fred67

It doesn't really bother me, but I think they are overreacting... everyone is well aware they are preliminary pictures and may not represent the final product, and I think it has less to do with clone brands (who would just end up bribing someone anyway, if they really wanted to), and more to do with avoiding problems like when sets turn out different than the preliminary pictures and people start whining and complaining, or like in the case of BearHeart, they don't want their current products to compete with future ones.

Where are you located, and how big do you need your boxes to be? If you're in the U.S., you can get flat rate boxes from the USPS for free (they make their money when you ship), but they don't get large enough for a lot of LEGO sets. I have a few really large boxes from things that LEGO.com has shipped me, as well as some larger purchasers from Amazon and other online stores.

Gamasutra Article on building LEGO Universe.

+1 Dan Church (4) - I love how clean and simple it is... it's just right for the contest theme. +1 Diidy (11) - Fantastic details in such a small space. +1 Jippon (25) - First time I've seen a southwestern with those details. Again, perfect for the contest theme. Special mentions: Fires-storm - I actually liked the simpler version better; Darkblane nearly got my vote for both contests... it was a tough call, I love the modern/scary/dark feel of it. Thanks for another great contest and great creativity and ideas... and I'm honored I actually got a vote with all the brilliant entries!

+1 lisqr (8) +1 Darkblane (10) +1 Mookage (20) And, as usual, it was so difficult, I wanted to point out it was really a toss up and the difference could lie in a mood change from the strength of my coffee or the awfulness of my commute. I wanted to mention that I also especially liked the entries by Optimus and Etzel... I love these contests and the creativity they spur - congratulations on another great contest!

I agree, it's an awesome set. I was really going to limit my HP purchases, but I'm going to try to find enough spare cash to get them all. Harry and Ginny in bed, eh? I was waiting for the shot of Ginny tying Harry's shoelaces...

I've only done temporary setups on low tables (and around the Christmas tree once on a wood floor). I need to get tough with my kids to keep them from running them at full speed. They're still at the age where the fun part about running trains is seeing them go flying off the tracks. Of course, they don't really consider what happens next. I've also had them running alongside my desk - not really a layout, but display, I have a large desk with a return that faces into the room on one side that I had tracks and trains on. I had enough falls to figure out that wasn't a good idea. Not sure what I'll do with a permanent layout, but I'm not too worried - my desk is in an awkward position that I need to walk around to sit down, otherwise it wouldn't have been so bad.

Thanks... it actually looks better if he holds it the other way, like they're in between sets or something... but it's more accurate to hold it that way, and you're right... it's just too long for minifigures. Moreover, it wasn't until I made this MOC that I realized there's no bow! D'oh!

I agree with ThatGuyWithTheBricks. I know you don't want to sell 60 separate minifigs (and likely not end up selling all), but if you sold them in the groups you show in the pictures, I think you'd get a lot more interest, or perhaps combining Star Wars into one set, Indy into another, the Women with the dresses into another (I know I need more women... stifle yourselves), etc. Frankly, taken individually, I think you might get $150... all the red coats, Star Wars - including Lando and Chewie... but I doubt any single collector would find that much value in all the groups. So... unless you get like a Bricklink seller, you might have a hard time selling all of them in one shot.

These collectibles are inspiring, IMO, and I've seen a lot of great little vignettes that people have done. I've done a lot more than this one, but this is my favorite: Violin and Acoustic Guitar from BrickForge. The "Trumpet" is the clown's horn with the ball cut off. In retrospect, I should have "shaved" it, since the color under the black matches the rest of the horn, and it would have been longer... now it's laughably short. Yes, I realize there's a lot of inuendo in this paragraph... please restrain yourselves.

Beautiful, Tony... it fits great in that scene.

