An argument for clone sets

Now, i don’t think all sets from now on should be clone sets, but after seeing 2016, i am definitely starting to see the perks of them.

With clone sets we, the buyers, were sure that every set we get from that wave would be the best design that the LEGO group could come up with because they didn’t feel obligated to make every set different. This is a problem i had with 2016. We had Tahu Uniter which was by far the best in my opinion, and then we had Lewa and Kopaka, who were extremely poor.

That’s one of the things i did like about CCBS initially. I thought; “Great! We’ll get one really solid and well thought out design which serves as the structure, and then we’ll have variations in armor and accessories on top.” Maybe that’s not what LEGO intended, but that was my initial impression of CCBS.

I think in future it would be a nice idea for them to consider making one skeleton that combines CCBS and Techic really well, and then have that carried out through that wave - with some slight variations in bone length, but the Technic remaining the same. One design for the Good guys of the line, and another that looks a bit more menacing for the villains - the variation being in the Armour and shells that are added on top to give each one a personality.

I’m probably gonna get quite a bit of hate for this, but that’s just my opinion :smiley:

12 Likes

I agree with you there. Something I’ve also noticed is that ever since Lego stopped making clone sets, we haven’t gotten as many new parts per wave as we did when we were getting clone sets (i.e. New torsos, weapons, armor add-ons e.t.c). For example, in the year of 2006, we got a total of 51 new parts. In the year of 2015, we only got 23 (correct me if I’m wrong). Maybe a coincidence, but I think that there is a definite correlation here.

1 Like

Bohrok for Bionicle 2017

5 Likes

I think they’re trying to treat the buildable action figure line like standard LEGO, in that, you will mainly see recycled parts for a lot of brick based LEGO sets and not a huge amount of new ones. I may be wrong, but i think of all the LEGO lines, G1 BIONICLE may have added the most amount of new elements every year (up until 2006). That’s a COMPLETE guess, but that’s the impression i got, since it was a new base build every year, with a ton of new parts. That kinda stopped post 2006.

Now they seem to want to only introduce parts they can use elsewhere in other lines, where as in BIONICLE G1 they just introduced any parts they needed that year - whether or not it could be used in other lines. Thing is, the build able action figure line is a completely different beast to the brick based systems, and needs to be treated differently.

I wouldn’t dream of asking for clone sets in LEGO City or Ninjago, but for the buildable action figures it seems to work far better.

Agreed. I also think that Lego is wasting a lot of potential in CCBS. I wish they would start making shells in a wider variety of shapes and sizes, maybe even make shells with Bionicle G1 style detailing! Anyway, I wish we were getting more New parts for G2, especially weapons. Whatever happened to the days when each Toa had their own, unique, SINGLE PIECE weapons!!! The G2 weapons are just too oddly constructed and busy. They just don’t look like something you could actually use in combat (prime examples: 2015+2016 Gali, 2016 Pohatu, 2015 Lewa).

My opinion on sets in general is that they should reflect the characters that they portray.

For some things, clone sets work rather well. Take the founder of CCBS, Hero Factory. These were robotic heroes who were mass-produced to protect the galaxy. Thus, it would make sense for them to be extremely similar in build.

For example, Furno and Surge 2.0
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81XqhfgaRqL.SL1500.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/customherofactory/images/8/8e/Surge_2-0.jpg

Now with Bionicle, it’s a different story. These aren’t robots coming off the assembly line. These are individual heroes, with very different powers and personalities. Sure, there will obviously be some unity among them, but it should be less obvious. That’s why I love the 2015 sets; each of the Toa have very different styles in build. (IMO, this is something that’s lost a bit in 2016, but I digress.)

However, to your point of

This is not necessarily the case. Just because Lego has one base for a set does not guarantee that it will be good. For example, take the Rahaga:

Now I personally have no issues with the Rahaga, but objectively speaking, these are extremely awkward sets.

Alternatively, take the Metrutoran:

Another very awkward clone build.

I’m not saying that if Lego would focus on one type of set that it would be bad; rather, I’m saying to not jump to conclusions.

The year 2006 also introduced a brand new system of build, while 2015 did not.

Because y’know,
Skull Spiders can be used in other lines
Lavaboard/shield/sword pieces can be used in other lines
Shovel/hammer pieces can be used in other lines
Axe pieces can be used in other lines
Boomerang pieces can be used in other lines
Grabbing axe thing pieces can be used in other lines
Jagged sword pieces can be used in other lines

Totally

/s



Onua and Pohatu say hi.

18 Likes

I have to say that I pretty much cannot agree with anything said here.

