Aanchir

I think remakes like Barracuda Bay, Forest Hideout, and Galaxy Explorer (or even full redesigns/re-imaginings like some of the Ninjago Legacy sets) can be LOADS of fun! It's amazing to see how well today's LEGO designers can retain older sets' charm while also making monumental improvements using newer parts or building techniques — even in cases where they go out of their way to maintain the general proportions of the original At the same time, I have spent quite a bit of time over the years trying to come up with my OWN redesigns of classic sets on Stud.io. And in the process I've learned that a lot of sets don't necessarily feel worth remaking years after the fact. After all, any long-running theme tends to end up with a lot of repetition in the long run (especially among sets that mostly serve to fill a particular price point in their respective waves) and it's often harder for those sets to stand out as unique or distinctive in hindsight than it did at their time of release. It's partly for this reason that I think the designers of the Galaxy Explorer made a good call by including remakes of 918 and 924 as alternate builds of the main set. Those are ships that'd have a harder time justifying "throwback" sets of their own — to a modern buyer who didn't grow up with Classic Space, they might very easily seem like smaller, less iconic versions of the same general design, with fewer unique play features. I could definitely picture Castle taking a similar approach with some other modern-day remakes/throwbacks that might have a bit of a hard time justifying a remake on their own, but make good "companion models" to larger builds from their respective subthemes. And of course, I'm also a big fan of sets like the one this topic focuses on that take a totally different approach, going above and beyond any of the sets from the particular subtheme that inspires them! After all, the expectations of buyers (AFOLs in particular) have changed a LOT since the 80s or 90s, especially thanks to sets like the Modular Buildings Collection that pushed the limits of the level of realistic detail that a LEGO set can offer! Plenty of folks here have brought up how much larger the scale of the Medieval Blacksmith is than traditional LEGO castle sets, but it's entirely in line with the scale and standard of detail from many of these other "premium" sets. And I feel like the Lion Knights' Castle is the first actual castle (at least outside of licensed themes) to approach a similar standard of detail, inside and out.

This video from LEGO's shop site shows pretty clearly where the two sections separate: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/set/assets/bltd44194ba2b39c047/10305_v2.mp4 They are linked via clip-and-handle connections, similar to how the modular segments are joined together in the 3-in-1 Medieval Castle set. This image shows how the "west wing" (bell tower, kitchen, banquet hall, bedchamber) looks when the two sections are separated to reveal the forest people's* hideout. The clip on the left and the handle on the right join up with a corresponding handle and clip on the "east wing" (dungeon/gatehouse). There is a cave/tunnel to the left of the drawbridge that connects this hideout to the exterior of the castle. Then the trapdoor in the image above allows the forest people* to sneak up into the castle itself via the market square — provided one of the guards is slacking off as shown here! * by the way, if anybody's wondering, my use of the term "forest people" for this outlaw faction isn't some sort of revisionism on my part — it was one of the official terms for that faction in UK print media, and I've taken to using it for these recent sets since it feels a little bit more accurate to their balance of of male and female characters.

It seems to be a storeroom — one of the images shows a barrel with a baguette in it there, and there's also a pile of hay there on a high ledge (or it could be a nest for the bird, but there's no opening for the bird to enter and exit the castle from there, unless it takes the stairs through the kitchen like everyone else!)

Definitely some charming updates! The candles and lanterns definitely suit the spooky vibe. And the slight simplifications to the color scheme don't hurt the model one bit, either. On a side note, does this set remind anybody else of the stories of Baba Yaga flying around in a mortar or cauldron?

