Aanchir

Yeah, all the printed elements are likely IP-locked, since they're specifically based on backgrounds, props, or character designs from the film. No telling whether LEGO will make the dwarf hats available on PAB in all these specific colors, since their reasoning for what parts they do or don't restrict on PAB can be kinda esoteric. But fortunately we know that none of the molds themselves are IP-locked, so they all stand a good chance of continuing to appear in non-Disney sets in the future: Happy, Bashful, and Doc use the same hat as the Minifigures Series 4 Lawn Gnome Sleepy, Grumpy, and Sneezy use the same hat as the farmer child from 10332 (Sleepy even uses it in the same color!) Dopey uses the same hat as the Minifigures Series 11 Holiday Elf (and a bunch of other elf figures in the years since)

There is a sticker on the footboard of each of the seven dwarf beds, and four or five stickers for the woodland critter patterns on the pipe organ (which are not printed — you can see this more clearly in the full-resolution images from the "Download all assets" link on the LEGO newsroom page or The Brothers Brick's news article, particularly in the lifestyle photos ). The clock print and diamond tile mold are not new. Snow White, the Prince, and the Evil Queen were all released last year (with all the same face prints as in this set). The only new non-minifig printed elements, as far as I can tell, are the printed shutter and owl tiles on the exterior and the printed "Snow White" tiles on the casket/display case. Though I can't quite tell if the pie labeled "Grumpy" in this picture is a print or a sticker — either way, I definitely overlooked it when making my previous comment. The only new non-minifig mold, as far as I can tell, is the 2x2 half-circle tile used for the headboards and footboards of the dwarfs' beds. I suspect that this and the new beard molds may use new element frames that were reserved for this year's first wave of Disney sets (which otherwise lack any new molds of their own). Only one of the hat molds is new (shared with the farmer child in the Medieval Town Square), though six of the hats are unique colors for their respective molds. The only new recolors I can see aside from the hats include the 2x3x2/3 rock plate in Flame Yellowish Orange, Seaweed in White • 1x2 half-cylinder panel in Reddish Brown, and short legs in Bright Yellowish Green. So yeah, the dwarves themselves include several new printed elements and recolors. There are also three or four non-minifig printed elements, three or four new molds (depending if you count the pointed hat shared with Medieval Town Square), and three non-minifig recolors. By comparison, the Medieval Town Square has two new non-minifig printed elements (counting the goat), one or two new molds (depending if you count the pointed hat), and at least four non-minifig recolors. And you're right, there IS also the added cost of a light brick. But overall, I don't think any of that suggests the Snow White set had a vastly larger budget, especially since the huge difference in price per piece probably helps to absorb a lot of those costs. You mention that the cottage seems fine without a horse, but this is the exact same perspective I have about 10332 (if anything, I think a sheep would add more appeal to the set than a cow or a horse, since it'd complement both the dairy and the weaver's workshop). I also disagree about the cottage having a much better design. Both designs seem pretty strong in my book, though it's hard to make a really fair 1:1 comparison between a set with one big building and a set made up of multiple smaller ones Moreover, if LEGO were to release a non-licensed Castle equivalent in place of the Seven Dwarfs' Cottage, it would probably be met with plenty of the same complaints as the Medieval Blacksmith — it's too large a scale compared to other Castle buildings (but also too expensive for its size), it's too brightly colored, the roof and walls look too orderly instead of uneven and ramshackle, the architecture is "Disneyland-ish" and inauthentic, and it reuses common animals instead of introducing more unique ones like a hare or goat. And that's without even touching on the cottage's "dollhouse style" open back! But again, because it's a Disney set, it's judged according to very different expectations than a non-licensed Castle set would be: for instance, screen-accuracy, number of iconic scenes that can be recreated, and number and accuracy of its unique film characters (as opposed to historical accuracy, army-building potential, number of printed shields, number of new/unique animals, or how compatible it is with other sets it shares a theme with). Bummer. In my case I could theoretically have an order delivered to my family's house in the States and pick it up next time I go there to visit, but I'm not sure whether I'd have enough stuff I want to make an order worthwhile, so I guess it's sort of a moot point.

