Brickdoctor

This is an update to the software that runs the board; the organization of the forums and topics that already exist on top of that should be unchanged.

Please don't use EB to ask to be shown leaked and confidential images.

Oh, and to add to my previous post, in case it wasn't clear, I concur that this promo deserves its own topic, as Lobot has said.

Let me first address the general case, then this particular case: Not entirely; the rumor topics are intended for anything regarding the year's set rumors and discussion, though we're usually pretty lenient when it comes to certain tangential discussions such as early reviews and availability. Promotions are kind of a gray area, especially if they involve new releases. In general, larger promotions (such as this one or May the 4th) are fine as their own topic, and a safe bet would be the set availability topic or even general questions. In this case, I'd say that it's fine to discuss the promotion here, just try to keep it relevant to the 2016 releases. Yes, it isn't strictly on topic, and I can see ways it might lead to serious derailing of the topic, and it'd be a different story if this promotion was just a sale without the minifig or if it didn't coincide with the release of new sets, but I'm not terribly concerned in this particular case. We'll move posts if they stray too far.

No, it's not. This is Star Wars rumors. The merits of asking fan sites to remove information aren't rumors, and discussion of them is not discussion about rumors. Even your own reasoning illustrates that it isn't appropriate for this topic: if the goal is to show companies that it's absurd, then it should probably be posted in the forum specifically for the community relations with TLG -- The Embassy. Then don't post. If you have nothing relevant to say, you don't have some sort of obligation to say something. "There's nothing else to discuss" is never a valid excuse for going off topic. No, seriously, the problem is that the debate about embargoes doesn't belong in this topic. If anyone disagrees, they're welcome to send me a PM (or any of the other staff, if you think going behind my back or over my head will help...), but while I respect your opinion and appreciate your input, this is not up for debate in this topic. Go for it. If you want to create a new site where you can post all the leaks you want and ignore anything TLG says to you, go ahead. EB isn't that site. We haven't built our reputation on sketchy rumors and lax guidelines for many years, and if TLG makes a reasonable request for help, we're going to do the best we can. Which, again, they haven't, in this case. This reported new embargo hasn't been officially communicated to EB in any way. I would imagine that any set list embargo would be coming from Disney or Lucasfilm, not from TLG, and the goal would be to prevent spoiling the movie plot, not to prevent clone companies from beating TLG to market.

As a reminder, this isn't the place to debate or complain about embargoes and other issues regarding leaked information; I understand that such a discussion can stem from and can concern Star Wars rumor discussion, but it itself isn't actually discussion of Star Wars rumors, and would be more appropriate in General Discussion or The Embassy. And in any case, the discussion isn't applicable to this topic for now, as EB hasn't heard anything from TLG regarding the recently leaked information. Thanks!

We've not been told anything along those lines, to my knowledge, although if this was recently announced, it could be that CopMike hasn't had a chance to let us know.

Before it goes too far, this'd probably be a good time to remind everyone that use of spoiler tags is courteous, but, with the exception of the two weeks following a movie release, it's not required in these rumor topics. Staff will not enforce their use, so, of course, neither should you. These are topics about future products, so you read them at your own risk.

Compressing it into a zip file should let you attach it to an EB post.

We don't need separate topics for whenever sets first show up in someone's local store. Merging with 2016 rumors... Original post.

We can hardly judge the scale of a set based on how it fits into your photo setup, especially since in that case, your table would be representing a matte painting of a docking platform, not a physical set that we could measure. Likewise, while I'll reserve judgment in this particular case since I haven't played the new Battlefront, video games in general are a terrible reference for canon information. Agreed, if anything, that comparison makes it obvious that the System Falcon is far too small to be minifig scale. The cockpit section is roughly okay, but that's because it's absurdly large compared to the rest of the set. In that set picture from Ep. VII, the T-70 doesn't come close to covering the length of the Falcon's disk. It gets from about the engines to just fore of the dorsal turret.

Yeah, that won't work as well with my design because of the SNOT wings. It also looks like the wings on that speeder slope downwards at closer to 45 degrees, and that gives a little more vertical space. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing; I know mine don't slope quite enough, but I stuck with the angle of the 1x2x2 slope on the inner side of the gun mount so that it'd line up nicely.)

Again, no formal criteria. It's more of a case of one staff member saying, "Hey, it seems like this guy has been around the SW forum for a long time and he always makes great contributions." It's recognition of being a longtime outstanding member in the eyes of the staff, so naturally there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. (And, of course, just because we don't give someone a tag doesn't necessarily mean we think poorly of them.) We don't have time to come up with a way to quantify quality of contributions and track everyone! Sorry if that's a really vague answer.