I mean, that sounds fine to me. It's certainly more proportionate than if you displayed the MMV's 21-brick-tall houses together with Fantasy Era or Kingdoms castles with curtain walls are less than half that height! When opened, this castle's curtain wall is 14 bricks and 1 plate tall in the front and 17 bricks and 2 plates tall in the back (the latter is also the height of the bridge/balcony). Even that front measurement is close to the 15-brick-tall height of the Medieval Blacksmith's roof line. That's certainly tall enough to be worth displaying alongside the Medieval Blacksmith in my opinion, and I am absolutely planning to do so! That said, I expect I'll end up to displaying the blacksmith shop off to one side of the castle, rather than behind the castle walls, mainly because the hunter woman, hunting dog, and bearskin rug suggest a more out-of-the-way setting to me, such as near the edge of a forest. I've been hard at work trying to reverse-engineer as much of this set as possible on stud.io, and I'm fascinated with each new detail I discover! But there's still a number of details I haven't quite figured out yet, like how the bell is attached to the inside of the campanile, or all the intricacies of the cave network below the gatehouse (though I can tell that in the very least, there is a tunnel entrance to the left of the drawbridge that connects to the secret hideout beneath the market, in addition to the hidden passage out of the dungeons next to the big tree). One thing I have managed to verify over the course of this process is that multiple copies of the castle can be joined together, just as with old-school castles like 6080 and 6085. Here is one arrangement you can create by pairing two copies of the set (though obviously this is still a work in progress, so don't be surprised if a lot of pieces appear to be missing in this image).

Oh my gosh, I love love love this! So much stuff to talk about but i'm gonna try and break it down into bullet points so my gushing doesn't just turn into a disorganized wall of text As I hoped, there are LOADS of great interior details! A stable, armory, kitchen, great hall, royal bedchamber, treasury, dungeon, apartment/study, and a detailed flour mill, and even a cave hideout for the forestmen! Admittedly, the queen's bed falls a little short of my expectations — the bed is small even compared to the one from the Medieval Blacksmith set, whereas I'd hoped for a larger canopy bed. But all the other interior details are brimming with all the detail I could've dreamed of. The mini-model of the yellow castle was unexpected, but certainly a delight! Fortunately it doesn't break suspension of disbelief for mee, since while plastic toys wouldn't have existed in the medieval era, wooden building blocks certainly could, and the Reddish Brown nanofig that accompanies that build helps suggest that these are in fact meant to be a wooden toy set. The exterior is also packed with delightful details! The castle architecture boasts some GORGEOUS thatched roofs and half-timbered jetties, window planters, a drawbridge, and two portcullises, along with outstanding masonry details like merlons, arrowslits, decorative windows, and garderobe. I'm also pleased with the other exterior features like the huge brick-built tree (which matches the one from the Forest Hideout quite nicely), moat, hilly foundation, mill wheel, market stall, and the large stone that conceals the cave entrance. I can't quite tell if the set is 100% navigable by minifigs without floating them into place, but there does seem to have been plenty of care put into providing walkways atop all the castle walls, doorways and arches between many of the chambers, and plenty of ladders for getting up and down between levels. In terms of minifigures, the new Lion Knights, guards, and soldiers, and queen definitely measure up to last year's Black Falcon designs in terms of detail, but with a much more brightly-colored aesthetic. The maid, chef, bard, peasant, and kids make great supporting characters, and the forestmen and Black Falcons open up opportunities for either peaceful feasts/gatherings or more suspenseful stories of treachery and subterfuge. I do wish that the mounted Black Falcon knight (perhaps the Black Knight/Ridder Swartegeest himself?) had a cape or some type of shoulder armor to help him look a little more distinguished for what's sure to be an important encounter one way or another, though I did get a chuckle out of his woefully over-encumbered squire! I'm also rather disappointed at the wizard minifig's lack of detail — I had considerably higher expectations for him, considering the wizard Majisto's starring role in many of my own earliest Castle sets. There are plenty of nice shields to be found here — including two colors of printed Lion Knight shields and at least five decorative stickered shields that echo earlier designs from the late 70s/early 80s. Also some gorgeous printed textile elements for the flag and the queen's cape, which bring back fond memories of the cloth flags from the castle sets I grew up with in the 90s! Also lots of other great accessories like musical instruments (horn, drum, and lute) and an impressive arsenal of unprinted weapons and shields. The animal selection is quite nice, IMO — while more livestock would have been nice, it might have felt out-of-place without a larger space dedicated to animal enclosures and stables. While none of the animals themselves are unique prints/recolors, the two new caparison prints are quite nice! It's a shame that there are no chanfrons/faceplates for the horses, though, even if that's a more modern sort of detail than printed caparisons are. The hay wagon also complements the animals nicely, despite being a simple build. I can imagine it being used either for trade/supply transport or for smuggling people into and out of the castle! My excitement for this set is higher than ever, and I'm sure there are still loads more fun details that aren't totally evident yet either in the LEGO CON video or the official pictures released so far! But I'll avoid rambling any further for right now because even as I type this there have been a flood of other reactions pouring in, and I want to give myself time to read what other folks have to say about the set! One way or another, it's definitely now got a secure spot on my wish list for later this year.