Honestly, I would never call that a "wasted torso" just because it doesn't match a specific classic counterpart. I think it's perfectly reasonable for royalty/nobility to get a fancier torso print than the generic castle guards, archers, and footsoldiers they lead — hence why nearly all Castle themes since 1993 have made that sort of distinction. By contrast, having entirely different coats of arms for generic archers and generic castle guards from the same faction would feel a lot more superfluous to me, even if that is how things were for the Lion Knights back in the 80s. And it's not as though the Lion Knights' Castle was somehow lacking for other new printed elements, either! After all, even with new torso, leg, shield, and cape prints for the lady of the castle, designers were still able to introduce two other lion shields, a double axe shield, three unique shields based on ones from 1978/1979 sets, two unique caparisons for the horses, two unique printed flags, etc. If the designers had wanted to introduce a crossed axe torso, they could have easily done so in place of one of those other new printed elements in order to do so. After all, I doubt anybody would have complained if the castle interior had slightly fewer non-lion-patterned shields, or if the castle exterior only had one lion-patterned flag instead of two. But the designers apparently didn't consider it a priority to include Lion Knights without lion-patterned tabards… and why would they? It definitely gives me some Royal Knights vibes as well, as did the lady of thee castle's white tights in 10305! I can't say I mind this sort of blending of motifs from these two subthemes, since I always kind of saw the Royal Knights as a sort of an evolution/re-imagining of the Lion Knights. In fact, in the UK and Germany the two factions' leaders even shared the same name (Sir Richard / Prinz Löwenherz of the Lion Knights and King Richard Lionheart / König Richard Löwenherz of the Royal Knights), implying that they may have portrayed the same character before and after ascending to the throne! And in the Netherlands, both factions were listed in catalogs under the same name, Leeuwenhart Ridders (Lionheart Knights). Yeah, I'm hoping that future sets might reuse the new torsos from these factions and introduce matching shields for them, but as it is I don't terribly mind the lack of shields for those factions in these two sets, particularly since it's not too hard to create your own shields using an unprinted shield and a custom sticker or decal. In fact, while doing an image search for Wolfpack shields the other day to compare the old version of the logo to the newer design, I found this website which sells various custom-printed Castle elements, including shields with the updated Wolfpack logo and even with a modernized version of Dragon Masters/Dragon Knights logo! They're both gorgeous, if the images on the website are any indication. I dunno how likely I am to order any shields from this person — they apparently will only ship orders over $45 to the US, and I'm not sure if they ship to Canada at all. But for any European fans in this thread who've said they would gladly pay LEGO a few euros more for shields like those to be included in this set, it seems to me like it'd be just as reasonable to pay a few euros to a fellow LEGO Castle fan who's gone out of their way to print the shield patterns that LEGO hasn't! This is definitely a unique case, though, in that the survey LEGO sent out led to us getting leaked images and detailed descriptions waaaaaaay earlier than we would have gotten them otherwise. I can't think of any previous instances when images were leaked over a year in advance, especially for a Creator Expert/Icons set. In that regard, it's a little more like an Ideas set in that for a quite a while we had no idea how soon it would come out or how extensive the changes from the pictured version to the final set might be. You mean it won't even have any full-size adult goats? What a rip-off!

The main cost difference is just in terms of number of new elements. From what designers have said in interviews and social media comments, the main reason for using stickers in sets with lots of unique decorations is to mitigate the logistical cost of introducing numerous new elements that have to be produced, stored, and tracked separately in LEGO's manufacturing and packing facilities. A sticker sheet is one new element no matter how many stickers it has, whereas printing these same parts would require introducing five new elements. Ever since LEGO's brush with bankruptcy in 2003 they've gotten a lot stricter about how many new element "frames" are allotted to particular sets/themes. And GWP sets like this usually tend to have just one or two new decorated elements (including sticker sheets). For example, Forest Hideout had a new printed torso and printed shield, Tahu and Takua had two new printed curved slopes, and Blacktron Cruiser and Majisto's Magical Workshop each had a new torso and sticker sheet. The last GWP this size that I can remember having as many new/unique decorated elements as the Micro Rocket Launchpad was the Jane Goodall Tribute, which had a new printed torso, printed head, printed chimpanzee (not technically new for builders, but because it had long been out of production it still required a new element frame), and nameplate sticker.

I'm not sure how much different the budget really is between Snow White's cottage and the town square. After all, several of the big complaints about this set also apply just as much to that one — it has lots of stickers, very few new non-minifig printed elements, and no large animals. They just aren't expected in that set like they are in this one because of the different theme and subject matter. It does have a few things this set lacks, like a larger number of newly printed/recolored minifig parts, but also over 1000 bricks fewer for only a slightly lower price. So I suspect that the overall budget is probably similar, just allocated differently (more emphasis on figs and less emphasis on bricks).

