BIONICLE G1 Canon Contests Discussion & Questions

oh, ok

I used watercolours and pencil last time, with a lil photoshop after. This time I plan to use photoshop and tablet only.

1 Like

Yes, the mask can be recolored.

1 Like

ok! I found an app that turns pencil marks into solid black lines so I might use that with the outline and then digitally add color.

I draw a sketch and lineart traditionally and then do the coloring and effects on an app called Ibis paint X.
Before the contest begins I want to give everyone a metru head reference so everyone can make a proportionate mask of creation. This took a lot of time because finding accurate pictures for all sides was rather difficult. Ignore the empty space, I was using this to draw my own mask of creation.

EDITED FOR DOUBLE POST - Spid…I mean Kaijin Storyteller


Hey, I made some files for a bunch of Artakha entries so I could get renders of them. Some people asked for the files and here they are.

Disclaimer that all of these were made using only the breakdown photos that are public and are bound to have mistakes. The only one that’s been looked over by the actual creator is Blue’s. Apologies for any inaccuracies.

Didn’t include my models for Connor_Hoffman’s or WholesomeGadunka’s because they made their own files that you can get here and here which are guaranteed to be accurate.

Hello. I was wondering. With the canon Artoca moc having a 3-D printed mask, does that affect the art contest? Is the 3-D printed mask the canon mask now, or are we doing the same thing we did in the Helryx contest and design a mask?


1 Like

The artist can either follow the current design or show his own take in the design of the mask.


With two MOC contests come and gone, it seems there’s now a good handle on how to run them (and how to prevent the mistakes made from the first two). However, there are some changes I would like to see for future MOC contests that I don’t think are being considered.

  1. Don’t allow painted parts. This is my personal preference, but whether you want to allow them or not, there’s a discrepancy in the rules.

8e. Painted and dyed pieces are allowed, however only monotone paint jobs are allowed. (I.e: A mask can not be painted/dyed with two colors)
8g. Pieces that only exist in printed varieties that have had the printing removed or have been painted are not allowed. However, if the pieces are not unique and have been released non-printed in other colors, they may have the printing removed or may be painted over.

8e allows a piece to be painted any monotone color, regardless if it was ever released in that color. However, painting over a piece that only ever came with a print is not allowed. If that isn’t allowed, why is painting a piece a color that it was never made in allowed? Why not say a piece can only be painted in a color that it was released in, or allow printed parts to be painted over? Either solution would solve the issue, though I would still prefer no painted parts at all.

  1. Don’t allow 3D printed parts. Many will probably say this hinders creativity, but it really doesn’t. Only the masks and weapons can be 3d printed, so instead, custom weapons can be built (which would be just as creative), and custom heads or place holder masks can be used. Seeing as the winning Helryx used a Pakari, having the right mask doesn’t seem like an issue.

  2. I’m okay with allowing some builds which are technically illegal (such as a stud in a pinhole), but I think outrageously illegal builds should be disqualified. For example, the winning Artakha used this technique, which I wasn’t aware of until after it was declared the winner:
    I voted for this Artakha in the final round, and still think its a decent build, but I don’t think it should’ve been allowed to do this.

Given that these are canon contests, I think purism should be a must as much as possible, although Lego has broken this standard themselves in the past (see Charger’s blades).


I agree with Dag about illegal connections. Many people do not like painted pieces (and many said that rule about painted pieces should be remade). I think even more do not like illegal connections. It will be just according to your (I mean the Cast) idea - MOC should be easy to recreate. I, personnaly, would never used a connection that breaks or deforms a piece. Also, I too didn’t know about illegal connections in the winning MOC, it is my mistake, but actually I would’t voted for it. it is just one more thought, if something was rude or out of place, sorry. Anyone who agrees, like mine or Dag’s post, let’s see community’s opinion.


