LEGO Collectable Minifigures Series 3 discussion

[Aanchir]

I have a feeling that the reason there are no spare parts is so that people will have to buy more minifigs to get more parts. It just seems like a way for TLG to make more money.

...Alternatively, LEGO now can measure more precisely, and no longer need to include spare parts. It's a way of saving money, not making it.

The point of spare parts has never been to help MOCists stock their drawers/bins-- rather, spares of very small parts are included so that if a set missing one of these pieces makes it to stores (considering that such small parts could easily be missed by the weight check), the set will still be complete.

Presumably the lack of extra pieces now is evidence that LEGO is performing more precise checks on the weights and contents of the minifigures and thus that they no longer need spares as a fallback. Which, in any event, is a good thing, as it means less of the instances we'd heard about back in Series 1 and 2 concerning minifigures that were missing important parts.

[Brickdoctor]

Has anyone else downloaded the new Collectible Minifigures game for the iPhone? My brother and I were playing with that at dinner. It's pretty simple-- it shuffles collectible minifigure heads, torsos, and legs much like a triple-wheel slot machine, and "collects" those which end up matching up. But it's also fun just to see what zany combinations it makes. Sometime I might want to play that and build for real the funniest combinations it cooks up!

More information here!

UPDATE: So I finished S3 and I started on S2...did TLG ever envision this combo:

Presumably the lack of extra pieces now is evidence that LEGO is performing more precise checks on the weights and contents of the minifigures and thus that they no longer need spares as a fallback. Which, in any event, is a good thing, as it means less of the instances we'd heard about back in Series 1 and 2 concerning minifigures that were missing important parts.

I agree. I remember reports of missing Spartan helmets that made people pretty mad, but I haven't heard anything from S3 releases.

[jonwil]

...Alternatively, LEGO now can measure more precisely, and no longer need to include spare parts. It's a way of saving money, not making it.

The point of spare parts has never been to help MOCists stock their drawers/bins-- rather, spares of very small parts are included so that if a set missing one of these pieces makes it to stores (considering that such small parts could easily be missed by the weight check), the set will still be complete.

Presumably the lack of extra pieces now is evidence that LEGO is performing more precise checks on the weights and contents of the minifigures and thus that they no longer need spares as a fallback. Which, in any event, is a good thing, as it means less of the instances we'd heard about back in Series 1 and 2 concerning minifigures that were missing important parts.

Most of my 2011 sets (police, Atlantis etc) still have the spare parts

[blueandwhite]

I agree. I remember reports of missing Spartan helmets that made people pretty mad, but I haven't heard anything from S3 releases.

My first Hula Girl was missing her torso, so mix-ups are certainly still possible.

[Blondie-Wan]

My first Hula Girl was missing her torso, so mix-ups are certainly still possible.

Yikes! That sucks. When you say "missing," do you mean completely missing (that is, no torso at all), or did it just come with a different torso from the one it's supposed to come with?

[dr_spock]

Considering everyone is choosing to fell up the bags for this series, I have a question about previous series. Were you able to fell the parts through the bags of series 1 and 2, since everyone used barcodes for them?

I'm asking because I haven't experienced a sealed fig first hand.

Feeling is doable if there is unique piece in the bag like a skate board. The bag is somewhat thick. Maybe if we can get a portable x-ray machine.

[jonwil]

I used the feel-the-bag trick to find many of my S3 figs and will be doing so again with S4. Many of the unique S4 parts shouldn't be that hard to find (surfboard, skateboard, guitar/hairpiece etc)

[Captain Green Hair]

I just got series 3 last week and I must say I love it.

The new caps look great and the detail like the ears on the elf are great!

What is also pretty cool is the stereo and the fishing rod, can be used in any town.

[Gregorovich]

Yesterday I got the Baseball Player and the Samurai. The baseball player's cap and bat are nice, and his torso could be useful. The samurai's torso is lovely, as it could be female or male, and his sword is very nice too. My Argos is running out of figures I don't have though, as they only have the Mummy and the Pilot !

[Miss Kyle]

I'm not getting the hang of the feeling trick, and the current UK packages come without dots. Two pilots yesterday, d'oh! I can open a shop soon...

... no wait! I just found the dots! Wohoo!

Edited February 20, 2011 by Miss Kyle

[Ogre]

In my travels with these I've come across 5 different lot numbers and 6 different bump codes...one lot number having two bump codes.

Using the Elf and hula girl as a guide there were indeed 5 different bump patterns for him amongst the 5 lots...some were very close to being identical but actually differed a small bit. And, quite often, the rapper had a very similar pattern as the elf, with the addition of a bump overlapping with the lot stamp. Assortments also seemed to have differed...early cases has only 2 fishermen but have found boxes with up to 4.

I even have the case it came in and has the Chinese distributor on it :).

I have been finding these at Chapters/Indigo up here in Canada...not sure where all my comments in other threads about this have gone... they look to be confining it to one box out at a time, between the four locations I have been

Chapters at Kennedy Commons in Scarborough had three boxes worth out at once...one box at the main cash and two boxes worth dumped into a bin in the kids section.

Where could i find that dot-guide? I've got an almost full series now (I miss only the snowboarder) but I want an army of elves and I need to find it quickly because the shop guy gets angry if I touch the bags too much...