Yeah, but changing the floor colors would probably have involved substantial changes to the build, since a lot of the floor plates extend out to the exterior walls (unlike those in LKC). So I get why that would not have been a simple change for the builder to make.

This isn't strictly accurate — orange carrots have existed since at least the sixth century (as evidenced here), and at least some of the carrots described as red back then also may have been closer to what we'd call orange today (since the word "orange" wasn't a standard color term back then). But it was definitely a non-standard color for carrots at the time — the first stable lineage of orange carrots was developed in the Netherlands in the 18th century. The Lion Dance set from a few years ago had cabbages built from a head and wig piece in two shades of green, but that particular wig hasn't appeared in that color since and is probably out of production. Still, I imagine there are other part combinations which could be similarly effective. Again, wizards, dragons, ghosts, and so forth were not a part of medieval history, but they WERE an established part of medieval legends/folklore, and remain staples of medieval fantasy fiction. I don't at all expect themes like Castle or Pirates to perfectly reflect medieval history, but I do expect them to reflect the imagery of medieval stories, broadly speaking. In that regard, even the pumpkins are not really a big deal — I'm sure there have been plenty of medieval fantasy movies, TV shows, and video games that have featured pumpkins without regard for accuracy. I haven't even bothered to remove the one from my copy of the Medieval Blacksmith, because it's too small a detail to bother me all that much. But given the choice, it'd be nice to see a different vegetable in their place in future sets.

The Snow White set has some new parts I see a lot of potential for. On the minifigs, it has some fun recolored hats and two new short beard shapes without mustaches, and some relatively generic torso patterns (though the high waistline indicated by the belts makes them less than ideal for full-size minifigs, so will be of most use for children or for fantasy species like dwarfs, gnomes, hobbits/halflings, etc). The building itself also has nice recolors like the 2x3x2/3 rock plate in Flame Yellowish Orange, providing a nice new option for thatched roofs, and the 1x2 cylindrical panel in Reddish Brown, which will be useful for all sorts of wooden architectural elements, furnishings, or tree trunks. The set also introduces a new 2x2 half-circle tile in Medium Nougat for the headboards/footboards of the beds, which could also be of good use for other furniture, wooden signs, or small wooden shields. In general, the animals, accessories, and building elements/building techniques alike seem to have a lot of potential for medieval or fantasy builds. While the price might be too steep for a lot of individual builders to seek it out as a parts pack, I could imagine LUGs taking interest in it for parts drafts.

Mountain Fortress has a lot of beautiful details on the outside, but the inside seems rather stark and gray compared to the Lion Knights' Castle. The walls and roof of the bedroom apartment also seem rather bland and low-detail compared to the rest of the exterior. I feel like compromises were probably made in these areas to keep it below 4000 parts. It's understandable, but I would have preferred if the builder had reduced the size to allow for a better balance of interior+exterior detail. Because of this, I don't feel so bad about missing out on it. But I'm sure that those who do get it will be very happy with it, whether they leave it as is or choose to mod it to improve some of those areas that are more lacking in detail. And it's certainly an impressive feat for the builder to have even designed such a magnificent castle, let alone to have gotten it produced for sale! If I felt there were another old-world vegetable that the pumpkin could represent in this shape and color I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'm not convinced there are any that the shape and color would be a suitable match for (perhaps that part in one of its various other colors might pass as a turnip/swede/rutabaga, but not in Bright Orange). And I feel like women in combat tend to feature a lot more prominently in medieval fiction and folklore than pumpkins do. In various rare/exceptional cases, they even existed in real life — after all, it's much easier for individuals to defy the cultural and social norms of their time than for vegetables to cross oceans without human intervention. It's certainly not a deal-breaker for me, any more than the one in the Medieval Blacksmith was. I just would have preferred a different fruit or vegetable in its place, like a melon, calabash, cauliflower, or cabbage.