[quote=“Ozkabot, post:1, topic:21512”]
we get from that wave would be the best design that the LEGO group could come up with because they didn’t feel obligated to make every set different
[/quote] While yes there is a possability that all sets have a “good” design as they all have the same build, but then again this could also result in all sets having a “bad” design. Take the Hordika for example, the Hordika are generally not well liked because of thier wierd design choices, and with every single Hordika having the same design, all of them suffer from the same problems, so if you don’t like 1 of them you Essentailly dislike all of them. your getting 1 set per wave/group and if this 1 set is “bad” that automaticcly means that the entire wave/group is bad. With all sets having different builds chances are that there is at least 1 design you like.

[quote=“Ozkabot, post:1, topic:21512”]
I think in future it would be a nice idea for them to consider making one skeleton that combines CCBS and Techic really well, and then have that carried out through that wave - with some slight variations in bone length, but the Technic remaining the same. One design for the Good guys of the line, and another that looks a bit more menacing for the villains - the variation being in the Armour and shells that are added on top to give each one a personality.
[/quote] All sets having the same basic design would absolutely ruin the building experince for me. Sure the armor placement might be slightly different but that is just a small part of the build. I would see no reason to get more than mabye 2 sets from every wave/group. as I would get the same basic experince every time, and that would get boring after the first two sets I build. This was one of the problems I had with HF, as they pretty much did this idea just without the technic. The brain attack heroes were incredibly boring to build IMO, because the skeleton designs were so similar, and adding technic would not make this experince any more enjoyable for me.

[quote=“SmeatyFlavor, post:2, topic:21512”]
we haven’t gotten as many new parts per wave as we did when we were getting clone sets
[/quote] I don’t know lego’s decicion for doing certain things, but I am pretty confident that the amount of new parts per wave has absolutely nothing to do with clone sets. New molds for lego cost a lot of money and introducing a new mold that would only be used once would be some what of a waste of money. I think lego learned this in the later years of bionicle, and definitly learned this with the introduction of CCBS.

[quote=“Ozkabot, post:4, topic:21512”]
the build able action figure line is a completely different beast to the brick based systems, and needs to be treated differently.
[/quote] I disagree heavily here. Lego buildable action figures are not all that different from lego system. The way parts connect and the shape of the parts might be different. But in the end they are still building blocks (even if they don’t look like it.) CCBS and system, both are, well, a system. Both have different sizes of parts genrally indicated by numbers. Heck, CCBS is even based on system as stated by this picture: http://images.brickimedia.org/9/94/Ccbs_system.jpeg And because of this, I see no reason why CCBS/buildable action figures should be treated anything different that system.

[quote=“SmeatyFlavor, post:5, topic:21512”]
Agreed. I also think that Lego is wasting a lot of potential in CCBS. I wish they would start making shells in a wider variety of shapes and sizes, maybe even make shells with Bionicle G1 style detailing!
[/quote] The intent of CCBS was never to have a large variety of specialized pieces. On the contrary even. CCBS was designed like the lego system so that you could still use the parts introduced in 2011 to build something in 2031. And this for me is one of the best things about CCBS.

8 Likes

From a moccing perspective, you want more clone sets to get more recolored parts. We wouldn’t have gotten the Bohrok limb in 12+ colors if the Bohrok weren’t clone sets nor would we have gotten the basic ccbs shells in six primary colors if HF 2.0 weren’t clones.

3 Likes

Actually, I think that most of those pieces could be used in a lot of other themes. And I think the Rahaga are by far the second or third best example of a group sets being built around a gimmick.

Meh, I don’t really mind clone sets, either way I’m buying them as a collector, and maybe doubles for parts, but I digress.

@Political_Slime: Onua and Pohatu say hi.
Yes, but they were the only ones. And their weapons were great!!! My problem is that the other Toa don’t also have weapons like that as well.


Tahu is hurt that you didn’t mention him.

3 Likes

Here’s the thing about clone sets; they leave no room for different physiques- something that defined my to-date favorite toa line; the masters.

Sure, you’ll end up with a ton of the same parts in different colors, but that happens anyways. This is a guarantee that CCBS provides as a system, regardless of whether the sets use all the same parts. They have a standardized platform to build all of their defining features on top of.

Say what you will about the “function”, but


is a very versatile torso base that provides lot of room for modification to fit whatever purpose and integrate CCBS and technic parts.

I doubt that heavily. The problem we had in 2016 was not that they wanted to make them all different, but that they were trying to express the very well defined body types they gave the Toa back in 2015, while still building around the large, standardized chestplate mold- A part that’s not reflective of unique builds, mind you, but of clone sets.