I will chime in on the painted pieces thing, doing my best to avoid my personal bias against it. There was a striking example in the previous contest, where a late entry was DQ’d without the opportunity to amend (due to hour(s) before deadline publishing) for 2 reasons - the 3D printed Mask of Creation had blue runes and a grey paint finish, and 2 Ben 10 stickers were removed. This was completley not allowed and he was sadly DQ’d. However, the contest darling entry had almost every single piece down to studs custom painted. It was, frankly, unfair to DQ someone for modifying a sticker on a piece and runes on a placeholder mask when an entry was allowed in, wholesale, with every singe part painted. Even pieces that existed in LEGO colors (e.g. bohrok eyes in silver) were painted to a different shade. I think this rule, going forward, needs to be clarified. The no piece modification was done for the sake of “replicability”, despite other rules and guidelines stating MOC replicability is not under consideration. It’s not a knock on the painted MOC in question, but it sucked seeing a great entry DQ’d for simple sticker removal and little blue runes, when an entry dunked in spray paint was OK. I’d hopefully like to see some sort of re-clarification on this guideline. I don’t think banning painted pieces is the answer, but perhaps limiting it to a certain number of total pieces. And for any character with a placeholder mask (potentially the Hagah, though more likely for Tuyet) to remove the rule on dual color masks entirely - it’s a placeholder.



What would you all think about a limit on how many painted pieces are allowed to be used in a MoC? I’m just tossing it out there, but it would align with our restriction on the quantity of 3D printed pieces used, and it could help keep the spirit of our original allowance on painted pieces intact. Think more “oh, I need a piece of armor in a certain shade but it doesn’t exist, I’ll just paint it” or “I bought a 3D mask and I need to paint it” and less “I’m gonna paint the entire MoC.”

What do you all think of that? And if you like it, what do you think is a fair piece allowance? Just gauging some opinions.



I think that’s a fair compromise, but there’s still the problem of 8e and 8g. I think the best solution would be to hold 8e to the same restrictions as 8g, which would mean only allowing parts to be painted in colors they have been officially released in. If an entry needs to use parts that don’t come in the desired color, use the closest color it was made in. That’s what you allowed for Artakha, a single shade of any green that would be recolored in the art.

For 3D masks that were never released, and therefore don’t have an official color, I would still limit it to as close to Lego colors as possible, which shouldn’t be an issue since people seem to followed that even when it isn’t a rule.

1 Like

Given that the art is the final product, I don’t really think it’s necessary. Furthermore, people can vote on mocs that don’t have painted pieces if they want. Overall, I personally feel that the visual appearance is the foremost factor, and that considerations such as reproductions are secondary to that. I’d rather an ornately painted moc that fits the character and looks great than a purist moc that doesn’t.


While I agree, it brings up 2 points - One being the point of the MOC contest, if art is all there is. A point that I’m sure will come up with the Hagah who, at last update, were planned to be a free for all between MOCs and art. Which I disagree with, as you would be comparing apples to oranges, with 2 different mediums and I don’t think it will go well, but we can save that part till then. Second being community preference. While this is ultimately making the most accurate characterization, fans want to be able to build it themselves too. So they will likely vote for a MOC that both matches the descriptor and is accesible to build. Look at the last 2 contests - ornate, painted, Studio models, and very intricate ones that looked fantastic got blown out of the water in early rounds and the final round for the most recent was a decisive rout, likely due to 2nd place being painted to the extreme. As for the Helryx contest, hose aside, the final winner was extremely barebones, accesible, and simple to build, despite not necessarily being the “best” of the finalists.


1 Like

That’s why I think a limit is unnecessary. The community can and will vote for what they want. The community clearly has a majority that’s capable of voting for a reasonable medium between what everyone wants, which is especially clear after this contest.


I agree with those who say painting a piece should be considered equivalent to removing prints from a piece - in both cases the original is permanently modified.

I think 8g for prints is the right approach, and the logic should be extended to painting pieces. So any amount of pieces can be painted, but only as long as it is to match an existing colour of that piece.

If instead a compromise was made like “only six non-official-colour modified pieces are allowed”, then that should allow both painting and print removal in that “modified” category.


Following that logic, what’s the point then in rule 11? The reason it’s there is that the community has shown its not capable of weeding out bad faith entries as shown by that-one-Helryx-entry-whose-name-is-censored. Same with Gadunka’s Artakha, which was mainly painted parts, was a favorite among many in the community, hence why a limit is necessary.

1 Like

In defense of the build, I agree that connection is illegal, but the only purpose that it has is to make the feet less slipery. If you didn’t put those pieces, it woudn’t change anything in the model, except Artakha no longer been able to stand over teflon

If you didn’t put those pieces, it woudn’t change anything in the model, except Artakha no longer been able to stand over teflon

Not being able to stand would be a pretty major change to posability.
But whether or not its a major part of the overall build, its still an illegal build, we agree on that. I just used this as an example of what I would call an outrageously illegal build, one I think shouldn’t be allowed.