Just had a look through the PDF building instructions on LEGO.com! The main thing I noticed that I hadn't before is that the 5x6 limb elements/leaf clusters and the 2x2 round plates on the ground are all Bright Green, not Dark Green (classic LEGO green). I certainly don't mind, since color variations in patches of grass/moss/leaves honestly boost their visual appeal and realism IMO, but it did catch me slightly by surprise. It also surprised me that while the cover of the manual more or less matches the box's "throwback" look, the interior pages are more in line with other 18+ sets — a grey backdrop, white text, and red outlines on pieces as they are being added. Kinda wish they'd gone with a retro yellow-orange gradient backdrop on the interior pages too just to tie everything together, but the booklet still definitely gets a thumbs up from me in terms of readability (even with all the criss-crossing branches that are added towards the end of the build).

Can't say I mind that change, myself — the smoother contours feel a bit more "LEGO-like", IMO! The deer charge also looks a bit more centered on the green field.

Oh, that review is fantastic! And watching the speed build in slow motion helped me to figure out the specifics I needed to correct the remaining errors in my own copy of your stud.io file. I'm glad to see there's a ladder inside — I figured there might be but couldn't tell for sure in any of the official pics we've seen. The completed structure also appears to be plenty sturdy in spite of it complexity, and that the foliage is spread out nicely from all angles (whether the model is open or closed). And the interior is reasonably spacious for the model's size — though it is a shame that there are no clips inside to hang the forestwoman's sword from like there was for the forestman's sword in the original set. I'm excited to play around with some of the building techniques from this set, and perhaps try and update some of the other classic Forestmen sets to fit this modernized style! I'm sure others will be trying the same thing, possibly more successfully than I will, but I still enjoy that sort of experimentation for its own sake. I'm not sure what the chances of getting blue and black versions of this forestman torso would be, but even if we don't end up getting any, you could probably modify the red version to create a black version just by filling in the red portions with some type of black ink. And I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the Minifig Customization Workshop subforum who'd eagerly recreate these graphics for use as waterslide decals in any color of your choice. Fingers crossed that we will in fact get more "official" forest people torsos, though! A forestmen-themed Creator 3-in-1 set would be AMAZING, honestly — after all, the theme has had loads of treehouse sets over the years, and forest hideouts would have similar appeal while also standing out nicely from more modern treehouse designs from themes like Friends and Creator 3-in-1. That said, I suspect a Creator 3-in-1 forest hideout or stronghold would probably use shades of brown for the tree bark and branches (and possibly more varied shades of grey and green for stone and foliage elements), since they'd be targeted more towards kids who have fewer nostalgia-driven expectations for the set's colors and motifs (unlike this GWP, which is specifically being marketed as a celebration of a specific set from LEGO's 90-year history). The forestman's head is originally from the Rocket Stunt Bike set, and was also used for one of the Black Falcon knights from the Castle in the Forest! The forestwoman's head features a much more generic face print that's appeared in numerous sets and themes over the past dozen years or so.

