Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:54 pm
by Anubisconq
While we are on the subject of acronyms, what do we call those big hulking wall pieces with the window in the middle?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:02 am
by Lord Felix
Anubisconq wrote:While we are on the subject of acronyms, what do we call those big hulking wall pieces with the window in the middle?


I call them BUWP (Big Ugly Wall Piece) but there probably is a better one...

I like TTRP.
But I don't have any :roll:

what a shame

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:06 am
by hbl951
i truly think that this set is by far the worst of the series, and not far from one of the worst castle sets LEGO has produced. The only thing thats saves it are the figs. Although it is true that they are not unique, each one is heavily armed giving many additions to your collection. The general idea however, is definetly lacking in originality.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:45 pm
by Sir_Brick
I did happen to buy this way overpriced set becaus it was on sale. All I really liked about it was some of the armor and the bridge which if you take the axes and the gate off looks sort of like a regular bridge.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:20 pm
by Donut
Lord Felix wrote:
Anubisconq wrote:While we are on the subject of acronyms, what do we call those big hulking wall pieces with the window in the middle?


I call them BUWP (Big Ugly Wall Piece) but there probably is a better one...

I like TTRP.
But I don't have any :roll:


Hmm how about BUB (Big Ugly Bricks)?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:33 pm
by Patron of the lego
It is relatively piece worthy... 7/10
I am leniet to all lego sets :) gooday to all

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:13 pm
by Anubisconq
Donut wrote:Hmm how about BUB (Big Ugly Bricks)?


Ooh, I like it! I will likely be using that term from now on.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:18 pm
by Donut
Yay! Glad you liked :D .

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:04 am
by Kozai13
I cant even begin to describe how aweful this set is. Its a terrible value for the money and the design is just hideous. I only got this set for parts. I built it once and then took it apart. Overall: 2/10 and thats only for the pieces.

P.S. I really like those BUB's or BUWP's or whatever your calling them, just to let you know.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:59 am
by Traveler
I don't own this set, but perhaps someone can answer this question for me...

What are the axes supposed to do? From the looks of the picture, they'll just undermine the structure with every swing (and at that size, the could do some damage!) Not to mention the fact that a minifig would have to stand on thin air to release the mechanism :? .

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:02 am
by LORD DOOM
Here is my official review of this set.

THIS SET IS WEAK SAUCE


~DOOM

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:42 am
by Dr. J
Traveler wrote:I don't own this set, but perhaps someone can answer this question for me...

What are the axes supposed to do? From the looks of the picture, they'll just undermine the structure with every swing (and at that size, the could do some damage!) Not to mention the fact that a minifig would have to stand on thin air to release the mechanism :? .

They're supposed to swing down and hit the ram... as I said, all it really does is hit the gate and lets the ram right on through. :roll:

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:02 pm
by Coatsy
I agree that this is the weakest set of the KK II.3. The giant axes are ridiculous and bridge itself is so small the siege engine would be put to better use as planking for a makeshift bridge to go around the Gargoyle Bridge. The Gargoyle Bridge is small in length so one would have to think that whatever it spans is not too wide so the gates can be ignored.

I like the figures that came with the set. The KK II.3 figures had cool designs IMHO, but Adric’s visor annoys me. Most of the KK visors annoyed me. I like Karzon and friend’s helms, that style is great. And I like the plate armor had a somewhat realistic looking design on the front. It adds a nice small detail to the mini figure. I do not like the fact that the torsos are plain underneath, but the armor covers it up so it is not a big deal.

The rocky supports for the bridge are interesting and make a plain looking set have some color. Overall I got the set for the mini figures, but I honestly cannot remember if I got the set at full price or some sort of discounted price. Oh well. I intend to use the set as a piece in a large setup so it does not looking bizarre sitting alone. But with most of the sets I purchase I usually alter it or incorporate it into a larger motif.

I give the set a 5 of 10. A very average set with some nifty small aspects to it.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:02 pm
by ericgizmo
i never liked the latest knights kingdom sets

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:47 am
by Nick Durron
I sort of like this set, even though I have to admit it has some major problems. It has far too many large parts, used in places where it would have been much better to use more smaller parts. LEGO seems to be making their sets smaller and smaller, but charging more and more. So that is the next problem; the set is too expensive. They have the right to charge whatever they want, but it couldn't have cost them more than a few dollars to actually make this... how much profit do they need? In addition, the set isn't really pretty to look at. This isn't saying it has to be, but I think you'll understand what I mean if you compare it to some of the MOCs here.

That said, the minifigs were cool. I like the new shield and helmet pieces the most... Still, should I buy a set like this just for the minifigs?