pretty sure that the radius on that corner starts 10 studs in from the jut-out of the main building, which would make it 14 studs. And calculating pixels in the image, I get about 13.79 studs, which is a pretty good match. Also, in re-reading the old thread, I recall why there are those "stripes" of old brown mixed with new brown bricks-- The plates would hold together without exploding better than the bricks, so after a few rows of bricks, he'd put on a row that was 3 stacked plates to keep integrity while the glue dried.</Edit> DaveE

Unfortunately, no, not every piece will have the LEGO logo imprinted on it. This is pretty commonly absent in smaller pieces. This can make it pretty difficult to determine whether or not something is LEGO. Typically, these fall into 2 categories: 1) A piece you're not familiar with. This can be difficult, because you've never seen the piece in question before. Typically, the first step is in finding out if it's in the BrickLink database or not. If so, chances are good that it's LEGO. If you can't find it, you should probably post to a LEGO forum where other LEGO hobbyists can let you know if it's a valid LEGO piece. If nobody knows what it is, and you can't find it in the BL database, and it doesn't say LEGO? Chances are VERY good that it's a clone. 2) A piece you ARE familiar with, but aren't sure if it's actual LEGO or not. For instance, we found a 1x1 tile in *clear*. We couldn't find that color in the BL database or Peeron Database, and (unfortunately), 1x1 tiles don't say "LEGO" on them. Was it a special run of clear 1x1 tiles? Maybe-- the lot came from someone that once worked for LEGO. But it also had some other odd things in it that WEREN'T LEGO. So.... ? This can be REALLY tough. Sometimes, LEGO will have *other* markings on their elements, like the Design ID or mold cavity number. Hence, if you find OTHER elements that match the same Design ID/cavity number, you probably have a LEGO part. And if there's nothing, and similar LEGO parts have nothing, there's no really good way to know. But at that point, if you've done your due diligence, and STILL can't tell, and no other AFOL can tell either-- you might as well just call it LEGO. DaveE

75 exists: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3685 DaveE

For the record, here's a Town Hall that Jamie helped build before he was working for the LEGO company, in about 2005, for the Millyard Project: http://www.nelug.org/mediagallery/album.php?aid=265&page=1 DaveE

Discuss it with the seller. Basically, what you're doing is attempting to "reserve" the items you want, without paying for them right away, and this is a problem, especially for desirable parts. I'm not sure how BrickLink actually handles it behind the scenes, but imagine what would happen if there were a single, desirable item for sale, and there were 4 people that wanted it, who ALL added it to their cart at the same time. Who gets it? Does the first person who adds it to their cart prevent others from adding it to THEIR carts? Or does everyone get it added to their cart, but whoever "checks out" first get the part? Anyway, from a *technical* standpoint, BrickLink clears out your cart as quickly as it can, because it doesn't want your cart information to go stale, and create a "race condition" as above. HOWEVER-- if you discuss it with the seller, you might be able to check out NOW, and then pay later. There's no rule on BrickLink to say that you NEED to pay within a certain timeframe. That's up to each seller individually. So if you're guaranteeing that you'll pay later, it's possible that the seller might let you "buy" them now, but not actually *pay* for them until you can. But that's up to the seller, if they're feeling like being nice to you. DaveE

Well, the question isn't really "would you like to see more animals?", because the answer to that would undoubtedly be "yes". I think the question is more along the lines of: "Would you prefer to buy a set that has a giraffe, or one that has a robot?" Or, "Would you like this set that has a hippo, or would you like this one that has a velocoraptor?" Essentially, there are only so many things that LEGO's going to focus on at a given time, and they'll almost always opt to produce the thing that will earn them the most money. And they've effectively proven that their target audience is young boys, and that young boys will prefer dragons, dinosaurs, spaceships, dinosaurs, trucks, airplanes, castles, and so forth when compared to, say, zoo or farm animals. I think younger kids don't have as strong of a preference towards the same conflict-based themes, and generally their parents are the ones that often make the purchasing decisions. So, younger kids' themes will probably get a tendency towards more animals. That said, however, LEGO has since been changing a lot of its product habits. New molds come out much more frequently now, and there's a MUCH wider product variety. Plus, now that we're seeing the Friends lineup (where girls often prefer animals moreso than boys, I believe), I think we may start seeing a lot more variety in animals. DaveE

