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?
Thanks!
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?
Thanks!
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 thereâs 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 donât think are being considered.
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 isnât 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.
Donât allow 3D printed parts. Many will probably say this hinders creativity, but it really doesnât. 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 doesnât seem like an issue.
Iâm 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 wasnât 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 donât think it shouldâve 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 Chargerâs 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 didnât know about illegal connections in the winning MOC, it is my mistake, but actually I wouldât voted for it. it is just one more thought, if something was rude or out of place, sorry. Anyone who agrees, like mine or Dagâs post, letâs see communityâs 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 DQâd 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 DQâd. 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 âreplicabilityâ, despite other rules and guidelines stating MOC replicability is not under consideration. Itâs not a knock on the painted MOC in question, but it sucked seeing a great entry DQâd for simple sticker removal and little blue runes, when an entry dunked in spray paint was OK. Iâd hopefully like to see some sort of re-clarification on this guideline. I donât 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 - itâs a placeholder.
-Sol
What would you all think about a limit on how many painted pieces are allowed to be used in a MoC? Iâm 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 âoh, I need a piece of armor in a certain shade but it doesnât exist, Iâll just paint itâ or âI bought a 3D mask and I need to paint itâ and less âIâm gonna paint the entire MoC.â
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.
-Mesonak
I think thatâs a fair compromise, but thereâs 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 donât come in the desired color, use the closest color it was made in. Thatâs 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 donât have an official color, I would still limit it to as close to Lego colors as possible, which shouldnât be an issue since people seem to followed that even when it isnât a rule.
Given that the art is the final product, I donât really think itâs necessary. Furthermore, people can vote on mocs that donât 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. Iâd rather an ornately painted moc that fits the character and looks great than a purist moc that doesnât.
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 Iâm 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 donât 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 âbestâ of the finalists.
-Sol
Thatâs why I think a limit is unnecessary. The community can and will vote for what they want. The community clearly has a majority thatâs 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 âonly six non-official-colour modified pieces are allowedâ, then that should allow both painting and print removal in that âmodifiedâ category.
Following that logic, whatâs the point then in rule 11? The reason itâs 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 Gadunkaâs Artakha, which was mainly painted parts, was a favorite among many in the community, hence why a limit is necessary.
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 didnât put those pieces, it woudnât change anything in the model, except Artakha no longer been able to stand over teflon
If you didnât put those pieces, it woudnât 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 shouldnât be allowed.
Agreed, I donât like having anything illegal in builds
Do you understand what the implications of that are? Some of the most common techniques in Bionicle building are technically illegal.
From my initial post:
Youâll need to provide examples with that claim
so who gets to judge what is and isnât acceptable?
A bushing or any other 1x1 connector inside a socket, as has been discussed earlier in the topic. Or, as @Dag mentioned, inserting a system stud into a pinhole.
I would say a similar limit to 3d pieces, being at most 4. 6 also seems like a fair number â it would in theory allow 1 for each limb, torso and head.
I believe eljay has said that the difference between painting pieces and removing printing is basically: one permanently alters the piece, while paint can be removed, usually.