I was able to identify elves in about three seconds when looking for mine, so I don't think the 'touch' method is too hard. I found it much harder trying to decipher the dots and gave up on THAT method.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Ogre

[Miss Kyle]

I just googled the dot code and found it quickly. And it works, at least roughly - got my rapper, samurai and gorilla! Now I only need the baseball player and the cyborg. Woop!

Edited February 20, 2011 by Miss Kyle

[Ogre]

I have to say, I LOVE those elves!

I wish they had done two different elf figures though...one archer, with bow, quiver and cape and one with sword, that AWESOME shield, cape and HOOD (in dark green).

Who knows...maybe in a later series? *fingers crossed*

[Blondie-Wan]

I have to say, I LOVE those elves!

I wish they had done two different elf figures though...one archer, with bow, quiver and cape and one with sword, that AWESOME shield, cape and HOOD (in dark green).

Who knows...maybe in a later series? *fingers crossed*

That's a lovely idea about an elf with sword and hood, although I think having a hood would obscure the most distinguishing feature of its "elvenness." I also understand not having both a quiver and a cape (but as long as quivers are available in Pick-A-Brick, at least we can easily equip our own elves with quivers and use the capes for something else).

Anyway, I do hope they do more elves in later series, ideally with different weapons (or other accessories) as you suggest.

[Ogre]

That's a lovely idea about an elf with sword and hood, although I think having a hood would obscure the most distinguishing feature of its "elvenness." I also understand not having both a quiver and a cape (but as long as quivers are available in Pick-A-Brick, at least we can easily equip our own elves with quivers and use the capes for something else).

Anyway, I do hope they do more elves in later series, ideally with different weapons (or other accessories) as you suggest.

Heck, I just slapped a couple of spare quivers UNDER the capes on a couple of figs! LOL Since the arrows stick up over the shoulder, you just have to move the cape slightly so it looks a bit 'thrown back out of the way'. Looks pretty freakin' cool, IMO.

[Ro87n]

Heck, I just slapped a couple of spare quivers UNDER the capes on a couple of figs! LOL Since the arrows stick up over the shoulder, you just have to move the cape slightly so it looks a bit 'thrown back out of the way'. Looks pretty freakin' cool, IMO.

Could you make and post a close-up picture of it please?

Btw. I need to start making pictures too from some minifigs I mixed up with others.

For example I used the Pilot from S3 and the Cowboy of S1 to make a steampunk(ish) figure.

I needed to switch the helmet and backpack for the darker brown coloured version to make it look better.

And what used to be the Pilot (now mixed with the Cowboy parts) more looks like a sheriff, but with no star however.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Ro87n

[Ogre]

Could you make and post a close-up picture of it please?

Btw. I need to start making pictures too from some minifigs I mixed up with others.

For example I used the Pilot from S3 and the Cowboy of S1 to make a steampunk(ish) figure.

I needed to switch the helmet and backpack for the darker brown coloured version to make it look better.

And what used to be the Pilot (now mixed with the Cowboy parts) more looks like a sheriff, but with no star however.

A couple of quick shots:

He's a member of my "wood elf hunting party"

(of which, at this time, there are two five-elf squads).

Edited March 1, 2011 by Ogre

[DaleDVM]

I am very late to the game on this thread. I have a couple of complete sets of series 3 and now have 30 elves as well. I am a castle collector and have thousands of castle minis. I am collecting these for myself and not for resale.

I read through the entire thread over a period of several hours because I wanted to see what other peoples take was on the army collecting figs. In this series the elf obviously is the offending figure. I saw a lot of arguements on both sides over should purchases be random or not. Should the bags have identifying marks on them? Should people buy up all of the figs they want leaving none of certain figs for anyone else coming in to buy them?

I really didn't see any arguements that come from my point of view. Before the first series was even available anyone with half a brain knew that the army building figs would draw prices on the secondary market much higher than the other figs. All of the arguements on this thread were a result of a rarity caused by the lack of certain figures. Namely figures people army build with. The fact is that no matter how cool a figure is very few are needed in multiples in the tens, hundreds, or even thousands. However, one person building an army of hundreds can throw demand for certain figs completely off. There would be no arguing, no unhappy children, etc. if the figures were available more in line with demand.

I place the blame for rarity of army building figs and all of the subsequent problems squarely on the LEGO company. If a kid wanted a spartan or elf and couldn't find one, I feel the LEGO company denied them access to the figure by creating a rarity of the figure. This was done so they could drive sales of the unwanted figures and make more money. To blame consumers who desire a product and are doing there best to purchase what they want is ridiculous. To even blame the secondary market for buying up the figs is silly. The secondary market wouldn't be profitable if people were able to get the figs they wanted at retail prices. TLG are the only ones who had a say in production and packaging and all responsibility rides with them.

I feel that a box of 60 figs should contain two complete sets of the series. One for keeping and one for trading. I think the remaining 28 figs should have come from the army building figs. I define an army building fig one that someone would want in multiples larger than 10. In series one Forestman, Ninja, Indian, and Zombie. Perhaps the spaceman and robot as well. In series 2 only the Spartan really fits the definition. In series 3 the Elf, Samurai, and maybe the cyborg qualify and the prices on bricklink show I am right. All the talk about the fisherman being too rare is silly. It may be the rarist fig but demand for it is just normal and it balances out. The price of the fisherman is at retail on bricklink. The elf is going for 2.5 to 3 x retail prices.