If the bottom of the table is obscured from view, you could try using a tire element, and then shoving yellow lever handles through it, such that the tops of the levers each look like little "corn pops" or something. The levers would stick out the bottom, but as long as you were only looking at the top of the table, it might be ok. DaveE

Basically, LEGO has said that the chroming process is expensive for them. So, a set designer is allowed to include a chrome element in his set (say), but if he does, then that's fewer OTHER pieces that he can include in the set (since the set has to meet a particular price point). That's why we've been seeing various attempts at other chrome/metallic pieces over the last few years. LEGO's been experimenting with cheaper methods of making "metal" looking parts without the expense of full-on chroming. Doesn't mean they're DONE with chrome by any means, but that there's less of it going around these days than there was. DaveE

There's copyright issues, obviously, with making your own LEGO-- but it would be pretty neat if you could pay a small royalty fee and then just make any LEGO part historically (cypress tress, monorail track, classic space helmets, etc). Question would be whether the quality of the ABS is up to the same standards as injection molding-- but I have no idea where they are on that front. DaveE

As of now, there are 40 entries in the poll, and by my count, I get about 79 that I can think of. Stuff that I'd put on the list: 4 Factory sets (Garage, Hobby Train, Space Skulls, Star Justice) 11 Legends sets Space Shuttle Adventure Maersk Sealand 3 Aircraft (Red Baron, Wright Flyer, Sopwith Camel) Tower Bridge Mini Modular Buildings 3 Sculptures (Statue of Liberty, Ollie the dragon, Minifig Statue) Lunar Lander Motorized AT-AT Ultimate TIE Collection 3 Winter Village sets 5 Trains (Santa Fe, BNSF, Santa Fe 1+2 cars, TTX Double Stack) Train Shed Grand Carosel Blacksmith Shop DaveE

As above, no. I was in the adult LEGO community when Rock Raiders came out, and it was pretty generally despised among adult fans. It had explicit characters (not generic ones), had a strange color scheme, and had HUGE, &lt;insert that tiresome argument&gt; parts. Also, it didn't sell well, so LEGO stopped the "Underground" theme after 1999. There were supposedly some really cool sets lined up for the 2nd and 3rd year of release, but it stopped there. Alpha Team was similarly disliked by adults, although not so much for the juniorization level. More for the color scheme, characters, and feature-intense building style. Not sure what you mean by JT, except maybe Adventurers? *THAT* one adult fans seemed to love. The desert subtheme had a lot of tan and dark gray, which was rare at the time, as well as some great models. The Amazon and Dino Island themes I don't recall much reaction to, though. I don't remember much love or hate for those subthemes. And of course the Orient Expedition lineup everyone loved, because it had a lot of new pieces like elephants, turbans, and some cool prints. You had me and then you lost me. The Dinosaurs in the Dino line are essentially identical to the Dino 2010 / Dino Attack dinosaurs. If you want non-&lt;insert that tiresome argument&gt; dinosaurs, go back to the ugly looking dinosaurs from the "Dinosaurs" line from 2001, with partially brick-built dinosaurs. As for the vehicles, yeah, I liked the Dino 2010/Dino Attack vehicles better. They were less &lt;insert that tiresome argument&gt;, and looked cooler. This has been a slippery slope ever since maybe Time Cruisers or Adventurers, where virtually every minifig in the lineup was a character. Slowly, the characters and storylines have gotten more pronounced. But I don't think Ninjago's any worse than Knight's Kingdom II. Um, basically, in 1997, LEGO very consciously started dumbing down their builds in what hobbyists call juniorization. They also started catering each individual product line to a different age group and target audience, some of whom like building and some of whom do not. But LEGO as a whole was *never* targeted at adults and teenagers. Then, starting in 2000, LEGO started catering to the adult hobbyist community, and we started seeing things like the LEGO Legends, LEGO Sculptures, and so forth. So, LEGO's been slowly more and more conscious of the adult market as time has gone on. If anything, I would say that LEGO's gotten BETTER about catering to adults rather than worse as you imply. Actually, those video games were pretty poor, and didn't do well in the market. Around the same timeframe (1999 or so?) LEGO decided that it wanted to have video games associated with ALL their themes (did you ever play the Rock Raiders video game?) And they were mostly awful. It wasn't until TT came along with LEGO Star Wars that they found a GREAT game engine. Sure, they've over-used it at this point, but it's still selling! Sorry, you sound like the opposite. No, not really. LEGO's doing PHENOMENALLY well right now, and were doing terribly during the timeframe that you're nostalgic about. Basically, from 1978-1996, LEGO was content to be a fringe toy that was essentially the "king" of a small market-- building toys. Then, in the mid 1990's, LEGO decided that it wanted to shift gears and become "the next Disney". The goal was to become the "best brand in families with children" by 2005. So they started expanding in a lot of new directions, including modifying their building style with juniorization in 1997, as stated above. They started doing licensing (Star Wars in 1999), they started more mainstream LEGO robotics (previously, it was just in Dacta), they had a competing product for K'Nex with "Znap", introduced Bionicle, Belville, Scala, and tons of other stuff. 1998 was pretty much the first year LEGO suffered a financial loss. I don't remember how long of a streak LEGO had going up until then-- but I remember it being said that in the history of the plastic building brick (1949), the LEGO company had never had a loss ever before. LEGO chalked it up to the big investment they were making for future growth, as well as the decline in the toy market with respect to video games. But by 2004, LEGO was almost out of business. They were slowly (or... not so slowly) dying out. So in late 2005, they got a new CEO, and focused on changing the company. They sacrificed a lot of quality, and focused on making profits rather than doing what was "best" for the company, or being in line with the company's "vision". And from 2006 or 2007 onward, LEGO's skyrocketed (not sure if they turned a profit in 2006, but I think by 2007 they were back on track financially). So... no. LEGO knows what they're doing. If they went back to their traditional roots, they might have a product that we'd enjoy more, but they'd do a lot less business and their products would cost more. Disagree. Juniorization was a very conscious decision on LEGO's part to simplify builds for children. In the hobbyist community "&lt;insert that tiresome argument&gt;" has a broad scope of definitions, because people have different standards of what constitutes an "easy" or "complex" build. But it's a decent moniker for "simplified building style". I think what hobbyists often don't understand (or simply don't care about) is that Juniorization is necessary for certain target audiences that LEGO aims at. It's too bad that 6-year-olds can't assemble certain types of LEGO elements, but that's why we get things like 1x2 bricks with pins already sticking out of them, or 1x1 bricks with clips rather than a stacked set of plates and a 1x1 plate with clip. Now, I agree that juniorization is an overused and over-inflated term, like "Socialism" in politics. Everyone sees the term and associates it with an extreme negativity, even though there may be appropriate applications for it. DaveE

