Kosh wrote:I *DO* give some credibility to the following source http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/castle/ Todd Lehman created the Fibblesnork LEGO Guide relatively close to the time frame of the set release
Todd Lehman wrote:Darrell Kienzle wrote:The Black Falcons were never an official subtheme, at least in the catalogs I have.
I think I currently have these minifigs classified as Black Knights -- is that the best categorization for them?
Ah, the Fibblesnork Guide, the mother of all fan-created LEGO set guides throughout the internet. It lead to the Lugnet Set Guide (also Todd's baby), it largley influenced the BrickLink set catalogue, and certainly establish a basis for the Brickpedia set guide. However, we must keep in mind that all these fan-created guides are just that: fan-created. Of course there are always good reasons to have a certain point of view on some sets, but none of them are official. Which means: I don't claim my own point of view to be the "right" one, either. I just think it is reasonable to see it the way I do, while other opinions also have weight.Kosh wrote: I *DO* give some credibility to the following source http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/castle/
davee123 wrote:Ultimately, this is my biggest beef with the "classic" factions of the Crusaders, Black Falcons, and Black Knights-- the Black Knights especially. The uniforms were VERY different from figure to figure.
The Black Falcons were actually pretty good-- all their foot-soldiers from 1984-1989 had Black Falcon emblems on the toros, had black arms, black helmets, and black legs. The waists were occasionally red, and they wore either bullet helms or flare helms, but otherwise were nicely consistent. Then in 1990, we have the ambiguous Battle Dragon, and Knight's Stronghold (featuring blue legs on a Black Falcon soldier, and a breastplate torso). And in 1992, we have Black Falcon soldiers with gray legs. But for 6 years, their soldiers were VERY consistent, and easy to identify.
The Crusader soldiers were more varied. They had black, blue, gray, or red legs, black or dark gray helms, and torsos with either cross-axes, lions, or breastplates. The only constant thread was red torsos with blue arms, with ONE exception in 1991 with the 1480 King's Catapult (which honestly was probably a similar "mistake" situation like 6018).
But the Black Knights were the most rag-tag bunch of misfits ever. Their soldiers have NO consistency whatsoever-- torso color, helmet color, arm color, torso design, whatever. They USUALLY wore chain mail, but so did a couple Crusaders, and so did some of the later Royal Knights. There's just no way to tell.
The KNIGHTS of each theme are a little crazier. Again, Black Falcons and Crusader Knights are ~sorta~ consistent, but there are a few exceptions. The Crusaders have that one wacky knight with a blue torso, and the Black Falcons have the one outcast with red arms. But otherwise, they follow SOME rules with torso colors. But the Black Knights again ruin everything-- no consistency whatsoever. They've got every helmet color, every leg color (even white!), every torso color, and every arm color of those available in the castle lineup.
Anyway, the Black Knights are a bunch of losers suffering from an identity crisis. The way you get Black Knights is by putting Crusaders, Black Falcons, Dragon Masters, and Royal Knights in a blender and taking whatever pansy-looking design pops out.
davee123 wrote:... or that it was included in order to use up extra printed shields ...
Frank_Lloyd_Knight wrote:This is what I've always assumed was the practical matter behind the case. But I'm also curious how folks here might attempt to explain the reason why the Durmstrang Ship is carrying the Black Falcon's arms (set #4768: http://media.peeron.com/pics/inv/setpics/4768-1.1125858594.jpg).
nanuck95 wrote:Frank_Lloyd_Knight wrote:Leftover from the Legends sets that were released in 2001 maybe?
krzyzak wrote:So is this boat a BF, or a BK?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests