Toa Hagah Canon Contest Ruleset Feedback

I can’t remember if this has been brought up (probably has) but if you are entering do you have to make all four, or draw all four?

First round no, second round yes.

Given how much Toa care about their public appearance, I find it hard to believe they’d even wear the shape.

3 Likes

isn’t that just silver

No, there’s actually a metallic white, it was used on Kurahk.

2 Likes

I think thats just a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the complexity of philosophical morality of character’s and the own perceptions of characters/factions within the world. But its been discussed before and it seems the mods are a no go with it even if Greg states at some point otherwise, for now just adhere to it I guess.

Forewarning: This is quite a lengthy comment

I’ve tried to break it down into digestible sections and organize my points by the rules they pertain to for your convenience, but I’ve got a lot to say.

First and foremost, I think that most of the decisions made specifically for the Hagah contest were the right ones, especially the free-for-all. As for the rules I don’t fully agree with, I can at least understand why they’re there. Others have already voiced sentiments I share about those rules so I won’t take up any more of this reply by repeating what’s already been said and argue about things that probably don’t need to change.

Instead, I want to talk about the more broad-scope rules for these canon contests.

I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity with some rulings to do with non-purism in the past, or with the rulings themselves and, in my opinion, the poor justifications for them and their inconsistent enforcement. I think before this next contest kicks off is the best time to revise those rules, so I want to thank you, Meso and Eljay for opening a dialogue with the community specifically for garnering feedback on how things are being run, and to suggest changes.

Let’s get started:

4f. Entries may not be modified from their physical design with digital editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP.

This is probably the most subjectively and personally driven argument here so I'll start with it...

Now, while I understand the notion of wanting to have certain rules in place for each medium - the fact of the matter is, as previously stated, this is a canon contest first, not a building contest/art competition, and since all the mediums are competing together at the same time, not separately, consistency in the rulings across the board should be a given.

It’s not going down a different route to traditional moccing, it’s an alternative way to produce the same result as painting without having to physically modify parts. Recolouring individual parts in a photo of a model is an entirely different ball park to creating entire digital character drawings.
Heres an Example

Cleverly manipulating lighting and mixing paints gives you just as much control over variations in hue and saturation, and if a moc with digitally recoloured pieces were to win, - just like a Studio build or artwork with a recoloured part, it can be replicated with paint later - if even necessary.

One specific example I can think of outside of recolouring the armour/masks/tools to metallic colours they weren’t produced in is to recolour Pouks’ or Bomonga’s limb connectors from a placeholder colour to Metru brown since they were only available in 1 set, and that set only came with 1 - making them very scarce - or in the case of black connectors in that style, weren’t released at all.

Those would be perfectly physically replicable if they were to win (either with paint, brown via forking out a little $ to order some, or black by substituting it for the ‘08 variant).

But even then, it’s not that entry that gets canonized - it’s the artwork created afterwards that is. We’ve already got canon artwork - both from these contests, and from ones held a decade ago that would require painted parts (official or otherwise) to recreate physically.

I see no way how allowing it would change the outcome of the contests.

The only difference between physically painting parts and recolouring them in post with Photoshop/GIMP/etc is that you’re not devaluing your physical parts that are no longer produced just to enter and - statistically - lose to another design, having modified those parts in vain.

Personally, I have no problem mixing paints to match and painting the pieces myself if I have to, but I very firmly believe I shouldn’t have to just to compete on the same level creatively as the artists or digital builders I’m being judged against, when consistency with 2 of the pre-existing team members is the emphasis of this contest.
I’ll happily paint pieces to more accurately reflect the official canon design once that’s been decided on, but I don’t think it should be so heavily restricted just to enter and compete with entries that aren’t also subject to any comparable restriction.

And from a more objective stance; physical mocs, digital builds, and artwork are all being presented and judged in the same format - a single 2D image of a character.

The argument against allowing it, that it goes against the spirit of the medium of a physically built figure - I can see, sure. But digital builders can render their main image however they want then edit/colour correct it in post to get the exact look they’re going for and no one will know unless they explicitly state they did so. Same for artists, they can digitally manipulate their “finished” digital or physical on-paper drawing to change it’s colours, perspective, etc. Sure, those things can be done within the software/medium itself, just like physically painting parts within the medium of building with real Lego pieces, but if it’s an option for anyone, it should be for everyone - and the end result doesn’t change so it’s such an arbitrary restriction in the first place and removing it only allows for greater accessibility.

Besides, it’s not like it could be effectively enforced - nothing is really stopping an entrant from changing it in post and submitting it anyway if done subtly enough to go unnoticed…

So I think the rule should go.

The best compromise I can think of would be to allow it, but only to recolour parts to colours that exist within Lego’s palette - or further - are already present elsewhere on the moc.

8a. Cut pieces and cut stickers are not allowed.
and
8g. Replicas of the above will fall under their category of replication. (I.e: If a resin mold is made of a cut-and-glued mask, it will be considered a cut-and-glued mask and will not be permitted for use in an entry.)