I love it! It's a 9 for me, and I definitely plan to buy it! There are a few areas where I see room for improvement — I think shingles might've been better than thatch for the angled roofs to better differentiate them from the more elaborately textured studs-up thatch roofs, the shieldsmith's shop could have used a little more variety of shields, and if the farm had one or two sheep in addition to a goat it could have created a nice narrative connection between the farm and weaver's workshop. Also, while I can accept some historical inaccuracies (since LEGO Castle and Pirates have always been based more on those time periods as popularly imagined than as they really were), it's a little frustrating to see a pumpkin (a new world vegetable) in yet another medieval set — cabbage, lettuce, calabash, or melon might be a more appropriate substitution for that particular garden plot. That said, the model is still a gorgeous companion piece to the Lion Knight's Castle which offers a wonderfully varied snapshot of medieval town life. Several occupations are showcased that have never gotten this much focus in previous medieval sets (such as tax collecting, cheesemaking, weaving, carpentry, and decorative shieldsmithing), and it includes several animals that complement those in the castle without a whole lot of repetition. The guard tower and back room of the inn are also a lovely callback to the classic Guarded Inn. And there are several very clever building techniques used for details like the weaver's dormer window and loom, the carpenter's trapdoor-style ladder and lathe, the inn's wrought-iron signpost, and the bird's nest made from a minifig beard! Honestly, I don't miss the big trees from the prototype version much. They seem rather primitive and blocky compared to the curvy organic shaping of the trees in sets like this, the Lion Knights' Castle, or the Forest Hideout. The one big conifer tree from the prototype was very nice, though (the final set replaces it with a small spruce tree). Also, while a jester or more animals could have been nice, I don't think the set feels incomplete or lifeless without them. As mentioned, I miss the sheep a bit for the narrative connections they could have added, but the cow and horse feel less relevant to this specific town scene (and also are exact repeats of those from the castle), and the owls mainly seem like they were there to liven up the extra trees that the final set omitted.

Also fluffier cheeks! The cheeks and muzzle on the original logo formed more of a Y-shape, whereas those on the updated logo form more of a T-shape. My guess is that the designer wanted to show off the shieldsmith's skills to the fullest with an extra fancy design decorated not only with paint, but also with gold leaf and embossed details around the border (for which her metalworking skills on the anvil likely come into play). Decorative embossing/relief sculpture would not be particularly suitable for an outlaw faction like the Wolfpack or Forestmen, who would likely favor simpler, more practical shields, and gold leaf would have been an odd choice for factions that don't use gold or yellow in their color schemes. But I definitely agree with you that another unique shield for the queen/lady of the castle feels a little redundant. Perhaps a black knight or dragon knight shield might have worked in this context without that sense of repetition. And I also don't know why the set didn't even reuse any of the many shield patterns from 10305, which seems like it could have been viable even if the budget lacked room for additional new shield patterns.

Also, the updated Wolfpack logo isn't even new to this set — it's the version of the logo introduced by the Minifigures Series 16 Rogue eight years ago. Honestly I'm kind of fond of those roofs. The prototype version of the set seen in the survey used the same style of studs-up thatched roof construction for all five buildings in the set, which seems a lot more boring and repetitive to me compared to the two distinct roof styles in the final design. I also quite like the inverted curves on the rakes, the log tiles at the end of the ridge beam,and how the roof surfaces sit comfortably at a 45 degree offset from the underlying walls (instead of sticking to a purely studs-up build). The construction that holds the roof plates together securely at that angle is a little hard for me to figure out from the pictures/videos we've seen, but from what I can tell it's also very different from any sort of roof construction I'm familiar with from previous sets, even other sets that use plates for the roof surface like the Viking Village. One detail I can make out is that the support structure involves several 1x2x1⅔ SNOT bricks. That's not to say these two roofs couldn't be improved, though. Perhaps if they had been textured with shingles or boards instead of thatch, it would have helped maintain this variety without inviting comparisons with the set's other, more elaborately textured thatched roofs.