I'm not adverse to mixing non-LEGO in my MOCs, but why the hell have I never thought of using model railroad trees with my LEGO train layout before? I feel like such a moron. All the rest of your excellent ideas are ones I've been thinking for some time (that's how I know they are excellent). Most of the collectible minifigs I've gotten repeats of are the Zombie, Witch, and Vampire. I'm actually hoping to give a few to my kid's friends at Halloween. The only thing I don't have in there are lifelites, but I've got the book "electronic circuits for the evil genius" and the companion kit, as well as a number of LEDs, and I really want to learn how to do that sort of thing myself. I was actually going to ask, but collectible inspired MOCs also have me looking for a sound solution, so I'm wondering if anyone has tried adding sound, too. I'm thinking about things like this, where you can record 10 to 20 seconds... make a little MOC where you can push button and hear spooky sounds, or the witches chanting "double double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble!!!"

I've been using the site without problem, but then again I don't use Windows or IE.

But then it's not FUN!!!!

Wow! That's a great write up, Cygnet! Thanks for all the work. I have to agree with the others - I like the LEGO helmet better. It seems more detailed and the details are sharper. The shield is kind of a "wash" for me... I don't like the big stud in the middle of the LEGO shield, but I like it better otherwise... on the other hand, the BF shield is definitely more accurate and lends itself to decalling. Unlike others, I like the more detailed BF spear, too, although it seems a "realistic" spear would be longer.

Yeah... my two cents on the "quality" is that I honestly haven't noticed anything unusual... If the quality were so bad you couldn't put it on display, and that was the norm instead of the incredibly rare exception, I'd agree... but I just haven't seen any figures that were "off" enough for me to notice... in fact, I haven't noticed anything "off" at all. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, of course, but then it happens occasionally in regular sets, too.

Of course not, blind packaging isn't what makes people want to collect a complete set. If it wasn't blind, people would still want a complete set... the way you phrased it seems very awkward and not a position anyone has taken. Blind or not, TLG released a "series" of minifigures, and many people want the complete series, and I can't understand why that should be a problem. People keep claiming this, but it's simply not reality... whether the value is higher because of consumer perception or not is moot - the fact is some minifigures are more in demand, that makes them more valuable to the people who want and have them. Yes, I agree - I think it's silly to pay $8 or more for a Spartan, but the fact that people are paying that much makes them worth that much on the market. Just because you and I wouldn't pay that much doesn't make them any less valuable on the market. It's not about being "gyped," though... I agree that when you buy a blind package, you are just taking your chance, and people know what they are getting into when they agree to this transaction - but to pretend that because it's blind, people - KID'S in particular, shouldn't be disappointed when they don't get what they want is just silly.

Very well said, Nathan... I find these figures very inspiring. When I first started buying them I had both collecting and building in mind... I wanted a whole set as a collector, and I wanted some duplicates because they inspired me to make little vignettes for them - the figures spawned the idea instead of having an idea and hunting for a suitable minifigure. Look at the display stands some people have built! And best of all, the ones that I built little displays for (so far, not the Witch scene I did for the contest) weren't even ones I thought I'd be interested in. But I look at it this way: if someone wants 300 Spartans, why on Earth wouldn't a company want to sell them 300 Spartans? I can tell you I'd like a dozen elves. I really doubt I'll get them. I certainly won't keep blindly buying until I have 12 elves. If I knew what I was getting, not only would I get a whole set, I'd get TWO dozen elves. And I would pay $2.50 or $3.00 if I knew what I was getting... I think TLG is really letting us down with this marketing strategy - one that does, in fact, ENCOURAGE hoarding.

Sorry, Brickster, but TLG knew exactly what they were doing. If you think there's "trouble," the finger of blame points in one direction: TLG. Instead of asking your readers to do (or not do) something, we should be asking LEGO to stop the blind marketing and move to a model both consumer and business friendly: selling people what they want. They could recoup the lost revenue by charging more (even if only $US0.50), people would still buy a complete set plus multiple of what they wanted.... they might actually sell more.

