That’s why we got other weapon pieces jimbo
1 Like
Just to clarify, I wasn’t talking about weapons, I was talking about armor sizes and colors, along with the almost unnameable amount of add-ons.
1 Like
All you CCBS punks disappoint me. Technic is superior for many reasons. You can create far more interesting and unique sets based off of technic’s axles and pins than you can just snappin things together with your CCBS.
1 Like
It’s my opinion you proved my point. Technic sets are works of art. They may not be nice and smooth, but they require actually thinking, as you can see by that madly complex stormtrooper as opposed to the silly little CCBS snapper.
You can pretty much copy and paste any CCBS set onto another. There’s little unique about each line of CCBS. New armor and weapons? Yes. But, unlike BIONICLE, for instance, they don’t generally come out with entirely new legs/arms.
CCBS can be useful at times. If you just want something to stand around and look nice, fine. But Technic has always been significantly more fun to build and MOC with, as you’re deciding where to stick your pins and axles, and finding new ways of doing it. In my case, where I ended up with many Bionicle with non-generic bodies, it’s always been a challenge, and it’s one I definitely accept. In combination with CCBS it’s nice, I will say that, but the raw creativity allowed by Technic makes it the best.
Uh… what? If facts are opinion based, then they’re not facs at all. They’re opinions. Saying that something is, in your opinion, proof of something generally means that it’s still just an opinion.
Yes, the amount of parts in an action figure scaled set that is fundamentally designed with creating a cohesive flow from body part to body part is somehow a travesty compared to a bundled mess of various parts that might take more time to ultimately put together, but as a result looks awful. More parts for the sake of it is bad design philosophy.
Riiiight, because every BIONICLE set from 2006-2010 was so varried in terms of limb and body molds. If anything, CCBS just carried over and improved the Inika System’s design philosophy, specifically because it allows you to change the limb shape to several variants.
I can’t argue for or against this, as it’s subjective.
Which you also do with CCBS, since it IS a technic based system with various parts that aid and enhance the joint Technic and CCBS experience.
See, that’s thing. CCBS was made to be used with Technic. It’s essentially a subcategory of Technic that emphasises the ball and socket connection, but is still fully integratable with Technic parts. One isn’t better than the other, they’re both two ingredients to the same cake. I find arguments over which is more valid than the other to be superficial. They’re both very valid formats and work well when used separately and together. It’s like arguing over whether you need the pan or the spatula to cook an egg. You need both to get favorable results.
4 Likes
http://www.alteredstatesmag.com/mar2001/graphics/LEGO_SW_Stormtrooper.jpg
This is a freaking pathetic build of a stormtrooper. The only thing that would make it a work of art if you dunked it into the trash.
Pure Technic is not for building figures, its primary use is in building vehicles. Otherwise you will get ugly looking skeleton figures that dont resemble the actual characters at all.
System and CCBS are for building figures.
4 Likes
Ouch.
6 Likes
CCBS Is a great tool for animalistic figures ex. Stormtroopers and Animals
Technic is for mechanical figures ex Mechas and bionicle
PS I didn’t know double posting was a rule Sorry 
CCBS limbs are the main drawback to the system. The limbs only allow one shell connection point, and few Technic holes, making it very limited, and giving a model that simplistic appearance. CCBS shells on a Technic base make a much more involved build.
2 Likes
4(part orientation)x7(? Bones)x13(? Shells)
=364 theoretically possible combinations per limb segment.
how limited.
6 Likes
Why do we have to argue on this? We all know CCBS in combination with Technic can do incredible things. They both have different advantages and disadvantages, why do we care if one of them´s better? That´d just fuel HF and G2 haters AKA Genwunners.
Also @dinodestructor500 can you make friction in a gearbox with pure Technic? Let´s ask the Toa Nuva and Toa Metru… NOPE. Let´s ask the 2015/16 Toa… Most definetely.
OOOOOOOOOH BURN
1 Like
IMO they both kinda fill the roles that the other one misses
CCBS parts are highly versatile but not very detailed, technic/old constraction parts (bionicle, slizor/throwbots, roboriders) are much more detailed but won’t exactly work in every build
(Also the system ratcheted joints like used in the 2006 exo force sets = the OG CCBS)
I still don’t understand the divide on this. If you decide that you don’t want to use a building system because you don’t like it, you are only limiting yourself when it comes to the final product.
I tend to use what I feel works as well as what I have at the time. If “Technic” doesn’t make it into the final cut, it doesn’t make it into the final cut. Use what is necessary, use what works.
5 Likes
Is this topic is a joke? It’s not that complicated. If you want a large, smooth figure, use smooth pieces of the appropriate scale. If you want a small greebled figure, use lots of small parts or large parts with small details to achieve the effect. Try to remember the shapes that you were taught in kindergarten and you’ll do fine.
2 Likes