If you mean other big sets like this one, I think it's very plausible. It probably still won't be a yearly thing like Modular Buildings or Winter Village sets, but I could definitely imagine getting other big medieval sets on a more irregular basis like with the Fairground or Ninjago City sets. That said, I also feel like for variety's sake, a follow-up set could potentially end up shifting more toward farm/countryside type buildings and scenery than town center type buildings and scenery. That would allow for many different sorts of subject matter like a chicken coop, barn/stable, windmill, plow, etc. If you mean smaller companion/add-on sets, though, I think that sort of thing is most likely to come in the form of a gift-with-purchase, and I wouldn't count on getting one of those to tie in with the village specifically. After all, we already got a castle GWP this year, and by next year I think any new medieval GWP is more likely to be another stand-alone model than one specifically designed to accompany the village. On another note, i just pulled up the earlier leaked image from the survey to compare it with the finished set in case that might offer any ideas of what dropped subject matter might show up in a hypothetical follow-up set. And truth be told, it kind of surprises me to realize how similar the two versions of the set are in size! The model in the survey certainly had more animals, brick-built trees, and side builds (for example, the beehives were an entire side build of their own, rather than having just one beehive sharing space with the vegetable garden next to the weaver's workshop). But the biggest changes to the actual buildings I see are that the farmhouse was reduced by one floor, and the farmhouse and carpenter's workshop both got simpler, less parts-intensive roofs. All in all, I'm pretty content with those choices. Most of the brick-built tree designs in the leaked image (with the exception of the conifer tree) didn't really seem as interesting to me as the one in the final set. I guess we'll never know what sort of interior details had to be removed from the farmhouse to fit everything on one floor, but presumably anything that was there could just as easily be included in a separate building in future sets and MOCs. Meanwhile, most of the omitted characters and animals from the preliminary version of the setcould feel just as "at home" in a future medieval set as they would have felt in the town square. The biggest loss among those, from my perspective, are the two sheep, since they could have created a nice narrative connection between the pasture, farmhouse, and weaver's workshop in this set — showing the full process of how wool is sheared, scoured, dyed, and spun into yarn before finally being woven into tapestries. Thinking about my own display situation, I will definitely be moving the lamb, ox, and ox-cart from the Lion Knights' Castle to the town square, since none of them really have a "home" or place to display them inside the castle itself, and are currently staged somewhat awkwardly in front or to the side. I will probably also have to pack up the Ninjago sets that currently share a shelf with my medieval stuff (or find a different shelf for them), but that particular shelf was overdue to be reorganized/de-cluttered a bit anyhow. That ought to free up more than enough space for the town square, though it'll probably be easier to figure out a specific arrangement for it and my other medieval sets once I have the set in hand.

Honestly I'm kind of glad the shieldsmith's workshop focuses more on decorating and finishing shields than forging brand new ones, since that helps the shop itself stands out more from the sort of equipment, materials, and subject matter we already saw in the Medieval Blacksmith. Also, having taken a couple art history classes, I love that the workshop shows the shieldsmith making her own gesso and paint. I don't mean this as a defense of set's lack of printed shields — after all, the Viking Village set included a blank shield and paintbrush in addition to four printed shields. And if anything, a shop specifically focused on shield painting has more reason to include printed and/or stickered shields than the Medieval Blacksmith did, since that set focused primarily on the forging process and not the decoration process. But regardless, a lot of the charm of this set for me is its portrayal of different medieval trades (shield painting, tapestry weaving, cheesemaking, etc) than we've seen in past sets. Whereas I think a standard blacksmith or armor shop (with or without new printed elements) would feel sort of "been there, done that" by comparison. Also some very useful new recolors (1x2x3 lattice windows in Brick Yellow, 2x3x⅔ rock plates in Brick Yellow, 1x1x1⅔ brick with side studs in Olive Green, 135-degree stepped horn/tail pieces in Reddish Brown, etc). Plus a new hat mold on the farmer child. At the same time, I also understand how a lot of those parts might be less exciting to see in this set in particular, since most of them are parts that could hypothetically been introduced in non-medieval sets, rather than ones that only a medieval set like this could feasibly introduce. Nah, I think a lot of specific color choices genuinely did change over the course of development. Even in some of the hands-on videos from LEGO Fan Media days last September, certain parts are colored differently than in the final set: for example, the back gate of the farmhouse/dairy was Black instead of Reddish Brown; the top of the table the carpenter is working on was Medium Nougat instead of Reddish Brown; the barrel on the tax collector's cart was Medium Nougat instead of Dark Brown; and the spools of thread in the weaver's workshop were White instead of Brick Yellow. Some of the color changes might have been budget related (e.g. the kitten using a color already in production from LEGO City instead of a new recolor), while others could have been new opportunities arising thanks to recolors introduced in other themes (like how LEGO Friends introduced reddish brown stable doors just last summer).