But only if you're caught*...

People have made the case for allowing cut flex tubes or ribbed hoses as there are official Lego sets that instruct you to cut them to a certain length, thus consider it a valid purist Lego building technique. From what I can tell from the backlog in the initial rules post, the final verdict is that it’s strongly discouraged, but ‘allowed’ ”if you can get away with it”.

That’s not a good rule; or a good precedent to set for the rest of your rules/challenge to give to entrants, especially when new unrelated rules are specifically being introduced to restrict people from somehow abusing potential freedoms and loopholes, and I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain why.

If, for example, digital colour correction still wasn’t technically permitted, but “allowed” if you could pull it off convincingly enough to get away with - you’re creating a subjective ruleset, when rules exist to be a literal objective criteria. You’re gatekeeping the option to follow the rules based on the entrant’s skill and ability to disguise breaking them - basically saying “if you’re good enough, these rules don’t affect you.” - and that is not how you run a fair contest.

You wouldn’t disqualify an entry over someone not thinning their paints enough, or for having an amateurish build, or a drawing that doesn’t make perfect sense in a 3D space…

Leave the discretion to weeding out the bad faith/disruptive entries, not enforcing a subjective quality-based bar of entry.

These rules need to be cut and dry, and I strongly believe if it’s possible for someone to “get away with” breaking a rule, even if the entry is under heavy scrutiny, then that rule needs to be revised.

If cutting tubes to officially produced, or specified lengths is an exception to the rule - which is what I’m picking up from the lax enforcement of it - then it should be clearly stated as such within the rules, not something you have to dig through the replies in the rules topic only to find vague non-answers for. And alternately, if it’s not allowed, clearly state as much within the publicly available rules.

8e. Painted pieces are allowed, however only monotone paint jobs are allowed. (I.e: A mask can not be painted/dyed with two colors)
and
8h. 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.

Transparency with ‘unspoken rules’...

In full, the ruling for painted masks as I understand it is that only 1 paint colour can be used on any given mask - as you guys have said; you ban multiple shades of paint.


…and so long as the original plastic colour of the base mask shows through for the majority (e.g. just painted runes, or colouring details), a ‘dual-toned’ paint job was allowed.

Since this is the case, the exact wording of 8e is somewhat misleading, (beyond implying dyes are allowed.)
By; “only monotone paint jobs” - it’s implied only flat out recolours of masks are allowed, in contradiction with the immediate follow-up of; “can not be painted/dyed with two colors” and the elaboration on that rule in the pictured quote above.
Something like these would abide by a literal interpretation of that ruling:



However; this last example was @Gerou100’s entry to the Artakha contest, and was disqualified for supposedly breaking rules: 8e. with the mask, and 8h. with the pauldrons.

On a surface level, this particular build doesn’t break any of the rules as they were written at the time of entry - and as they still are even now, and as such, caused confusion as to why exactly it was DQ’d over the removal of stickers and the use of a two-toned custom mask, despite the base colour being that of the material it was printed in.
The grounds on which this entry was actually disqualified were later clarified in an amendment to those rules basically stating that pre-applied stickers should be treated as prints, and custom masks are not subject to the same rules regarding paint - that they must be monotone (a Nak and Jay podcast - dunno which one, but if it helps anyone who feels like finding it, it was in response to my comments)

The reasoning is sound imo (at least on the custom mask thing, I do not agree on the stickers at all, but alas) - the masks produced by LEGO come in a fairly limited range of colours, and you’re only allowed to take 1 paint colour to those, either completely recolouring it or adding a secondary colour - but not both. Whereas with custom masks, you get to choose what colour to print it in, so applying another paint colour as a secondary is comparable to painting it with more than one colour, which would be against the rules.
The issue is not with the rulings themselves but the fact the only place they were mentioned, and enforced was in response to Gerou100’s appeal - after the entry period had closed, which not only was incredibly unfair to Gerou100 but to anyone else who may potentially make the same “mistake” of simply not abiding by rules they aren’t aware even exist because they’re so hard to track down, they’re not publicly available anywhere else, when they should be included in the initial set of rules in the first place, and the number of entries that broke those rules slipped by before.

While those are being updated, I’d personally like to see these rules made to be more consistent across both 3D printed masks and official parts.
As I stated earlier, the wording of 8e. is unclear as to exactly what actually is and isn’t allowed; are we limited to full monotone recolours? or to only using 1 shade of paint per part to create two-toned parts?

Should you be able to create marbled masks so long as you only apply 1 colour paint?
What if the marbling is intrinsically part of the original piece? Should you be allowed to recolour half of it with 1 paint colour?
If no to any of those, what exactly is the distinction between a marbled and two-toned part? you’re not creating a new pattern, you’re just changing the colour of one already there and keeping ‘in spirit’ of the original part.

Where the hell does something like @Galva_Nize’s Mask of Creation featured in his entry fit into this? It’s clearly a two-toned custom mask - and unless these rules are changed, something like it shouldn’t slip through the cracks, let alone make it to the finals unscathed again.