Definitely agree that the Fantasy Troll is way better in all respects. The only good thing I can think of about the HP troll is that the head is useful for making zombies. But hands-down Fantasy Troll-- he's way more iconic and LEGO-ish than the HP troll, he's WAY more posable, he's reasonably configurable, and can do things like holding standard minifigs. DaveE

Well, there's two forms of formal recognition currently in place that I'm aware of, both being recognized by LEGO. As for being recognized by the hobbyist community, there's no such thing-- you can effectively recognize yourself, and that's enough. For recognition into the Ambassador program, I'm having a heck of a time finding the requirements. LEGO hasn't played up the role of Ambassadors since the early cycles. The last formal announcement that I can find regarding Ambassador selection is back in 2009 for the Cycle 7 Ambassadors. I can't find anything since! But as I recall, it was something along the lines of being either a physical LUG (I forget the specifics required), or being a large online community with X members. For recognition into LUGBULK, I think the requirements were pretty similar to the Ambassador program, but I can't be sure. The current requirements are: - you need to be a physical LUG (you can't just have a web presence) - need 10+ members (some of whom must be 16+) - must have existed for at least 1 year - have a website (not just a Facebook page or something) - need to do 2+ public displays per year There are some other requirements, but they're specifics about website contents, submissions, etc. [edit]Wow, that was difficult, but I found information posted on BZPower. Basically, for a local LUG to be recognized for the Ambassador program: - You need 10+ "active" members - Must be around for 1 year or more - Have 2 or more public displays per year So, very similar to the Ambassador requirements, but you apparently don't need a website to be considered. You DO, however, have to submit some sort of evidence (photos or something) demonstrating your activity level.[/edit] DaveE