LEGO did have a dedicated "modern" shutter mold for 1x4x3 windows up until a couple years ago (https://brickset.com/parts/design-60800), but sadly even if that one were still in use, it wouldn't be as effective here — the shutters are larger and a full stud wider on either side when opened, due to the hinge placement being half a stud away from the window frame on either side instead of flush with the edge of the window frame. For that matter, I can't imagine them bringing back an integrated "frame + shutter hinge" mold like the old 80s/90s ones since the offset shutter hinges on those were really prone to breakage. Not really sure what the best solution for hinged shutters like that would be in the modern era… I get that, and your perspective is 100% valid, I was just appreciating that the set has such a different variety of animals than 10305. More farm animals could definitely have been nice — if not horses or cows, I could certainly imagine there being room for a few chickens. But overall, my impression of this set is that it focuses more on "town life" than "farm life" to me, so the relative lack of farm animals doesn't bother me too much. Hopefully if this sells well, we might get future medieval sets that focus more on "farm life"… perhaps with features like a barn, windmill, chicken coop, plow, haystack, and even a larger fields of grain/veggies (as opposed to this set's small vegetable garden). I'm not sure I totally agree with this. I feel like there are a number of casual adult fans who would appreciate sets like this, the Viking Village, the Medieval Blacksmith, or even the A-Frame Cabin as much for the rustic architecture and quaint, old-fashioned vibes as for whether they fit in with an ongoing themed collection. And even on its own, this set presents a charming and varied town scene with lots of varied colors and architectural elements, which could make it a good "entry point" to medieval building in its own right. I know that some people (even some Castle fans) really didn't care for the Lion Knights' Castle due to its abundance of flat, gray walls, so this may be closer to the sort of set that could appeal to buyers with similar tastes. Moreover, we gotta keep in mind that there are a lot of adult LEGO buyers who don't follow news or rumors about future sets at all, or at least not to the degree those of us here on Eurobricks often do. These sorts of buyers might not even realize a set like this exists until they see it in a display case or window display at the LEGO store, or see a post about it on social media. So they are a lot less likely to judge these sorts of sets based on how well they compare to earlier sets or earlier stages in their development. I feel like this is particularly relevant to LEGO Ideas, where it is the norm for us to see an "earlier version" of the set long before the final set is unveiled or released. A lot of new Ideas set announcements get intense negative feedback on AFOL sites like this one for deviating from the expectations people had about the original project proposal, but then end up a lot more positively received among general audiences on social media and/or once they hit store shelves.

Well, stud.io on my laptop REALLY starts chugging when I have that many bricks are on screen at once. So it'll be easier to test all possible layouts when I have the sets in real life (they don't physically connect together, so they can essentially be arranged any way you like). But since you asked, I did throw together one very simple layout with both a standard screenshot and a top-down screenshot showing one way the sets could be arranged and how much space they'd take up this way. This specific layout is probably too deep for the shelf I currently have the castle displayed on, so I might personally have to go with more of a side-by-side layout. The base dimensions of the buildings with hinges removed (counting the full bases, including grassy areas) are as follows: Inn: 20x10 studs Shieldsmith + guard tower: 24x12 studs Weaver's workshop: 12x24 studs Carpenter's workshop: 8x24 studs Farmhouse: 16x26 studs And when actually connected together by their hinges, as in the official build, the base dimensions are: Inn + shieldsmith + guard tower: 24x22 studs when fully closed 44x12 studs when fully opened Weaver's workshop + carpenter's workshop + farmhouse: 36x29 studs when fully closed 50x40 studs when fully opened (but this makes an odd T-shape with huge empty spaces between the open sides of the buildings, so is not an ideal layout for long-term display)

Gonna copy and paste my first impressions/thoughts from Brickset: After catching up on comments from this thread since the reveal, I see a lot of frustrations with the lack of printed shields, which I hadn't considered but seem very fair. Even without a lot of new shields, the shieldsmith's shop could've certainly reused some of the one-off shields from the Lion Knights' Castle. I myself don't care nearly so much about prints vs. stickers, so from my perspective it could have also sufficed if stickers had been provided to allow different optional patterns for unprinted shields. Maybe the set might surprise us by actually doing that, but currently nothing suggests it, and I guess that would only really boost the appeal of the set for those of us who don't mind stickers. For my part, my interest in the set is less about what new parts it offers than about how well the build, figures, animals, and accessories complement my copy of the Lion Knights' Castle. In that regard I'm very satisfied with the final design, which seems to do a good job including fun and interesting features that 10305 omitted, while avoiding too much repetition of features or archetypes from that set. Even the one uniformed Lion Knight manages to stand out from the ones in that set without relying on new elements that could have gone to the civilians, thanks to his big bushy mustache! And the set also seems like a great starting point and source of inspiration for MOCs that add on to the medieval setting. On the simpler end of the scale, some more stalls could be added to expand the market scene, like a fishmonger, potter, or basket weaver, or candlemaker. But it also wouldn't be out of the question to add entire buildings such as a stable house, sawmill, or glass blower's workshop to grow the community even further!