It's not quite identical to the Wolfpack logo (more geometric/stylized). But you're right that if you used a beard or other such piece to cover up the modern "bling" in the front, it'd probably work okay for a Wolfpack character — especially since the vest fastens with buttons rather than a zipper. I honestly wouldn't have considered that possibility if you hadn't pointed it out. Honestly, it's kinda funny to look back and realize how odd the Wolfpack characters' torsos are from a historical standpoint. Sure, the dingy brown color felt appropriate for a lowly gang of medieval highwaymen, but the escutcheon plastered on the front kind of feels more like a graphic t-shirt or superhero emblem than any sort of medieval peasant garb! I guess Castle torsos with an escutcheon printed in the center like that tend to work better for armored knight/soldier characters, since in that context they can be more clearly understood as a decorative tabard/surcoat or breastplate rather than just a shirt with a logo on it. For my part, I wouldn't mind one bit if we got some more specific Wolfpack-inspired sets and figures in the future. I didn't have a lot of Wolfpack stuff as a kid (I doubt many of us did, since there weren't really many Wolfpack sets/figures to begin with), but I did have a few Wolfpack figures from Dragon Masters sets, which were my first Castle sets. And I have to admit, even as a kid I definitely appreciated their shady, unkempt troublemaker vibes.

Happy to help! I wouldn't have known this either if I hadn't learned it from other folks online — I'm a 90s kid, so I grew up in the "LEGO System" era of boxes color-coded by theme (Yellow-orange for Castle, black for Space, purple for Pirates, blue for Town, etc), rather than the "LEGOLAND" era of boxes with yellow sides and banners. Most of my childhood exposure to the old LEGOLAND-era boxes was from a container crane set at my grandparents' house, since they kept the parts stored in the original box for kids like me to play with whenever we came to visit. I forget which of my mom's siblings it had belonged to originally, and while my memory's a bit foggy, it might've even been one of the European-style boxes! My mom has often told me about how she and her siblings had never seen LEGO until her parents brought it back as a gift from a trip to Germany, since it hadn't caught on as widely yet in the US at that point as it had in Europe.

It's basically just a marketing tactic — as I understand it, LEGO found that there are a lot of adults out there who are more likely to buy sets if they're clearly labeled as "sets for adults" in some way. As irrational as it is, I definitely realize there are a lot of adults are still weirdly insecure about liking stuff they perceive as "kid stuff" — whereas kids and teens with a lot of building experience don't tend to have nearly as many misgivings about buying sets labeled with a higher age bracket. So I guess this way, kids still get to feel "cool" and "grown-up" for enjoying these sets, whereas adults who still take the recommended age labels super seriously for some reason don't have to feel weird or childish for enjoying them. Plus, especially now that LEGO has stopped putting an upper cap on sets' age recommendations entirely, I suppose some adults might misinterpret even Kingdoms Joust's 12+ recommended age label to mean "for big kids" (as opposed to more typical sets "for little kids"), and not realize that sets like that are intended for older builders in general, including adults. That's the way the American boxes were labeled back in the day — the banner in the corner said "LEGOLAND Castle System", rather than just "LEGOLAND" like on the European boxes. The European boxes also put the recommended age range in small text on the side of the box, rather than in large text on the front. The words "Castle System" were more centered on the classic box art, but I figure the indentation here is probably meant to make it clear that it's not a part of the set's name. I can't help but wonder whether LEGO will produce separate American and European versions of this set's box art, or stick to just one version since it's a promotional item. I guess it's only a few days until we know for sure!

Yeah, I have no idea what sort of conversations would've gone on at LEGO before deciding on this set's price point. But I can definitely think of a few things that might've helped boost LEGO's confidence about the prospects for a set like this one… the amount of engagement generated by the Ideas poll, the popularity of sets like Barracuda Bay and the Medieval Blacksmith, the popularity of the two big Disney castles, etc. I guess only time will tell whether this risk ends up paying off, but I'm sure you know by now that I tend to be pretty optimistic about a LOT of things, so it goes without saying that I have high hopes for this set as well.