Huh... I cut and pasted from TLG's own emails and linked to LEGO's own website, using their own definitions... For the record, I will bad mouth LEGO when I think they deserve it. I don't think I'm bad mouthing LEGO to point out that the only themes they've never changed are the brand new ones they haven't had a chance to... that's the nature of the LEGO beast, they keep changing things. It's not necessarily good or bad, it just is - which is why I don't consider it bad mouthing LEGO, just pointing out a fact. Like I said, we're customers, not minions... but if I didn't love LEGO as a hobby, if I wasn't absolutely addicted to it, I wouldn't be here. No... I never said LEGO would do anything in particular, I said it's better to be safe than sorry, and if you designed your engine around an M motor, it's much more likely to have a drop in replacement than a train specific one. Does that really sound like an unreasonable position?

Because it'll be a lot easier if trains are designed from the ground up with the extra requirements.

It is paranoid... I said as much in one of the posts, I'm not going to lie about it. That doesn't change the argument... I could buy 9V motors, that doesn't make it worthwhile; the second part of the sentence is what I'm referring to... if you have two or three trains, it's one thing when a motor burns out to adapt it to whatever new thing LEGO is offering - when you have a collection of dozens, and trains have to be heavily modified, it's something entirely different. I don't know what you're doing with your HO trains, but when I decided to start using new couplers, I only had to change one on the old cars, and just connect the new ones to that. And while there have been changes in track (like to snap track type systems), there was always the availability and continued production of the older style - you're upgrading was completely your choice, it's not exactly comparable.

And if you do that, Tony might just berate you claiming that you "whine and weep" holding on to PF. Seriously, did you bother to follow the link I gave? The old RC train motor is listed in the LEGO PF section of their website. I didn't just make it up - I'm claiming if you follow that logic, then anything that can be connected to new PF stuff is PF. I didn't claim it made any sense, that's my point. And for the record, I don't expect people to care... of all the points I made, that's the last thing I felt like arguing about, but this being the internet people seize on one minor thing and go crazy... the question of the thread is about the future of 9V - I defy anyone to show me a post where I recommend clinging to 9V or claim that PF "sucks." But since we're talking about "future," I also made a recommendation that I stand by... you can't count on LEGO for anything (except the fact they will change things... which isn't necessarily bad, but it IS necessarily so), so if you're going to build or convert a train, you might as well use the most versatile parts... and the train motor is not it. I never claimed the sky would fall if you wanted to build something using the train motor, and I never said the train motor wasn't good! For crying out loud!

Which part didn't I say that people should use PF? Where did I argue PF doesn't have advantages? Where am I refusing to move to PF? Where am I badmouthing PF, Tony? I'm merely pointing out that you can "future proof" yourself, to some extent, by staying away from the "PF" train motor and stick to M and XL (IT'S STILL PF!!!!), because they would be easier to replace should TLG discontinue them... are you really saying that's a bad position? It may be a bit paranoid, but like I said... once bitten, twice shy...

Ok, there's really two separate points here, and I'm not trying to just be difficult, but I have a hard time understanding why TLG has so many apologists... we're customers, not minions, and the sky isn't going to fall if we complain about something like the FACT that every few years (some periods longer than others) LEGO changes themes, including Trains, Castle, and every other theme they've ever done. In retrospect, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that they discontinued 9V, but at the time train fans were thinking "now that they're doing it like every other successful model railroading system, they'll continue it!" Look at what people here are saying... it's the SAME THING... "THIS time it'll be different!" I guess I'm just once bitten and twice shy about investing anything into LEGO... unlike Sava, apparently, I don't relish the chance to obsolete hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of stuff when something new comes along. Yes, I admit PF will be better in terms of longevity. The other thing just semantics... it's a rather pointless internet argument about semantics... yes, I started it. Yet.... Even LEGO shows the OLD RC train motor (8866) as being a "Power Functions" part. So sure, LEGO can call it whatever they want, but this part requires a conversion cable... and they can say tan is yellow. And I'm saying... not by MY logic, but by theirs, that anything that can be connected, even if it requires a conversion cable, is PF. Of course that's not the case, that's just the logic that they're applying. EDIT: at least, I think, this isn't as bad as arguing about what an elf is supposed to look like (see the series 3 minifigure thread).