5 racecar drivers with the exact same uniform per case? What a joke. You won't even be able to give them away. If you think TLC didn't know exactly what they were doing when they put out this product then you are really naive.

Don't get me wrong. I love all of the collectable figs. I love LEGO products. But I hate to see AFOLs turn on one another for a problem that our favorite company started. We should be holding them accountable not the fans of their products.

Edited March 2, 2011 by DaleDVM

[Aanchir]

I am very late to the game on this thread. I have a couple of complete sets of series 3 and now have 30 elves as well. I am a castle collector and have thousands of castle minis. I am collecting these for myself and not for resale.

I read through the entire thread over a period of several hours because I wanted to see what other peoples take was on the army collecting figs. In this series the elf obviously is the offending figure. I saw a lot of arguements on both sides over should purchases be random or not. Should the bags have identifying marks on them? Should people buy up all of the figs they want leaving none of certain figs for anyone else coming in to buy them?

I really didn't see any arguements that come from my point of view. Before the first series was even available anyone with half a brain knew that the army building figs would draw prices on the secondary market much higher than the other figs. All of the arguements on this thread were a result of a rarity caused by the lack of certain figures. Namely figures people army build with. The fact is that no matter how cool a figure is very few are needed in multiples in the tens, hundreds, or even thousands. However, one person building an army of hundreds can throw demand for certain figs completely off. There would be no arguing, no unhappy children, etc. if the figures were available more in line with demand.

I place the blame for rarity of army building figs and all of the subsequent problems squarely on the LEGO company. If a kid wanted a spartan or elf and couldn't find one, I feel the LEGO company denied them access to the figure by creating a rarity of the figure. This was done so they could drive sales of the unwanted figures and make more money. To blame consumers who desire a product and are doing there best to purchase what they want is ridiculous. To even blame the secondary market for buying up the figs is silly. The secondary market wouldn't be profitable if people were able to get the figs they wanted at retail prices. TLG are the only ones who had a say in production and packaging and all responsibility rides with them.

I feel that a box of 60 figs should contain two complete sets of the series. One for keeping and one for trading. I think the remaining 28 figs should have come from the army building figs. I define an army building fig one that someone would want in multiples larger than 10. In series one Forestman, Ninja, Indian, and Zombie. Perhaps the spaceman and robot as well. In series 2 only the Spartan really fits the definition. In series 3 the Elf, Samurai, and maybe the cyborg qualify and the prices on bricklink show I am right. All the talk about the fisherman being too rare is silly. It may be the rarist fig but demand for it is just normal and it balances out. The price of the fisherman is at retail on bricklink. The elf is going for 2.5 to 3 x retail prices.

5 racecar drivers with the exact same uniform per case? What a joke. You won't even be able to give them away. If you think TLC didn't know exactly what they were doing when they put out this product then you are really naive.

Don't get me wrong. I love all of the collectable figs. I love LEGO products. But I hate to see AFOLs turn on one another for a problem that our favorite company started. We should be holding them accountable not the fans of their products.

You're assuming that:

a) "Army-builder" figs are obvious to anyone, and everyone who wants to get multiples of a fig intends to get multiples of these specific figs. In your assessment of which figs are "army-builders", you manage to completely ignore any sports figs like the cheerleader or baseball player, as well as others that could be useful in multiples like the clown, crash-test dummy (my brother points out every time I mention "crash-test dummies" as an archetype of an undesirable fig that it'd be great to have at least four of them to put in a minivan crash test), space alien, or mummy. Is there any reason LEGO should know beforehand that these won't be hugely popular? Their focus-group testing tends to be with kids-- the actual target audience-- and so anticipating AFOL preferences isn't something they have much data for.

b) LEGO cares which figs are army-builders and which aren't. It seems silly that they should artificially increase the rarity of certain figs just based on the expectation that people won't want multiples, and decrease the rarity of others based on the expectation that they'll be "army-builders". That just caters to people who actually want multiples and leaves people who are satisfied with one of each-- or even just a handful of unique figs-- in the dust.

c) The assortment of the collectible minifigures was strictly based on having fewer "popular" figs and more "unpopular" figs. True, there were a lot of race car drivers. But for all we know, focus groups might have loved the race car driver-- keep in mind, after all, that LEGO does not currently have a race theme at minifig-scale. And it's rather backwards to be complaining about LEGO distributing the figs in slightly-uneven ratios and then advocating for vastly-uneven ratios that favor army-building figs over other figs of equal quality.

d) Army-builders being more common would cause collectors and resellers to leave some for the kids. Is this a joke? If a person is willing to cherry-pick a fig they want in the hundreds (or want to resell at a profit), it's not in their interest to just take a few and be satisfied. It's more to their advantage to take as many as they can find. True, if they end up selling the figs online, the market would be more saturated, and the aftermarket price would have to be lowered. And the low-price elves, etc. would probably be bought up primarily by other army builders, not by casual fans. In fact, it's silly to expect that lower aftermarket prices somehow equates to better availability (and profitability for LEGO). The same number of figs will be distributed either way-- except according to your distribution schema, the figs distributed should favor the tiny segment of the fanbase that wants a disproportionate amount of the available minifigures.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't myself see army-building as a problem-- at least not one that can or should be dealt with. After all, it's not LEGO's place or mine to tell people how they should enjoy their LEGO products. And I've never had difficulty finding an Elf or Spartan in stores (in fact, I tend to run into several unpurchased elves while feeling my way through a box of minifigures). My problem is with many AFOLs' (army-builders and casual collectors alike) sense of entitlement-- the notion that LEGO should facilitate us getting the figs we want in a product that's supposed to be random. The idea, for instance, that LEGO should have kept barcodes available for identifying the collectible minifigures when they were never intended for use by the consumer.