The chairs are just sitting loosely in place, though the studs around them somewhat keep them from sliding around freely. The seat and back rest are made using a simple 92411 bracket, while the legs use part 3131. The latter piece was introduced in last year's Minecraft sets, and I think it works great for the legs of for small furniture items like chairs and side tables! And if you do wish to attach it to a base more securely, that can be done by attaching a bar to the hollow stud on "bottom" of the chair. Oof, apologies for the delay! I was going to upload it sooner, but then I thought "but what if I made instructions for it also?"… and then trying to figure out how to break it down into steps got so frustrating to me that I avoided it for months and very nearly forgot about it entirely. Here is the link to the stud.io file. Hope that it meets all your expectations (or that if it doesn't, that you're able to mod it to your liking)!

The plants and crystals are used together to create "crystal-botanic batteries". That much is established on the LEGO "play zone" page for set 60434, and this use is also showcased in the lab from that set, via both a computer screen and the brick-built equipment used for this process. But you may be overthinking some of the cross-theme aspects of these Space sets. Certainly, the sets share their color schemes, logos, and intercompatible airlock graphics, but that doesn't implicitly mean that all these Space subthemes belong to any sort of unified storyline or shared universe. I imagine the specifics of how these sets interact across different themes or settings will be left the discretion of kids playing with these sets. None of the Space CMFs seem directly related to this series of LEGO City Space sets. But that doesn't surprise me too much, since a lot of the time CMFs are designed more to stand out from the figures available in other current sets than to fit in with them. The command rover and base were both likely assembled on the planet, using modular components delivered to the planet's surface as cargo. This is essentially how today's space agencies plan to build real-life moon bases and mars bases, and not too unlike the approach they currently use for orbital space stations. The fact that one of the smaller sets is a Space Construction Mech further reinforces that a lot of this space colony's assembly is done on the planet itself. Moreover, the scale of these sets is not necessarily "true-to-life", any more than previous Space sets in themes like Town, City, and Friends. For example, the rocket in set 60351 is inspired by NASA's Space Launch System, while set 60349 is inspired by their proposed Lunar Gateway — specifically, the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO). But in real life, both of these Lunar Gateway modules are designed to be launched aboard a single flight of the Space Launch System, whereas their LEGO counterparts are obviously not scaled correctly for that task! The audience for every wave of City sets (including this one) is kids. This particular series of sets seems chiefly aimed at kids who are passionate about space exploration, science, technology, and action/adventure play and storytelling.

To be honest I have no problem with the City theme's current mix of 4-wide and 6-wide for cars, since it helps to differentiate compact and subcompact cars (like the ones in 60347 or 60398) from larger full-size sedans, high-performance cars, and luxury cars (like those in 60383 and 60415). No reason that all LEGO City cars need to have the same wheelbase width when their real-life equivalents vary so much!

Several City, Creator, Friends, and Technic Space sets have been NASA-inspired, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the LEGO City space agency is the same entity as NASA. It's entirely possible that they're a separate space agency that collaborates with NASA and launches some of their crews and equipment to space aboard NASA shuttles and rockets, just as ESA, JAXA, and Roscosmos have done several times in real life. This is how I tend to think of them. On another note, I also tend to think of the various LEGO City Space logos (most of which are variations on the Classic Space logo) not as separate factions, but rather as insignias for separate space programs or missions carried out by a single agency, much like how NASA has had unique insignias for space programs like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Artemis, etc.

I think it's partly 'cuz some people use "classic" as a general sort of adjective for describing older sets, and after so many decades there are a lot of sets that people tend to describe as "classic" that wouldn't have been described that way in the 90s or early 2000s. So for example, the Spyrius droid could be considered a classic "Space" minifigure, but not a "Classic Space" minifigure. Also, as we've been discussing, Futuron sets were clearly labeled in American box art and catalogs as a specific subtheme with a unique name right from the get-go — but many boxes and catalogs in Europe didn't label them any differently from previous "LEGOLAND Space" sets. So the distinction to some fans growing up with those sets would have been a little fuzzier.