I would argue that regardless of whether or not it was a written rule back in 1977, it's become weaker. LEGO's design department used to be much smaller, and they produced a lot fewer lines. Writing down rules when you only have (say) 10 people designing models isn't as necessary as when you've got (say) 50 people spread across multiple offices. That's why you're seeing other documentation pop up these days, like written rules regarding how to portray minifigs (that one's particularly popular, it seems, since it shows you just how much emphasis you can put on minifig boobs). The rule really HAS become less strict. And basically, it's not so much (as you point out) that a written policy was altered to be more lenient-- it's that the people making the decisions became so. The same people that decided initially to disallow skeleton minifigs (because they depicted dead minifigs, the horror!) reverted their decision several years later. And that's the way it went with a lot of other decisions as well, like LEGO weapons, LEGO Star Wars and so forth. DaveE

This is why it's important to read things. "If a part doesn't have an ldraw number, check if we assigned it a number for peeron (number such as x112). If there is none, just leave that column blank." Just submit it via the general submission form: http://www.peeron.com/cgi-bin/invcgis/submitinv DaveE

The front page of Peeron has a link to inventory submission instructions: http://www.peeron.com/inv/instructions DaveE

Looks like this one: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=4778-1 DaveE

Agree. PLEASE, NO MORE SOUND BRICKS, LEGO! I don't think I'd object if they were customizable somehow, like recordable, or perhaps could download sound files via USB. But I don't think I've ever heard a sound element from LEGO that I liked listening to. I don't mind them being used strategically in robotics creations, but that's typically done with the speaker in the RCX/NXT, and doesn't require a separate sound element. DaveE

1) LEGO almost assuredly won't permit you to use the word "LEGO" in the name. But you can sell all the LEGO you want to, whether it's new, used, mangled, or whatever. 2) LEGO doesn't work well with independent vendors-- they focus on big box stores. Back in the 1990's and before, LEGO worked extensively with small stores, and had a great working relationship with them. Then, in roughly 2000 (maybe 2001?) LEGO very consciously decided to stop working as much with them. They cut the staff who dealt with small stores dramatically, and created new mandates about what was available for purchase for small retailers. Rather than saying "here's our catalog, buy whatever you want for your store", they said that each small vendor had to buy at least SOME of their core lines. So if you wanted to avoid Bionicle at your store, well, tough noogies-- you had to buy some anyway. Also, new sets were (and I believe still are) unavailable to small retailers, which I believe is to ensure that large retailers will always have them first. New products are available to small retailers only after they've been available to other retailers for months. 3) Not sure what the rules are these days, but there used to be a very strict set of rules that LEGO made their vendors work with. If you wanted to buy LEGO at wholesale prices, you had to have a storefront that lived up to their standards-- effectively, they didn't want some shoddy looking store selling their product. Otherwise, I would echo the statements above. The store's not likely to turn much of a profit on BrickLink-style lots. I know at least Troy does this with his LEGO supply, where he partners with a local toy store to provide them some parts that they can sell. It's not enough (I don't believe) to support the entire store on its own, but it's a nice little bonus on the side. I would recommend offering other goods or services-- either other toys, other construction toys, or perhaps play experiences like LEGO building sessions, educational workshops, or other events where kids can pay to come play with your LEGO. Of course, that involves a lot of thought, too-- if you're working with kids, there's background checks to worry about, as well as insurance needs, child services certification (like CPR, etc), and sanitary concerns (who's been playing with the LEGO before my kids played with it?). DaveE

Well, just a thought, but how about this: When you defeat a monster by rolling a "Shield", remove it from the board. If you defeat a monster by rolling a "Sword", the monster is stunned. Place a 1x1 round plate on its head (or under it) to signify that it is currently stunned. Your turn ends normally when the monster has been stunned. If a monster is stunned, your hero may pass by it without engaging in combat if you wish. Treat it as though it were another hero occupying the space. If a player wishes to engage a stunned monster on their turn, they may do so by stopping at an adjacent square. Combat proceeds as follows: - If a Shield is rolled, the monster is defeated and removed from the board, and the hero may use a Melee ability if available. - If a Sword is rolled, the monster is defeated and removed from the board. - If a Skull is rolled, the monster wakes up! Remove the 1x1 round plate from its head, and immediately begin a NORMAL combat round. - If a Sword/Skull is rolled, there is no change-- the monster remains stunned, and the hero remains in his place. Missile abilities may still be used on stunned monsters as normal, in order to defeat them from a distance, in which case they are removed from the board. After all the players have moved, every stunned monster attempts to wake up! For each stunned monster on the board, roll the die: - If a Shield or a Sword is rolled, the monster remains stunned. - If a Skull or Sword/Skull is rolled, the monster wakes up, and the 1x1 round plate is removed. DaveE