Or now, a new sort of entitlement: the idea that LEGO should rig the rarities of the collectible minifigures in favor of some people's particular favorites. Remember that one of the most often complained-about rarity issues in the collectible minifigures was the fisherman only coming two-to-a-box (this was later fixed). If it's so "silly", then why were people talking so much about it? No, the Bricklink price isn't very high, and no, the fisherman is by no means an army-builder by your definition: who needs ten fishermen, after all? You, however, seem to think fans in general would be happiest if every fig besides the highest-cost ones on Bricklink were two-to-a-box. As far as self-serving, backwards logic is concerned, this proposal (well, I suppose it's not so much of a proposal when you think it's LEGO's obligation to its fans) ranks pretty high.

Apologies for being so blunt, but it's rare that I see someone who goes to such lengths to justify their own self-interest.

[smittyfan]

I'm hoping Series 3 has a ton like series 2, which just recently sold out on S@H in the USA, but I want to buy them in stores, which I haven't seen them for the real price. ($4 at Borders is insane, but people paid for that, because they are going quick.)

yep, it's highway robbery... but i guess that's cuz they're trying to make a little profit... i hear that some of 'em are going out, so if it means i get robbed of my money, just to keep one of my favorite bookstores around...

[smittyfan]

There were ZERO elves in one of the sealed boxes I sifted through at TRU, one other sealed box had 1 Elf (I only wanted one, glad I found it), and a ton of mummies, lol.

That said, I'd still never pay the $10 people want for them

thanks... now i feel like an idiot for even considering doing that...

but, you do have the advantage of knowing what you're getting... so i'll just think on the brightside and consider that possibly in 5-10 years that $10 Elf is gonna be $20-$30 maybe even $50... so it's better to pay the $10 now... or in my case it's either 2 random figures at Borders with no guarantees of what i'll get or twice as much for what i really want... tough choice... hmm... i think i'll do some of both maybe...

[DaleDVM]

Apologies for being so blunt, but it's rare that I see someone who goes to such lengths to justify their own self-interest.

I wrote in my post that I hate to see AFOLs turn on one another due to problems caused by the TLC. And then you turned on me... I took that exactly how you meant it. I am going to try not to let you make me feel like a selfish bast__d. This will be my first real argument on Eurobricks!

Sorry to be so blunt... Aanchir you are obviously being defensive for a company you love. Heck I love TLG too. Unfortuantely your defensive posture has led you to faulty reasoning and worse yet you put a lot of words and arguements in my mouth that I never even said. I hope you are being naive due to your love of TLG. Otherwise... well... I can't say what I think cuz I want to be nice. I will try not to escalate the demenor of this discussion and will be only be equally as rude in the same places you were. I will show how my opinion differs from yours point by point and welcome a logical and less emotional reply.

As for my self interest. I am not collecting zombies, spartans, or several other army builder types of figs. My interest honestly is for everyone who collects these figs and cannot get them except at outrageous prices. I think it is a shame that TLG has turned collecting these figs into a game that only the well to do can play. If that makes me selfish then so be it.

a) "Army-builder" figs are obvious to anyone, and everyone who wants to get multiples of a fig intends to get multiples of these specific figs. In your assessment of which figs are "army-builders", you manage to completely ignore any sports figs like the cheerleader or baseball player, as well as others that could be useful in multiples like the clown, crash-test dummy (my brother points out every time I mention "crash-test dummies" as an archetype of an undesirable fig that it'd be great to have at least four of them to put in a minivan crash test), space alien, or mummy. Is there any reason LEGO should know beforehand that these won't be hugely popular? Their focus-group testing tends to be with kids-- the actual target audience-- and so anticipating AFOL preferences isn't something they have much data for.

a) Really you are going to argue that clowns, crash test dummies, etc. were going to be popular and rare? Really? I know perfectly well that some people will collect whole cheerleading squads and baseball teams. However, even sports figs will not be collected in numbers much over 10 to 20. In fact none of those figs you mentioned will be collected in large numbers. I'm not saying that noone in the whole world will want a large number of them. But it will be a very rare occasion indeed. Here is the reason that TLC should have known what was going to be popular. Since I and dozens of other members on this forum correctly predicted the most popular figs before they were even released, I think TLG had an idea as well. They are actually smart people over there. The members here didn't even use focus groups AFAIK.