Done. Correct. DS II tag recipients are nominated by staff. There's no formal criteria or schedule for awarding them other than that. Officially, four for regular members, six for Fellows, unlimited for staff.

Moving to main forum and merging with General Questions...

Inactive since 2011, actually; the post from 2013 was also bumping the topic, and the creator hasn't made a post on EB in two years. Yes, let's avoid bumping topics like this, please.

I'm not sure. My initial thought was to rebuild the T-16, only because the older versions of those three MOCs sat on my shelf for years, but as display pieces go, it's a pretty bland design. There aren't very many complex shapes, and all the detailing is in white and on the back or bottom, which is quite interesting to build, not so interesting to look at. It's also a bit too large.Unfortunately, since Star Wars has no major ground conflicts, my options are pretty much nonexistent when it comes to iconic, medium-sized, generic, gray land vehicles. Or I could just ignore the idea of making it as symmetrical a set as possible, in which case the obvious choice is the X-34. It's not really a priority, in any case; school starts back up in a couple weeks, and I work a couple jobs for my professors during the year in addition to being a full time student, so I have no immediate plans for MOCs. (Unless, of course, some idea strikes that I just can't ignore, which is pretty much how this T-47 became a thing.) Ideas? Ah. Hmm, that could work for more precise shaping, but it wouldn't be any shallower (with respect to the lengthwise axis of the MOC), so it doesn't solve the big issue, which is that I need to be able to run some of the radiator fins 'through' the 1x2x2 slopes on the inner trailing edges of the wings. (And it doesn't help that the wings are brick-thick instead of plate-thick.) There also isn't much space to expand sideways, and I'd have to give up or approximate the slope of the fins, which admittedly isn't that obvious on the 'real' thing, but I do like the way it looks.As depicted in this trackpad-drawing-annotated picture: I think, ultimately, it comes down to either slightly more accurate SNOT wing angles or slightly more accurate radiator dimensions, and in both cases, it's a minor detail on the back of the MOC, so it's not a huge compromise one way or the other. It's really up to you which one you prefer if you build it. I'd rather have the slightly more accurate SNOT wing angles. Maybe I'll have to experiment with making that one portion of the wing a traditional plate. The studs would be hidden. I'm not sure if that'd flow well with the SNOTed trailing slope on the outer part of the wing, though.

Maybe I just don't know what to look for; that picture doesn't look overtly fake to me. I have no insider knowledge or anything to back this up, but it just looks like an extremely well lit photo that's been heavily retouched in certain places, such as the reflection on the Scala dish, as you said. Regarding the studs, they stand out more than I'd expect, now that you mention it. Maybe, since they're such a big part of TLG's branding, they were more heavily edited or replaced so that the logos would stand out more and they'd have more uniform shadows. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if some elements are rendered.

At least in SW, I think they're just heavily processed real pictures. There have been product photos in the past that have minor imperfections, such as bricks that aren't quite completely pushed down, that TLG would have no reason to add to renders. I wouldn't be surprised if things like stickers are composited in later, since they're hard to apply precisely and cleanly, nor would I be surprised if a large amount of post processing went into cleaning up fingerprints and reflections and enhancing that pristine, new LEGO look, but I'm pretty sure it's all based on an actual photo.

We have no rumors regarding Summer '17 releases right now. This is pure speculation and belongs in Future Star Wars Sets. Moving...

That interior definitely looks like it could fit two. (After all, Larry Lars fit two into the 8038 AT-ST.) But once they decided they were only going to include one driver minifig, I imagine they didn't want to confuse anyone by adding a second seat.

Thanks, Cwetqo. One final point that I think needs to be addressed: These are toys. You're grabbing your pitchforks because you can't post pictures of toys on a website a few weeks earlier, even though those pictures are easily found elsewhere on the Internet. Neither TLG nor EB is trying to censor your opinions; TLG made a reasonable request that EB not aid the distribution of leaked images, we respect that, and we're not going to make assumptions about that based on what happens on other fan sites. What those sites choose to do and what you do on those sites has little to no effect on what EB chooses to do. With all due respect, we're not five years old. This is not a game of "If someone else is doing something ethically dubious, it's okay for me to go back on my promises, too!" Eurobricks is a site for adults. Act like it.

I have asked Mike to ask TLG to clarify. Until I hear otherwise from him, the embargo is still on.

A reminder: the embargo on Rogue One images lasts until September 30th. I know there are other sites out there (including TLG's Facebook, apparently) that have very official looking pictures, but unless we hear otherwise from TLG, EB is continuing to respect the embargo. Do not link to, embed, or otherwise share Rogue One set images or ask for them to be shared with you on EB.

September 30th, sorry. (It's in the first post of this topic, for future reference.)