Part 30987 in Black would be a brand new recolor, but I would expect it to show up in other sets going forward (particularly since it's a fairly "theme-neutral" mold in a neutral color). That's the only other new/unique part I've spotted so far, though.

It doesn't feel too crazy to me — after all, Ninjago got a $300 for its tenth anniversary last year — and if anything, I'd expect LEGO to go even bigger for the 90th anniversary of the company as a whole! Frankly, $100 has been the standard price point for "flagship" castle and pirate ship playsets since 2005. Some castles and ships from other themes have been even pricier: Knighton Castle, Jestro's Volcano Lair, and the 2020 version of the Destiny's Bounty all cost $120 or more, to say nothing of licensed D2C sets like the Disney Castle, Ice Castle, and Silent Mary! So I think for premium sets like this one or Pirates of Barracuda Bay to really feel "deluxe" compared to regular sailing ship and castle sets — in the same way that the Modular Buildings feel "deluxe" compared to regular City/Friends/Creator buildings — it makes sense that they'd have to cost at least $200. And while I'm sure a $200 or $250 LEGO castle could be outstanding in its own right… I also can't help thinking that it would have left a sour taste in many fans' mouths to think that LEGO would be willing to grant multiple $300+ exclusive sets to themes like Ninjago, Disney, Marvel Super Heroes, or Harry Potter, but not even willing to approach that sort of price threshold for a Castle exclusive. As it is, I feel like this set seems like it could very easily be not just a great LEGO castle, but perhaps even the ultimate LEGO castle — or at least, as close to that as I could hope to see in an official set. And I figure if it's every bit as big, detailed, and exciting as the rumors and teasers so far have led me to believe, it will be well worth even the $350 price point. Heck, in a best case scenario, it could even pave the way for follow-up sets (which wouldn't necessarily have to be quite as large or pricy), just as Ninjago City paved the way for the Docks and Gardens in subsequent years. Mind you, there is a more selfish reason I'm glad LEGO didn't just go for a smaller and less expensive castle. I'm currently hoping to pick this set up at some point as a companion piece for the Ideas Medieval Blacksmith I got for Christmas last year. After all, as others have pointed out, the Medieval Blacksmith towers over the walls of any previous Castle playset, despite a modest scale and price compared to other minifig-scale 18+ sets like the Modular Buildings. But this set's hilly foundation and multi-story curtain wall that we've seen in Promobricks' sketch and the BttF time machine video (at least 16 bricks total wall height, counting the merlons) seems like it'd big enough for the sets to look good on display together… or in the very least, as good on display together as the Medieval Market Village would with any of the Fantasy Era or Kingdoms castles. If this new castle had been designed for a considerably lower price point, I worry that one of the first things to get cut back would have been the height of the curtain wall, since that's by far one of the most striking differences between this set and previous flagship and D2C Castle sets. It's still definitely gonna be a real bite in the wallet, and might end up being my only "huge" set for the rest of the year (unless my relatives decide to give us any super generous Christmas gifts). But I'm absolutely looking forward to it one way or another, and I don't think there's ever been another Castle set that's gotten me as excited as this one!

Looking at some of the latest images, I've spotted a lot more differences between the set and @R0Sch's Stud.io recreation, which result in the tree having a lot more curves than I'd previously thought! For one, a lot of the bricks that stick out one stud from the cylindrical panels on the far right side (when unfolded) are not regular bricks but rather four 1x2 half-cylinder panels (part 68013). There is also a stack of 1x2 half-cylinder panels and regular 2x2 bricks/plates sticking out from the "back" of the tree near the base, which gives it a nice bumpy cross-section. Also, the "fork" in the large branch at the top of the tree is formed by a three-way axle hub (part 57585) and 2x2 "macaroni" tubes (part 25214) rather than traditional Technic angle connectors. 57585 was not available in black before this year, so this was a very timely opportunity for the set designers! The tiles beneath the "roots" of the tree are round rather than square, and the ones on the front and back of the tree are offset using a 2x2 brick with curved top and two studs (part 30165). There are more minor differences I've noticed also (like some of the types of plates used for the interior floors), but they're too many to enumerate, and there's also a lot of details I still haven't quite figured out (particularly since of these corrections significantly change the digital model's piece count). But I suppose it's only a little over a week until the set itself is available and all those specifics will become clear! In any case, I'm becoming more and more impressed with the set with each new detail I notice.