Both these things can definitely be helpful for a LOT of us! I my case I spend so much time on some of my posts that I definitely feel like I should make more effort to ask myself "is this effort worth it? Am I adding anything to the conversation? Or am I better leaving it be?" For what it's worth, I know I'm one of the folks who has sometimes made posts that have come across as dismissive or disrespectful, and I promise I don't intend them that way, so if you do feel like any recent comment of mine seems that way, I definitely encourage you to reach out to me. I definitely do appreciate your contributions here, even though discussions with you sometimes get a little heated, and half the reason I am so keen on replying when your opinions are at odds with mine is that I enjoy being able to "compare notes" and gain insight into how/why our perspectives differ. My tendency to be wordy and rambly probably doesn't help in these cases, 'cuz I know that sometimes a "wall of text" can seem like an effort to shut down opposing opinions. I try to keep those tendencies in check so I'm not just an annoyance to the folks I reply to, but it never hurts to get a nudge if I'm failing at that.

The official name for that color is Light Royal Blue, and the BrickLink name is Bright Light Blue! Having the monochrome fig upper and lower bodies available from Everyone is Awesome definitely makes this seem like a pretty viable option production-wise, though there's a part of me that thinks LEGO might prefer to stick with colors that would seem less like a lighter or darker versions of colors they'd already had — like perhaps, a "Teal Astronaut" in Bright Bluish Green or a "Gold Astronaut" in Warm Gold. Black would also be pretty easy for them to bring back whenever they're ready, since not only do they have the monochrome fig parts ready to go, the black helmet and black air tanks are also still in production as of this year's sets! Honestly I don't know if I'd take that as a "clue" one way or another. After all, it's just as possible that the early 90s factions in this minifigures series were chosen to shine a light on Space subthemes that AREN'T featured prominently in other current, recent, or upcoming Minifigures series or Icons sets.

I definitely agree! It's part of why I enjoy spending time reading old catalogs and magazines and stuff. I feel like a lot English-language LEGO fansites and communities tend to rely on BrickLink for set/theme/character names, and since the BrickLink catalogs often default to the American names for that stuff, many of international differences in these pre-2000s naming conventions kind of get swept aside. So it's fascinating to go back and realize how differently LEGO often approached this stuff, even between countries that shared a language (for instance, while even LEGO.com tends to refer to Majisto as LEGO Castle's first named character, Great Britain and the Netherlands had named LEGO Castle characters from as early as the theme's big 1984 relaunch!) On the topic of LEGO Space in particular, I find it really charming that many of the brick-built robots from Classic Space and Futuron had specific names given to them in German ads and catalogs, mostly starting with the letter Z: Zilu, Zazza, Zip, Zero, Zonu, Zynar, Zyr, Zör, and finally the robot twins Zwil and Ling. ("Zwilling" is the German word for "twin", so these two names are a particularly charming bit of wordplay). No catalogs or magazines I've seen from other languages assigned these robot figures names as consistently or thoroughly as the German ones. I can't help but wonder if this naming scheme had any influence on the naming of Olivia's robot companions Zobo, Zuzu, Zobito, and Zobita from LEGO Friends! Another fun detail is that German catalogs and ads referred to Blacktron I as [Black Space] (brackets included). And although the US and UK used the name Blacktron for the faction itself from the get-go, this 1989 UK catalog page explains that "The new Space Police with flashing lights keep law and order in the endless universe of Black and White Space" — seemingly referring to territory controlled by Blacktron and Futuron, respectively. You are correct! I don't know if I've seen anything that uses that name for the Futuron faction collectively, but it was definitely used in Swedish Futuron set names pretty consistently, at least early on. Likewise, Swedish catalogs and ads initially attached the prefix "Drak" (dragon) to Blacktron vehicles and referred to the Blacktron figures at least once as "Drakmannen" (Dragon Men/Dragon People). Perhaps this was meant to echo the historical use of the term "drakskepp" for Viking ships? But that's just a guess from my perspective as an ignorant/naive American who doesn't speak Swedish (and grew up in the 90s after the first generation of Blacktron sets had already come and gone).