How does that add up? What’s the difference between rubbing off a print and painting over it? What’s the difference between a sticker and painting some intricate stuff on a part?
That said, I think painting parts should also be banned. If it’s allowed that puts purist at a giant disadvantage when faced with building a character that uses colours not often seen in Lego. Also while allowing 3D prints is bad, at least you can in theory get those. Forcing people to paint actual parts if they want to recreate a MOC is an absolute no-go in my eyes.
So are pieces in colors that don’t exist allowed in digital entries?
It might fall under:
but I wanted to ask, because it’s a bit different.
Do cloth accessories and other non Lego, but also Non 3D-printed additions fall under that as well?
Does that include Flex-Tube? A lot of MOCists cut it, because some Lego sets even tell you to.
Something I would also like to adress (which might sound weird coming from me) is the digital models.
Digital models can run the risk of beeing very unstable or even impossible to build with real pieces. I personally think it would be good if all the canon MOCs could be built and would at least stand on their own. (Although that’s of cause not necessary if you only want to see them as visual representation of the characters).
I don’t know if a rule would be necessary to only allow physically possible builds or if the voting would fix that, I just wanted to bring it up here, because I think it’s important to think about that aspect.
The difference is that paint can be removed, but you can’t fix a piece that has been destroyed.
No one is being forced to do anything. It’s up to the individual.
Ah, yes it does. Thank you for bringing that up.
Yes, I’ll amend that here shortly.
I encourage people not to cut flex-tube, but that one is gonna be hard to identify in the long run. Because you’re right, LEGO has had that in instructions before, but it isn’t a common feature.
This is true, though I’m not sure how it could be enforced. If you could elaborate on that aspect, it’d be much appreciated.
As lacking as this post has in productivity, let’s address it: We’ll get around to them. A second list is being looked into. We’ve seen the MOCs, we know their standing. Some characters were forgotten, some were prioritized over others.
You know what they say about assuming. So we recommend against it.
There is only really one way it can be sadly (at least I don’t know another). Whenever I have done digital models, that I knew would be built with physical bricks, I built a test model with the right or at least very similar pieces (most of the times wrong colors) to test the stability and the building process.
To make sure it can be built instructions could be made in Stud.io and checked if they work, but that’s quite a bit of work.
Also: the stability tool in Stud.io can not really be trusted too much. Especially with ball and socket connections, the results of the stability and clutch-power checks are often far from the reality in my experience.
We’re already looking into a second list for characters we either opted against this time, forgot about, or were otherwise not included due to their importance.
There are a few goals to these contests. One is to revitalize the community with new content, and visualizations signed off on by Greg as canon. Another is to, of course, actual give visuals to characters that are waay to important to not have any, especially after all this time. And above all else, it’s to have new contests people can have fun with. I was there when these were held on BZPower, KanohiJournal, etc. It’s a really fascinating atmosphere.
So all that being said, is it possible? Yeah. Would contests like those be likely? Mmmm… Probably not. We don’t want to run into the issue of just canonizing a bunch of random things just because it’s possible to do.
We will keep that in mind. We’re not ignorant of these things, and we appreciate feedback. We’re not trying to shortchange people and we’re always looking for ways to rejuvenate the community and have opportunities for people to have a good time. So a second list is absolutely in the pipeline and we’ll be sure to run those characters by Greg.
Yeah, that would be difficult to enforce. It’s not a bad idea, it’s just a tad impractical, as the possibility stands that if someone is building in Stud.io, it’s because they don’t have the pieces to MOC physically.
We’ll discuss it, but as it stands it may be another thing that voters would need to consider when deciding.
Only in the sense that it’s basically telling purists “either you break your personal rules when it comes to doing stuff with Lego or you’ll never be able to recreate this and add it to your collection” “Oh, and you might be at a disadvantage in the contests”.
(it’s of course the same with 3D prints, but at least there you can in theory build something else that looks similar out of parts and it won’t be integral to the stability of the build)
Yes, those are allowed. Amended the rule to clarify.
Originally, we had included a rule forbidding the use of pieces that could be clearly identified as a piece from a licensed theme, such as Star Wars. The opinion was brought to use that people should consider that aspect when voting, so if they don’t want Helryx with a General Grievous head as a torso, they shouldn’t vote for it. So we’ve opted to give as much power as possible to the community to decide what they’d like sent up to Greg.
Entry periods for each character will be 3 weeks, yes.
Is there any particular reason Johmak isn’t on the list? I could understand if she was a member of an existing species we’d seen, or if there was a popular headcanon like with Kojol, but there’s not a lot of clues to her appearance.