b) LEGO cares which figs are army-builders and which aren't. It seems silly that they should artificially increase the rarity of certain figs just based on the expectation that people won't want multiples, and decrease the rarity of others based on the expectation that they'll be "army-builders". That just caters to people who actually want multiples and leaves people who are satisfied with one of each-- or even just a handful of unique figs-- in the dust.

b) In your first point you say TLG couldn't know what was going to be popular. In your second point you argue it would be silly to increase production of the more popular figs even if they did know? By that reasoning they should keep cranking out the pharoahs quest sets and just stop making star wars stuff. Why should TLG cater to people who actually spend a lot of money on their products? Who cares whats popular? With that type of thinking TLG will be pushing towards bankruptcy again. If there were 2 of every fig in a case instead of 3 that would really leave casual collectors in the dust? Do you honestly believe you would get screwed over and not get that magician you were hoping for? You would still be able to trade all of your elves, spartans, etc. for a crash test dummy any day of the week.

c) The assortment of the collectible minifigures was strictly based on having fewer "popular" figs and more "unpopular" figs. True, there were a lot of race car drivers. But for all we know, focus groups might have loved the race car driver-- keep in mind, after all, that LEGO does not currently have a race theme at minifig-scale. And it's rather backwards to be complaining about LEGO distributing the figs in slightly-uneven ratios and then advocating for vastly-uneven ratios that favor army-building figs over other figs of equal quality.

c) Hmmm. I never argued once that they shouldn't have uneven ratios of figs. I argued making the most plentiful fig one that nobody wants more than a few of is a joke and I stand by that. Did you honestly believe for one second everyone would be clammoring to get themselves a bunch of race car drivers? Do you really have to let the market do its thing before you can figure something like that out? I know TLG has smarter personel than that.

d) Army-builders being more common would cause collectors and resellers to leave some for the kids. Is this a joke? If a person is willing to cherry-pick a fig they want in the hundreds (or want to resell at a profit), it's not in their interest to just take a few and be satisfied. It's more to their advantage to take as many as they can find. True, if they end up selling the figs online, the market would be more saturated, and the aftermarket price would have to be lowered. And the low-price elves, etc. would probably be bought up primarily by other army builders, not by casual fans. In fact, it's silly to expect that lower aftermarket prices somehow equates to better availability (and profitability for LEGO). The same number of figs will be distributed either way-- except according to your distribution schema, the figs distributed should favor the tiny segment of the fanbase that wants a disproportionate amount of the available minifigures.

d) Sorry to be blunt again... but the real joke is your reasoning. If there are more elves/zombies/spartans, etc. in each box the odds of a kid finding them goes up no matter what the behavior of collectors is. I know for a fact that if the price on the secondary market was not driven up, many resellers wouldn't go to cherry pick in the first place. I don't resell and only collect. I don't want to go from store to store looking for figs. If I could pull 20-30 desired figs from a display of 120 or 180 total figs. I would actually leave a few behind for other collectors. However, as it is now I drive 45 minutes each way to pull out 3-6 figs. I do take them all because they are too damn rare and sometimes I waste my time and find none at all. Personally, I would rather just buy my armies on bricklink if they were reasonably priced. I never said lower aftermarket prices would give LEGO greater profitability. In fact I said the opposite. TLC purposefully drives up the prices so they can sell more boxes of figs to resellers. I will show you my incredible Nostradamus skills. In a couple of years there will still be weightlifters a plenty at very low prices on bricklink while Spartans will be almost impossible to find and at very high prices. Why did those resellers buy all of those weightlifters? So they could sell the Spartans at a premium and make money. TLC sold tons of unwanted figs due to the proportions of figs available per case. Thus they made more money. According to my distribution schema, the people who buy the most figs would have the most made for them. You find that controversial? That would make the figs just like every other product TLG makes. They make more product for the stuff that sells well. Crazy idea huh?

I don't myself see army-building as a problem-- at least not one that can or should be dealt with.

Did you just type that? I would say "at the very least" you do see army building as a problem. Is this the reason for your hostility towards me?

My problem is with many AFOLs' (army-builders and casual collectors alike) sense of entitlement-- the notion that LEGO should facilitate us getting the figs we want in a product that's supposed to be random. The idea, for instance, that LEGO should have kept barcodes available for identifying the collectible minifigures when they were never intended for use by the consumer.

Well now I know why you were so angry. However, you shouldn't have had a problem with me. I never suggested at all that we should be able to tell what kind of figs are in the packages. In fact I don't think many people would care nearly as much as they do now if the figs all had a similar value when trading and reselling them. You should be on my side in this arguement because the only way people won't care about what is in the package is if they can easily trade what they don't want for what they do at a relatively equal value. The only way to achieve this is if the figs are produced and distributed at somewhere near their actual demand. As long as supply and demand are not balanced people will do anything they can to get the figs they want because they know they will not be easily traded or sold.

Or now, a new sort of entitlement: the idea that LEGO should rig the rarities of the collectible minifigures in favor of some people's particular favorites.

I don't want TLG to cater to my favorites and never suggested that they should. I said they should cater to the demand on the market. Facts are that figs that are gobbled up in huge numbers I.E. army building are the ones that are hard to find and have high prices.

Remember that one of the most often complained-about rarity issues in the collectible minifigures was the fisherman only coming two-to-a-box (this was later fixed). If it's so "silly", then why were people talking so much about it? No, the Bricklink price isn't very high, and no, the fisherman is by no means an army-builder by your definition: who needs ten fishermen, after all?

Why was it silly? Because they were wrong! Simple as that. I was laughing at the mere mention on the forums that the fisherman was going to be rare and highly sought after. I knew then as did some others that the 2 per package does not come close to the effect that army builders have on the market. The fisherman is not in high demand and it is not rare by any means whatsoever. Even at 2 per box there were plenty to be found. I can find them every time I go to a store. Elves/Spartans not so much. I looked through about 200 packages of series 2 yesterday at the LEGO Discovery center here in Chicago. Every single fig was available in many multiples except not a single Spartan.

You, however, seem to think fans in general would be happiest if every fig besides the highest-cost ones on Bricklink were two-to-a-box.

I think fans would be happiest if they knew the figure they were buying had some value after it was bought. Who wants to pick out a magician or a race car driver that immediately loses more than half of its value when you purchase it. You would have to trade 6 or more of them to get one army building fig from anyone who remotely knows their value. And let me tell you this a lot of kids know perfectly well which figs are valuable and hard to come by. They are looking for elves and spartans just like the AFOLs.

As far as self-serving, backwards logic is concerned, this proposal (well, I suppose it's not so much of a proposal when you think it's LEGO's obligation to its fans) ranks pretty high.

As far as a Fanboy defense, using little if any logic, (confusing my arguements with others you have read on this thread) your post is just rank.

Edited March 3, 2011 by DaleDVM

[Delta 38]

Oh dear. After trying for a couple of months, I still do not have a single elf, samurai, gorilla-suited person, rapper or hula dancer. Annoyingly, most of those are ones I really want, too.

I have three sumos now, which is also annoying. On the bright side, there can now be a sumo faction in my Ninjago collection...

But back on topic, the dots are somewhat reliable in my experience. The sumos came from good faith, where I took a random one if I felt lucky. Needless to say, I'm not particularly lucky.

I really hope that the series 4 minifigs will have an easier code or something. Standing around for hours while checking each box isn't very nice.

[Aanchir]

I wrote in my post that I hate to see AFOLs turn on one another due to problems caused by the TLC. And then you turned on me... I took that exactly how you meant it. I am going to try not to let you make me feel like a selfish bast__d. This will be my first real argument on Eurobricks!

Sorry to be so blunt... Aanchir you are obviously being defensive for a company you love. Heck I love TLG too. Unfortuantely your defensive posture has led you to faulty reasoning and worse yet you put a lot of words and arguements in my mouth that I never even said. I hope you are being naive due to your love of TLG. Otherwise... well... I can't say what I think cuz I want to be nice. I will try not to escalate the demenor of this discussion and will be only be equally as rude in the same places you were. I will show how my opinion differs from yours point by point and welcome a logical and less emotional reply.

Fair enough. I apologize for being rude-- I guess I let my emotions get out of control, and I totally deserved this reply you gave me.

As for my self interest. I am not collecting zombies, spartans, or several other army builder types of figs. My interest honestly is for everyone who collects these figs and cannot get them except at outrageous prices. I think it is a shame that TLG has turned collecting these figs into a game that only the well to do can play. If that makes me selfish then so be it.

I honestly don't think LEGO intended to turn it into a "game" of this sort. Yes, the race car driver was ridiculously common relative to its demand, but on the other hand, the Fisherman was ridiculously rare relative to its demand.

As it is, of course, I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but I've been plenty of places here in the United States where Spartans and Elves remain on store shelves for a good long while. I wonder if anyone's ever tried mapping the distribution of AFOLs throughout the world... after all, places with a denser population of AFOLs nearby are more likely to run dry of the higher-demand figs.

a) Really you are going to argue that clowns, crash test dummies, etc. were going to be popular and rare? Really? I know perfectly well that some people will collect whole cheerleading squads and baseball teams. However, even sports figs will not be collected in numbers much over 10 to 20. In fact none of those figs you mentioned will be collected in large numbers. I'm not saying that noone in the whole world will want a large number of them. But it will be a very rare occasion indeed. Here is the reason that TLC should have known what was going to be popular. Since I and dozens of other members on this forum correctly predicted the most popular figs before they were even released, I think TLG had an idea as well. They are actually smart people over there. The members here didn't even use focus groups AFAIK.

While many people here (including you) may have made correct predictions of popularity, I've seen various incorrect predictions as well. So the fact that demand is easily predictable to a certain population of fans doesn't necessarily mean that it will be so obvious to everyone. Also, I have another problem with the popularity argument, which I'll discuss further down.

b) In your first point you say TLG couldn't know what was going to be popular. In your second point you argue it would be silly to increase production of the more popular figs even if they did know? By that reasoning they should keep cranking out the pharoahs quest sets and just stop making star wars stuff. Why should TLG cater to people who actually spend a lot of money on their products? Who cares whats popular? With that type of thinking TLG will be pushing towards bankruptcy again. If there were 2 of every fig in a case instead of 3 that would really leave casual collectors in the dust? Do you honestly believe you would get screwed over and not get that magician you were hoping for? You would still be able to trade all of your elves, spartans, etc. for a crash test dummy any day of the week.