Should entrants be required to provide an example of/link to the paints, ratios or techniques used, like how custom parts need to be sourced/provided, digital moc files must be shared and breakdown photos necessary to be entered - all for the sake of accessibility during, and recreatability after the contests?

Why does the exact wording of 8h. mean that you cannot remove the print from a (teal, for example) piece even if it isn’t unique and comes unprinted, but only in (teal)?
(I doubt that instance will ever actually come up, but it’s a flaw in the way the rule is written nonetheless.)

As you’ve probably noticed, these rules have left me with a lot of questions, and if answered, the actual rules should probably reflect them…

8f. Dyed pieces are not allowed.

Why is this a rule, specifically...?

Maybe it’s just me, but I fail to see why the distinction between dyeing and painting parts exists in the first place, or why the former is banned when painting parts, and resin, 3D printed or bootleg replicas of parts are allowed…
I can tell you right now, a dyed red mahri visor is far more accessible and durable than a resin replica/print of one in trans red.
Where does that leave Sharpies and other permanent markers? They’re ink based, a kind of mid-point between paint and dye. And if allowed, again, why aren’t dyes?

If you read all that; thanks! Means a ton, I hope you’re well, and if you’re Meso or Eljay, understand I’m not trying to be harsh or belittling, just thorough.

I understand the rules on non-purism are largely in place for the sake of accessibility and replicability of the models in the event that they win - and to some degree, also creating a fairer competition where the mocs are being judged on their build, not their intricate paint jobs and modifications, while also being in-part influenced by what the people behind BS01 are willing to have on their wiki… But I think these rules in particular need to be a lot more clear cut, especially since the upcoming contest is a free-for-all including all mediums, and as we’ve already seen, it’s something people are going to want to be as creative as possible with.
:stuck_out_tongue:

In summary:

  • arbitrary restrictions and/or things that can’t be effectively enforced = get rid of ‘em.
  • perfectly justified rules = actually have them stated in the rules.
  • make things consistent, fair and as non-confusing as possible.
8 Likes

Ahhh so no KhingK’s mask emulation, my Pouks MOC was aesthetically made to match that mask. Anyways I’m not sure if I missed it but is the Hydraxxon mask allowed?

The mask on my artakha wasn’t dual tone?

They said they’re allowing Hydraxon’s mask, yes.

Finally got Biopack downloaded into Stud.io (thanks in no small part to this thread), so I made a prototype Kualus to get used to using Stud.io, and I wanted to get a quick community aggregate on whether it’d be disqualified:

I apologize for the very basic posing in these. This is literally like the third time I’ve ever used Stud.io and I have no idea what I’m doing :stuck_out_tongue: In that second pic he’s supposed to be using the shield as a snowboard, and the spears as ski poles, if it’s not obvious

The second picture I can certainly say would be disqualified, as the spear is broken into two pieces and the shield isn’t being held in a hand. However, I’m only mostly certain the first picture would be as well, as the spear has two tips, and the tip(s) are too small. A confirmation on these either way would be appreciated though. (I can confirm that everything else conforms to exactly how Norik is constructed.)

Also, another question I’ve only thought of now: are the Rhotuka ripcords going to be required to be included in physical/Stud.io MOCs?

4 Likes

:man_shrugging:

2 Likes

I really like the concept, and it looks a lot like my own Kualus so Im a but biased in that regard.

I gotta say though, I think the spear is a bit much. Like a REALLY cool concept and props to you for it, but we don’t have anything in the lore indicating splitting spears/dual function properties for them, so it feels like a slight over reach.

Regardless, I really enjoy the idea, props to you my guy!

1 Like

This raises an interesting … point.

Anyways, (as you reel from that comedic GENIUS) that MOC raises the question of whether the butt of the spear is allowed to have small additions, such as the piece you used. It would make sense by the way “spear” has been used historically, but that said no other Hagah has it, and it would be hard to coordinate whether a specific team member has a uniquer weapon when entrants are individual.

And yes, “uniquer” is apparently a word.

3 Likes

The whole thing is the same translucent resin, which granted isn’t ideal for the contest either.

It just looks that way cause the top is thinner than the bottom.

In my defense I didn’t think the mask would matter as much since it was gonna be redone with the art contest anyhow

3 Likes

That is still the Artakha of my heart.

To me, the fact that these weapons already have unique powers inherent to them already made them unique enough. I’d be interested to hear what others have to say as well though

More unique aesthetically, I meant.

The masks are worn to honor past heroes. Though not impossible, it’s very unlikely that any “hero” would use something like the Avsa, and the fact that it’d warrant an explanation is probably enough of a hassle to warrant the rule. I don’t think it’s a necessary requirement, but it’s an understandable one.

1 Like

I dunno. I mean, Matoro had a Tryna, but was still a hero. Or they could be honoring a matoran with an immoral mask, since Matoran masks don’t have powers.

Wearing Tryna wasn’t Matoro’s choice.

4 Likes

I don’t see why that’s relevant. Wether he wanted to or not, he wore it, and was a hero.

1 Like