Wow! The new coaster is certainly super expensive, but also huge and gorgeous! I'm glad it stands out nicely from the previous coaster set, since that was one of my big concerns when I first heard rumors of it (whether it'd feel new/unique enough compared to the previous Fairground Collection roller coaster set to justify another one so soon). Both the loops and the platform lift mechanism definitely help set it apart from the previous one's simpler downward inclines and chain lift. And the two contrasting color schemes also make them feel very believable as a pair of separate roller coasters that might exist in the same park for riders seeking different sorts of thrills. I definitely like the three new coaster track molds, and the unconventional uses of some of the previous coaster track molds (such as for the loading platform canopy, the 90-degree vertical drop, and portions of the first loop). Set designers and MOCists have definitely already demonstrated a lot of great non-coaster-related uses for the existing roller coaster track molds — e.g. bridges, ladders, arches, wheels, curved roofs, fences/barricades, and support trusses/scaffolds — and I can only hope that the three new ones will prove similarly versatile! It's neat that there is a new "park map" with references to previous Fairground Collection sets like the Haunted House drop tower, Ferris Wheel, and Carousel… but it's a shame that since the rides on this park map and the one from the previous roller coaster set overlap, you can't use both in the same layout and have them be accurate. I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the brick lettering, which would be more readable as "LOOP" if the letters were arranged left to right instead of top to bottom. As it is, the two "O"s look more like a "B" due to their smaller size than the "L" and "P", as well as the connecting line meant to mimic the coaster's double-loop layout. I don't expect this set to be on my wish list any time soon, since my wife and I don't have a lot of display space for a set this big! But if I did get it, I would probably mod those letters to make them closer to the same size and arrange them left to right.

On the plus side, regular Bright Red would probably make it easier to make additional coaches without buying additional copies of the set, since it's a much more common color. Of course, there could be exclusive recolors in the coach that complicate that. But I realize that Dark Red would make the set a lot more accurate, and also more exciting as a parts pack. It doesn't really make any difference to me either way. I can no longer enjoy Harry Potter the way I did as a kid/teen, in light of its author's ongoing use of her fame and fortune to promote rhetoric and policies that continue to harm trans folks like me around the world. It makes me a little nauseous even to think about it for too long. And there are plenty of better stories that have filled the void for me in the years since. But I hope this set ends up having a design that train fans are pleased with, regardless of the IP it's attached to — if only to further elevate the standards of "deluxe" LEGO train sets, and pave the way for even more exciting ones in the future.

Personally, I don't mind the forestwoman in that set not having a hat, and the braided hair piece they opted for is not a bad look for a lady outlaw. It's also good that they opted for a hair piece that lets her turn her head at least 30 degrees in either direction — a lot of female hair pieces tend to wrap tight around a minifig's torso and/or shoulders and restrict their head movement, which would be awkward for action/fight scenes. That said, I do kind of wish she'd had a somewhat less boring/generic hair piece, since this is one we've seen again and again for over a decade, and even in this very same color in most cases! A less common hairstyle like part 24080 from the Disney and Friends themes, or even the same hairstyle in a less common color like Sand Yellow or Medium Nougat, would have been much more interesting/exciting to me. And make no mistake, I totally understand and respect why a lot of y'all would specifically prefer a second forestman hat or a green bandana since that's more useful than a generic hair piece for filling out the ranks of a forest people faction. Hopefully there will be more opportunities for LEGO to make up for that in the near future.