My problem isn't with there being slightly fewer of any individual fig: my problem is with there being a more sizeable gap between the figs in an overall series. Based on your model (two complete sets of each, with 28 being split among "army-building figs"), as well as your suggestions of what qualify as "army-builders", Series 1 would have two each of the least-demanded twelve figs, and an average of nine each of the "army-builders". The likelihood of getting duplicates is significantly higher. Series 2, following your model (and I don't expect you even intended your model to apply to Series 2), there would be two each of the less-demanded 15 figs and 30 Spartans. For Series 3, there'd be about eleven each of the army-builders and two each of everything else. Needless to say, this model is totally insufficient for determining how to get a distribution consistent with demand.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, I have a problem with how you're gauging demand. There's no reason to assume that Bricklink is a representative sample of LEGO's consumer base. Indeed, I'm sure far more people simply buy the sets they want in stores-- particularly those people who are not hard-core or devoted LEGO fans. The Bricklink model would theoretically be most useful to people who couldn't get the quantity of parts or sets that they want in stores. So army-builders will be disproportionately attracted to the Bricklink business model. As I described before, I've rarely encountered stores where the "army-building" figs have run dry. So it's perfectly possible that among non-AFOLs, the popular figs could be different, especially considering the diversity of the places LEGO does business in (the Series 4 Hockey Player, for instance, might not be popular at all in countries or regions that don't watch or play ice hockey).

c) Hmmm. I never argued once that they shouldn't have uneven ratios of figs. I argued making the most plentiful fig one that nobody wants more than a few of is a joke and I stand by that. Did you honestly believe for one second everyone would be clammoring to get themselves a bunch of race car drivers? Do you really have to let the market do its thing before you can figure something like that out? I know TLG has smarter personel than that.

Making the most plentiful fig one that nobody wants more than a few of doesn't make much of a difference at all when the ratios are fairly close-together. As I described above, the sales model you're suggesting creates a far greater discrepancy in ratios. Granted, I'm applying the model a bit rigidly-- in reality, you'd apply it on more of a curve, with the highest-demand figs appearing most frequently in a box, the lowest-demand figs appearing least frequently in a box, and the rest spread out throughout the middle of that curve. But you still have a much more significant range of frequencies than the current distribution model (2 of a fig per box at the least, 5 per box at the most). And given the diversity of places where LEGO sets are sold (as I mentioned above), the model would not work in any place where the relative demand for each fig is inconsistent with the norm (the AFOL/Bricklink norm in this case).

This diversity of places, by the way, applies within countries as well as between countries, so having different distributions for each broader "market region" would not be sufficient to guarantee well-tailored ratios. After all, the United States is a very large, populous, and diverse market, and it's one of TLG's most profitable ones (hence its exclusion from the price inflation that the rest of the world tends to encounter with LEGO sets).

d) Sorry to be blunt again... but the real joke is your reasoning. If there are more elves/zombies/spartans, etc. in each box the odds of a kid finding them goes up no matter what the behavior of collectors is. I know for a fact that if the price on the secondary market was not driven up, many resellers wouldn't go to cherry pick in the first place. I don't resell and only collect. I don't want to go from store to store looking for figs. If I could pull 20-30 desired figs from a display of 120 or 180 total figs. I would actually leave a few behind for other collectors. However, as it is now I drive 45 minutes each way to pull out 3-6 figs. I do take them all because they are too damn rare and sometimes I waste my time and find none at all. Personally, I would rather just buy my armies on bricklink if they were reasonably priced. I never said lower aftermarket prices would give LEGO greater profitability. In fact I said the opposite. TLC purposefully drives up the prices so they can sell more boxes of figs to resellers. I will show you my incredible Nostradamus skills. In a couple of years there will still be weightlifters a plenty at very low prices on bricklink while Spartans will be almost impossible to find and at very high prices. Why did those resellers buy all of those weightlifters? So they could sell the Spartans at a premium and make money. TLC sold tons of unwanted figs due to the proportions of figs available per case. Thus they made more money. According to my distribution schema, the people who buy the most figs would have the most made for them. You find that controversial? That would make the figs just like every other product TLG makes. They make more product for the stuff that sells well. Crazy idea huh?

You make it sound as though TLG is actively scheming to make people buy figs they don't want. I highly doubt this is the case, especially since the ratios (as I've pointed out before) are close-together compared to those you're proposing. It seems more likely to me that the ratios are catered towards buyers of individual figs, not buyers of boxes. You're more likely to get duplicates with vastly-uneven ratios than with comparably close-together ones.

If LEGO tells people that there are 16 different minifigures in the series and they end up getting just a few different ones after several purchases, they're going to be a little bit disappointed. I don't in any event advocate for buying fig after fig just to complete the collection, because that would be a foolish economic decision (even though I feel all the figs are high-quality I still buy them strictly according to personal preference). But if the marketing leads people to expect a great variety of figs, and they're only likely to get a few popular figs, that's awfully misleading. As it is, LEGO never gives people any reason to expect Spartans and Elves to be common in a set of 16.

Did you just type that? I would say "at the very least" you do see army building as a problem. Is this the reason for your hostility towards me?