8 Likes

Clone sets did have their perks. It usually meant that you could get the same piece in at least 6 different colors.
It worked for species and robot characters, like the Bohrok, the Rahkshi, the (infamous) Vahki, and HF 2.0 and 3.0, but sometimes, it did get boring after a while…
I do wish we could see some evenly matching in villain numbers like we saw on the old line. Think of it we’re only getting 5 villain sets for this year, and one of them is a mutated form of the first villain set released.
I’d love to see a G2 equivalent to the Rahkshi, some kind of element based beings Makuta uses to hunt for The Mask of Ultimate Power.

1 Like

Give me diverse builds over clones any day, as long as they look good.

Also give me diverse weapons, 2015 had great weapon diversity,

2016 feels so boring and repetitive.

3 Likes

@Political_Slime The two builds you gave as examples i have no problems with, and are actually pretty nice sets for a cheap price in my opinion. Obviously they wouldn’t float now, with the Protectors and Creatures being being as complex in terms of parts as the Toa released that year - but i still rather like them.

The parts situation. Obviously they have to include exclusive parts too, like some weapons. i was mainly referencing the shell pieces. Now in 2016 that’s changed, and they are including parts that only apply to BIONICLE, so i guess i was wrong there.

Its just from my perspective at the time of writing that was LEGO seemed reluctant to include new parts - though, it is a new line, so that does make sense not to include a ton of new parts if its only gonna run for 3 years (i heard rumors its ending after 2017).

@Poharu the Hordika seem to be almost universally hated, and a lot of people see it as a “what were they doing” moment. Besides that, the Visorak were very solid designs that year.

Out of 9 build types introduced in BIONICLE’s original run, i think its a bit unfair to judge the entire clone set idea on that one build. Yes, there are disadvantages of it, but when there’s a good overall build - which has been shown to be far more often than not - we get 6 great sets.

I agree having one overall build being used 6 times may get tiring, but honestly i would rather have 6 great sets that are similar, rather than 6 sets with the quality spanning from bad to great. Its a waste of a build for me if the set isn’t good, because i want a good set to have at the end of it. I don’t want to have a unique build every time if it means gambling on whether the set will be good.

I could research online, but i did a lot of research on lewa 2016 and it looked great, but there was something about it when i had it in person. I hated it.

If LEGO pulls out some great, unique, builds next wave the…

Oh…

1 Like

@Political_Slime and @Poharu have said it all, really. Clone waves really were one of the absolute worst aspects of G1, and I never want to see G2 go down that route.

It goes without saying that buying recolours of the same toy six (or even twelve in the case of the Bohrok) times is a waste of time and money. There’s no new experience there aside from colouration, and that’s boring. Beyond that though, clone waves in G1 often had their own uniform of design governed by the cohesive textures and shapes in their unique moulds. This all too often meant that, when parts from clone waves were used in later sets (or in MOCs), these design ideas clashed awfully. As the CCBS has a much stricter design language, reusing older parts isn’t nearly as problematic - Some armour addons have wave/character-specific designs, sure, but as these are optional to the build as opposed to being the main core of it, this isn’t nearly as much of an issue as it was with G1.

8 Likes

It goes without saying that buying recolours of the same toy six (or even twelve in the case of the Bohrok) times is a waste of time and money. There’s no new experience there aside from colouration, and that’s boring.

Says the guy who buys multiple copies of the same toy for recolors.

http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Facepalm-Meme-04.png

3 Likes

I like clone sets because I like to collect the same things in differnt colors. I dont know why I just do.

Clone sets also allow for someone to buy their favorit color of set if they cant afford more then one figure per wave, for instance back in 2009 I found a guy on youtube who had every brown and green figure but hardly any others.

4 Likes

woah!! got me there!!! i’m stumped… how do i un-coax myself out of this snafu???

I buy multiple copies of some individual G2 sets to get the recoloured parts exclusive to those sets in larger quantities. What I was saying about clone waves in G1 was how we often got basically the same figures in different colours, which from the standpoint of collecting the toys was boring and repetitive. I wasn’t talking about getting recoloured parts.

Please read things more carefully before smacking down a reaction image and acting as if you’ve won somebody over.

4 Likes

Why buy more individual sets when you can get just get the recolors alone cheaper on BL? Suppose Jawblade was a clone set and he came in a variant with a gunmetal head rather than a silver one. Wouldn’t you rather have the option to switch it out with another color? This is where clone sets really come in handy. I agree, it may be boring to repeat the same set but standardization gives you customizability options. Not everyone buys sets just to collect them.

1 Like