vexorian

Video submitter says there will be another NinjaGo (and SW) video later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo6NkxWKjvY Edit: Three... headed...Dragon Edit 2: SAMURAI - STATUE- MECH - THING Oh boy.

Because they are preliminary so they are putting the CM figs as placeholders.

I am going to guess the new villain is some sort of Octopus mech with draining tentacles and tons of purple and guns.

Bulk becoming the massive hulk-like XL would have made more sense and would have meant tons of silver. But Stormer is not as Hulk-like as in the video, it is not as bad as I thought it would be. I am assuming Breakout is continuing, is it? I wanted a tri walker :)

- Nex: At first I thought he was Furno, then I read the name. But perhaps the red bits are really orange. He looks great. - Stringer : Win, although the gun better not be a single piece. - XT4: I am orgasming. - Core Hunter : Holy awesomeness, he looks like a dark Axxon. His spikes remind me of a MoC called Viral my brother made. - Bulk: Hope his chest is incomplete. - Voltix: Overshadowed by the other villains. - Stormer XL: Oh boy. No large villains?

Great theme idea. Too bad that the excessive use of licensed themes is probably going to mean no retailer in my town will get it. It is strange, but I think I remember some user in Eurobricks posting a very extensive mock up for exactly this theme idea, including a sea monster that was pretty much identical to the one in the pictures.

I am tired of video reviews, they take ages to download and the picture quality is not as good as in pciture reviews. Thornrax is great. I'll probably be focusing my budget on all the villains sans the shark guy.

Considering the price, this guy should be compared to heroes, agori or matorans (including evil matorans). Nothing Bionicle has done in that price range has much to do against this (though I have become Bionicle hater#1 after loving HF 2.0 so much, so I am biased). I count 1.0 Heroes to be part of Bionicle, so that includes them as well. Next on the 2.0 and 3.0 Heroes, this guy has a big advantage over them and it is that it is not using the same exact build as other <i>5</i> sets. In fact, I'll be honest and this guy beats in my opinion plenty of the HF villains themselves. That includes all the 1.0 villains, specially Meltdown who is less pose-able and has poor quality yellow plastic. Then we have the 2.0 villains. I would say this guy is definitely better than the villains that are not nitroblast. Skip to 3.0 and this guy manages to beat wasp and scorpion for me. On top of that, let us add 6 trans lime pieces and this thing is the best thing ever created (in my opinion).

I remade my program, because my program was first getting the expected number of bags you need to complete a specific set of minifigs, whilst you wanted the probability to get the set given a number of bags. Anyway, according to my new program the expected number of random bags you will need to buy without cheating before you get a complete set is 58.15. The probability to get a complete set after buying 60 random bags is 63.06%. And after 80 bags is 86.44% The probability to get a complete set with 16 bags is 0.00008 %. Another important fact: You will need to buy a expected amount of 200 random before you get 10 Romans. And 90.5266297782 if you want 5 aliens, 3 robots and a space girl (Which is my current wish). Would you like to know what happens if the minifigs were evenly distributed? Probability to get a complete set with 60 bags is 70.46%. With 80 bags it is 91.11% (So in fact, your math is correct)... And the expected number of bags before you get a complete set is 54.09. Results for the previous series were similar, my conclusion is the same as always, there is absolutely no economic sense in playing fair and getting random bags. In order to get a complete set by that method you'll spend the same as buying a whole box and a whole box comes with 3 full sets and plenty of other figures. Buy boxes or feel the bags, your wallet will be happier. Sorry, there is no formula (or rather, the formula is a simple recurrence relation which can't be calculated easily and thus needs a program) If you really, really want to see the code, here it is: http://vexorian.blogspot.com/2011/12/minifig-problem.html I know it seems difficult, but it is actually very simple once you get used to dynamic programming as it doesn't require a lot of analysis to get a specific formula. My first program was a lot faster because it considered directly that there are three or four 'classes' of minifig weights, but this new program can solve some special combinations like 5 and 6 figures of the same weight class but different actual types. Edit: Table of probabilities for bag counts from 1 to 91: http://pastebin.com/eMY9dcJy

This is a lot easier and less error prone by using dynamic programming. I have a program ready for that in my machine. If I remember correctly the uneven distribution of figures actually made it harder to complete the set. I also remember that the expected number of random purchases before you collect the entire set was just barely smaller than 60 in the previous series. I'll try to code a new program soon .

With 6 trans lime HF armor pieces, I would have given it 11/10 for pieces. I thin I'll get three because I have great plans for the trans goodness. This guy is just great, even his combiner seems to be much better than the other combiners shown yet.

Wow, these sets are all really underwhelming. None of them really would justify a tax that will feed the SOPA lobby that goes by the name of Warner bros. Seems like yet another minifig-centric licensed theme. They would have to be a very intricate fake if they are not legit. Did you not like peach figs? Prepare for epic horses, let us turn the incompatibility up to eleven.