My feelings on brick-built vs. molded animals often depend heavily on what sort of theme and/or genre we're talking about. For example, in Creator 3-in-1 sets (even minifig-scale ones), I think the brick-built creatures (whether real or imaginary) are a natural fit regardless of their size— particularly since that approach lets the designers use the parts for the animals in very different ways between the A, B, and C models! And I'll even tolerate much more blockiness or abstraction there than I'd expect in a City or Friends set, since it's usually in accordance with the general aesthetics and design philosophy of the theme. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in "real life" themes aimed at young kids like City or Friends, I pretty much never have any expectation or preference for living creatures to be brick-built — not even in the case of huge creatures like elephants and mammoths. Sure, it'd likely allow for more articulation, and would certainly offer a more interesting building experience! But if I really wanted a "real life" inspired set that offered animals with those sorts of traits, I feel like I might as well just look to the Creator 3-in-1 theme! As I mentioned in my previous post, I really love the Ninjago theme's brick-built dragons (and its other brick-built fantasy creatures like giant serpents and spiders) for their detail, complexity, and playability. That goes for both those with brick-built faces and wings (like the Fusion Dragon from 70627 Dragon's Forge) and those with more specialized wing and head pieces (like 71754 Water Dragon). Even in Ninjago, though, I usually prefer horse-sized or smaller critters to use more specialized molds (like Akita's wolf form from 70671 Lloyd's Journey, or Monkey Wretch from the Skybound sets) so that they fit in with the detailed molding and printing typical of many Ninjago minifigs and accessories. Likewise in themes like LEGO Elves and Disney, I feel like "horse-sized or smaller" is a good threshold for determining for which animals make sense as brick-built ones and which should stick to more specialized molds. But I do feel like specialized wing or head pieces are more essential for larger creatures in these themes than they would be in themes like Ninjago, in order to maintain consistency with the mini-doll's higher level of lifelike molded detail. With that said, even in themes where I have a high expectation of lifelike detail, I'm often willing to make exceptions for various sorts of fantasy and sci-fi critters! After all, it's no problem if a skeletal/undead creature has conspicuous gaps in its body, or a creature made of rocks/ice/crystals has jagged edges, or a creature with armored/cybernetic body parts has contours and motifs that look man-made or inorganic! Finally, I feel like "historic themes" like Castle or Pirates can pretty safely go either way. A lot of sets in these themes are aimed at a similar age range to City and Friends sets, so molded fantasy creatures often make a similar amount of sense there as far as complexity is conceerned. But if a Castle or Pirates set that did have a higher target age happened to include brick-built fantasy creatures like a dragon, sea serpent, or kraken? Well, as long as it had an impressive enough design, I can't say I'd complain! Naturally, this is all my personal preference! It's totally okay if other people don't draw the same lines in the same places as I do, or have preferences that don't really vary from theme to theme! But it's stuff I've certainly thought about quite a bit, such as when planning Elves MOCs and trying to decide on what sort of brick-built creatures do or don't "fit in" with the theme according to my preferences.

I don't think it's a matter of budget — after all, the Ninjago theme tends to introduce a LOT of molds per year, including for its dragons. Rather, the brick-built dragons genuinely seem to be one of the Ninjago theme's major selling points. Unlike brick-built dragons, molded ones wouldn't really make sense as the primary build of a set, just as a secondary feature of a larger building or vehicle set. Molded dragons also generally wouldn't allow for nearly as much articulation, nor for mechanical "action features" like flapping wings or swinging tails. And they'd probably be less appealing to older buyers who are drawn to the theme specifically for the complexity and detail of its builds. That's not to say molded dragons can't work for the Ninjago theme, let alone for other themes! After all, the dragon from the 4+ set 71759 Ninja Dragon Temple is only slightly more complex than a typical molded dragon — in fact, it has exactly the same piece count as the one from 70403 Dragon Mountain, and is made up of fairly specialized torso, leg, wing, head, and tail molds, plus some more generic parts to fill out the back and connect some of those molded body parts to the torso. You could probably come up with an even simpler and more streamlined dragon design using a lot of those same molded body parts. But again, that's a 4+ set, tailored to beginners who need the build to be much simpler than a more typical Ninjago dragon. Whereas most of the Ninjago theme's dragons and mechs alike owe a lot of their enduring popularity among older kids (as well as teens and adults) to the level of complexity, articulation, detail, and variety they get from being brick-built.