No, I don't see army-building as a problem. As I've stated before, I've never had any difficulty finding the "army-building" figs in plentiful supply (although I never buy more than one because, let's face it, I don't have the creativity to make good use of more than that).

Well now I know why you were so angry. However, you shouldn't have had a problem with me. I never suggested at all that we should be able to tell what kind of figs are in the packages. In fact I don't think many people would care nearly as much as they do now if the figs all had a similar value when trading and reselling them. You should be on my side in this arguement because the only way people won't care about what is in the package is if they can easily trade what they don't want for what they do at a relatively equal value. The only way to achieve this is if the figs are produced and distributed at somewhere near their actual demand. As long as supply and demand are not balanced people will do anything they can to get the figs they want because they know they will not be easily traded or sold.

I don't want TLG to cater to my favorites and never suggested that they should. I said they should cater to the demand on the market. Facts are that figs that are gobbled up in huge numbers I.E. army building are the ones that are hard to find and have high prices.

Apologies for jumping to conclusions there. But still, I feel that trying to fix the figs' rarities according to demand would be an impractical and inconsistent solution. As I've said, Bricklink demand is not necessarily consistent with the demand of LEGO's consumer base in general, and I highly doubt that kids in general will look up the rarities and aftermarket prices of their figs online before making a trade (admittedly, some people actually do this with trading cards and the like, but trading cards tend to have strict and influential artificial rarities imposed via "First Edition" markings, designated rarity symbols, and systematically uneven distribution in each pack).

Why was it silly? Because they were wrong! Simple as that. I was laughing at the mere mention on the forums that the fisherman was going to be rare and highly sought after. I knew then as did some others that the 2 per package does not come close to the effect that army builders have on the market. The fisherman is not in high demand and it is not rare by any means whatsoever. Even at 2 per box there were plenty to be found. I can find them every time I go to a store. Elves/Spartans not so much. I looked through about 200 packages of series 2 yesterday at the LEGO Discovery center here in Chicago. Every single fig was available in many multiples except not a single Spartan.

I suppose people were wrong about the fisherman. Of course, I'm also not surprised that the Spartans are gone from a place that's bound to have heavy AFOL traffic, months after Series 2 made its US debut. On the other end of the spectrum, at places with far less AFOL traffic, the boxes are rarely "picked clean" of anything. At a toy store in southern New Hampshire, there was a huge variety of Series 3 figs-- despite there being a cashier at this store who was perfectly willing to look up the dot codes online and find you the figs you wanted. At Borders book stores, there were also abundant figs of all sorts, even though they're one dollar over MSRP and I believe Borders recently declared bankruptcy (so that might not be such a viable option everywhere anymore).

I think fans would be happiest if they knew the figure they were buying had some value after it was bought. Who wants to pick out a magician or a race car driver that immediately loses more than half of its value when you purchase it. You would have to trade 6 or more of them to get one army building fig from anyone who remotely knows their value. And let me tell you this a lot of kids know perfectly well which figs are valuable and hard to come by. They are looking for elves and spartans just like the AFOLs.

I can't really claim any knowledge of what kids in general are after in these minifigure series, but I can definitely say with authority that kids and adults alike don't fall consistently under the "Bricklink model" of demand. If you read the comments on Brickset (and I caution you that some people there are perfectly willing to ignore previous comments and assume that everyone agrees with them on which figs are best), you'll see diverse assessments of which minifigures are "Spartans" and which are "Crash Test Dummies" (some people, for instance, considered the Space Villain worthless, despite his popularity among Sci-Fi builders).

As far as a Fanboy defense, using little if any logic, (confusing my arguements with others you have read on this thread) your post is just rank.

Apologies for conflating your arguments with those of other disgruntled army-builders I've encountered, but I think my logic was otherwise based strictly on my observations. Your distribution scheme seemed-- and still seems-- completely incompatible with the way these minifigures are marketed. And the idea that LEGO buyers in general tend to be consistent with the Bricklink model doesn't seem very likely considering the reasons Bricklink has such a strong appeal with AFOLs. Perhaps LEGO should put a little more consideration into which figs appear most frequently in a box and which appear least frequently, but restructuring the distribution to be even more imbalanced doesn't strike me as a reasonable solution.

[Ogre]

Personally, I had HOPED that TLG would have packed more elves per box, after seeing the crazy demand for Spartans, coupled with AFOLs asking for elves for some time now.

Alas, there are but three per box, as with the Spartan.

I don't see that as any kind of coincidence. I think it's quite intentional. After all, IN THEORY, it would sell more figures.

IMO, TLG hoped that folks would buy "handfuls" of figs, HOPING to get those elusive Spartan and Elf figures. I don't think they really anticipated fans going to the lengths they did to identify just which figs it was that they were purchasing. I've personally heard the comment "You've got too much time on your hands" several times now, when I've been feeling my way through a box or two of figs and I don't think most rational people would have guessed that 'rabid' fans of certain figs would willingly devote an hour or two out of their day to locate those elusive THREE figures in a box of sixty.

*I* would have preferred five ELVES per box, instead of five RACE CAR DRIVERS but, alas, I'm not the person in charge of such decisions.

I'll tell you this though: after receiving FOUR race car drivers in an order of eight figures from S@H, I'm NEVER buying my figs that way again, unless I have ZERO other options.