I am not sure why this topic is raising such passion from you. Let us just say that you are not making me rethink my reflex about skipping posts that downright begin accusing the other side of being feminist extremists. Your point seems to revolve about how nobody is holding guns to buy them and that we could buy SW sets just like that. I don't think that tells the whole story. For starters, the business week article admits that they are building walls around just about all LEGO themes that are not "friends" so that only boys feel welcome. Their lossy market research is probably not very effective, but the intention is clearly mentioned. Let's make all themes but "friends" focus on Mastery instead of beauty and detail because those things are girly. That way friends can focus on Mastery and whatever. More so , advertizing will make sure that SW is targeted at boys exclusively whilst friends will be targeted at girls. So, sure, there are no guns being held against girls so that they only get "Friends". There is just the advertizing machine and the fact that the other sets don't consider the priorities TLG assumes girls have. The controversy is about whether LEGO fell in stereotyping and is calling it market analysis. To me it is clear that sets in both ways are getting full of gender stereotypes. After TLG decided all themes but friends/belvile are for boys, we have been getting sets that are stereotypically heared towards boys. Most creator sets nowadays are cars or helicopters. Town alternates between Cops and Firefighters every second wave and every set needs flicker missiles. I think that it is pretty clear to me that gender stereotypes are getting worse in TLG than years ago. It is actually funny if you think about that in the first step, LEGO try very hard to make the themes unappealing to girls. In the second step they gloat about how they are making a single theme that does not. TLG has certainly come full circle over this mess. It would surely be nice if we could say that when a theme is aimed at girls has pink in every single set and career offerings such as clothe designer that it is stereotypical without being accused of saying that LEGO oppresses women and is worse than Muslim countries. I'd like to state that it is quite clear that LEGO have been victims of following these stereotypes and there shouldn't be much argument there. Once we just establish that the stereotypes are well and living we can discuss about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I'd say that it is not an ok thing. Surely it is not the end of the world, but when a global toy company surrenders to the stereotypes it may not be causing a problem, but it is doing nothing to fix it either. The other way of the argument is saying that TLG are doing this because it is good for their business. I see two issues with this point: a) I think it is way too soon to jump to conclusions about how well the theme will do financially for TLG. Surely they made tons of market research, but there is a lot of market research behind LEGO's most notable failures like Bellvile, 4Juniors and Galidor. The strongest market research is not a sufficient condition for victory. b) The second issue I see is that the topic about whether it is good money-wise for LEGO or not is not really relevant to the discussion about it being stereotypical or not, clearly TLG's financial success wouldn't suddenly mean it was alright to do it. And c) We are not LEGO employees, we are costumers and as such our priority is not LEGO's financial success but making sure that LEGO is a convenient product for ourselves, our tastes and, if we are parents, the development of our children. Surely we can just not buy them, but just not buying a product is not going to let LEGO learn about why we are not buying it, so it is very useful to use the internet to make ourselves heard so that LEGO learn the reason we are not buying their things.

Yeah, it is all about the color scheme for me, if all the pieces that are not gold or transparent were black, he would look just great and awesome. Too bad they are not. If money is not tight next year I might get him for bricks, but he is not a priority. In fact, I am getting the same vibes about Evo, which kind of leaves Toxic Reapa as the only surviving 2012 set of those I was initially exciting about.

Yes, I am sure that the reason these people are making opinions you don't agree with is that they are sexless fanbois.

Sorry, I prefer to skip any post that begins by mentioning extreme feminism or ^feminism bullcrap in its... first line. Thing is that the line is not only stereotypical, but it others girls. It would be nice if we could say that without being called extremists. This is a problem LEGO is getting into by deciding that the rest of the themes, including Creator are for boys. You know, LEGO is flanderizing all of their themes into boys and making a little new theme for girls. The business article does not make me hopeful. I got to be honest, is the business article calling me a girl? You know, besides the mandatory pink and the balkanized minifigs, and that 7/8 of the career choices are stereotypically "girly" the sets are great for the most part. I happen to like beauty and detail and it is getting into me that LEGO have been focusing on removing those values from all the other themes so that they can focus on "Mastery"? What? So that's the reason SNOT is becoming mandatory even if it doesn't make the set look good? Do you mean that if some boy told them five years ago that he also wanted to shrink and be inside a SW ship we would be getting colorful and detailed ships? It seems so random. Wouldn't it be easier if all sets would be beautiful, detailed and also complicated? Can't town sets have modular rooms? So both kinds of roleplaying were allowed and that there were puppies and hedgehogs in the Town theme? Couldn't SW ships also be beautiful and detailed? Is this paragraph really feminist crap? Oh boy. It is also not like LEGO is the only company getting this sort of criticism. It is probably the only company you heard of getting this criticism, because you are AFOLs. I remember this recently: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/29/how-not-to-market-science-to-girls/ And of course girls like pink. But can't boys like pink too? Can't girls like other colors too?

Unless the market research itself was based on sexist premises. Anyway, I am skeptical about any market research that concludes that girls hate minifigs.

Space. An alien race, that means actual biological and cyborg monster villains try to take over some space station. That means heroes will get jetpacks, plasma guns and other gadgets. The aliens will generally be small, and instead of a titan, there will be Exo-toa style mechs and/or a ship.

I was excited about Tri-walker. Imagine a HF tripod titan loaded with guns and the such. Like Mazeka but cooler.

My understanding of the list (based on the set numbers) is that Scorcher, Shock and Freeze are heroes and every other new name is a villains. It does sound odd to have Freeze and FlashFreeze at the same time. I still don't get how the list was found seeing how the BS folder is not public. Edit: I now am 99% sure the list is fake.

What is wrong is the assumption that pink and horses are girly/feminine. And that girls' minifigs ought to have boobs. Fun bit about lady scientists: They don't use pink microscopes.

There are three new heroes in that list. 6 heroes again sounds strange. If the breakout saga continues, then that would force the designers not to release any of the heroes from the first wave. I don't get how he found the picture either.

I doubt it. If PoTC is any indication, TLG will try very hard to make sure to include peach prints in the torsos.

Of course it is stereotypical. And you know what? Boys themes are stereotypical too. I just cannot get why 'normal' themes cannot have a single mirror. God forbids if we put a puppy in a city theme. And of course, the color schemes have to be drastically different too. Pink does not exist in 'normal' themes. Whereas it must be present in every single Friends set. The stereotypes will begone once LEGO begins marketing all or most their sets to both genders.