Yeah, honestly I love when City uses the old 4x7 chassis for A-segment/minicompact cars! If anything, my biggest gripe with the car in the Grocery Store set isn't its appearance, but rather the fact that it's too small to really carry any significant amount of groceries — especially not a full cartload of groceries like one shopper is shown loading into the car in the pics on the back of the box! In that regard, a mid-size car or minivan on a 4x12 chassis (like the one from 60291 Family House) would probably have been a better fit for that set, even if it ended up costing a bit more. Yeah, and that sort of pairing of buildings and vehicles has been the norm for City sets since long before the new road system was introduced— I mean, look at sets like 4429, 60026, and 60132. I'm fully aware that this sort of thing was controversial even back then, but suffice to say it's not a new issue or one that can be attributed to the road plates themselves. If anything, I'm really grateful to the new road system for pushing LEGO to even make so many sets with substantial buildings and scenery, since previously one of the frustrating weaknesses of the City theme was how few of those sorts of builds. it had to offer. I think this is maybe one of the first times in the theme's history that City fans could plausibly create a substantial Town/City layout with just one or two years' worth of sets.

Fair, fair. The Northeast Regional is the main line I used over the past couple decades, primarily for traveling between college and family members' homes during breaks (up to a nine hour trip, depending on how far I was traveling). And it did have a cafe car, although it was only open during certain legs of the trip, and didn't have classy sit-down meal service like a proper dining car or restaurant car — just a counter where you could order from a limited selection of meals, drinks, and snacks, plus a few tables that I rarely used (since I prefer to sit with my luggage). I know Amtrak's DEFINITELY seen much better days, and by now it falls far short of a lot of European and Asian rail lines. I'm not at all mistaking it for any sort of luxury experience! But as mundane an experience as those trips were, I still feel pretty sentimental about them, and certainly prefer them over traveling that same distance by car or bus.

Just was going through the new part listings on Brickset from this month's new sets, and a few parts caught my eye that I'd previously overlooked in previous pics/reviews (or just hadn't thought about in a historic context until now)! The 1x1 plate with three leaves is now available in Olive Green, thanks to the I am Groot set! Hopefully we'll see it in more sets before too long. The 2x2 dripping slime/cake frosting plate now comes in Dark Green (classic green), which could be great for mossy rocks, tree stumps, or columns! This 4x4x1 dome piece now appears in Medium Stone Grey (light bluish gray), which could perhaps look nice as capitals or pediments for a column, as a base for a statue, or as part of a decorative stone fountain. Also, a new Disney Princess castle set (43205 Ultimate Adventure Castle) was just recently unveiled. Probably not of too much interest to most folks in this thread as-is due to the whimsical colors and use of mini-dolls, but it does have more neutral grey parts than a lot of other Disney Princess sets. I'm a bit busy at the moment and want to try and wrap up this post, so for now I'll leave it to y'all to pore over the details and see if there are any particular pieces of interest for historic builds!

Just checked your file, and the reason the part count is too high is that minifig torso assemblies and swivel hinge plate assemblies are counted as one part each in official sets, whereas in this file the torsos, arms, and hands, and 1x2 swivel hinge plates are all counted individually. If you replace those parts with their pre-assembled equivalents (using unprinted torso assemblies as placeholders since the default stud.io library doesn't list the forestmen torsos in their assembled form), you should get exactly the right piece count! That said, I'm also pretty sure that in the official set uses quarter-cylinder panels and round bricks (30987 and 85080) for the tree trunk rather than quarter-octagon panels and facet bricks (78594 and 87620). After all, roundness of the tree is one of the biggest changes this set makes compared to the original!