Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:49 am
by FishRfine
yeah, guys i can get one of those for 5 bucks, with instructions but no box, 100% complete. should I go for it?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:15 am
by MarioDAlessio
Not a set I would buy multiples of when you compare what else was on offer in 1990(and for that matter now).
http://www.classic-castle.com/sets/oop1990.html
It seems this set and others that year were colourful and blended factions.
I would call the Knight holding the BF sheild a BF look at 6059 Knight's Stronghold is that armoured knight a BF.
http://classic-castle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=204
Mario
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:15 pm
by Aliencat
FishRfine wrote:yeah, guys i can get one of those for 5 bucks, with instructions but no box, 100% complete. should I go for it?
Yes!
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:43 pm
by JCool
I must be one of the few people that actually likes this set. Granted I haven't built this in the many years since I first got it, but certainly it must hold up.... right?!
*goes off and builds*
#@&! Well... not quite that bad... I understand where some people are coming from in their comments on the set, but I like the simplicity of the design and the fact that for such a small set there were two minifigs included (a big deal for me back in the day). It has a few pieces that could be used for other creations (most likely why mine didn't last long). I'd happily pay the $5 retail price for another one of these.... but probably only 1, not much of a need for an army of these little things!
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:46 am
by Elephant Knight
Not a very good set, espesially for the time period. The only redeming feture is the Falcon sheild, and that isn't that redeming.
All in all, 3 out of 10.
EKnight
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:51 pm
by DerBum
I know I have already posted my opinion about this set, but man alive I cannot believe the bashing it is taking. When this set came out I was in Lego's target age group and I enjoyed it. It was a simple boat, inexpensive and included two men... BFs to boot! This set was great for riverine operations and provided me with a good deal of enjoyment. Looking back I can say that it wasnt the best, but it cannot possibly be as bad as it is being portayed.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:43 pm
by Jojo
Hello (again)!
DerBum wrote:but man alive I cannot believe the bashing it is taking.
Dear child, having a non-glorifying opinion of something is not equivalent to bashing that respective something.
Bye
Jojo
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:13 am
by DerBum
Well, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a child... maybe in spirit, but I am not what most would consider young anymore...
When I used the term "bashing" I didn’t mean to say that people were bashing this set... I meant that it was taking a beating figuratively. Nobody in particular was unfairly judging the set, I simply didn’t see a lot of positive comments about it and so therefore it was taking a bashing. I welcome people offering their honest opinions about things; I was only trying to encourage others like me who enjoyed this set to speak out.
As an aside, I dug out the pieces to my other copy of this set and built it... now I have two again; brings back many childhood memories.
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:27 pm
by Count Blacktron
I always assumed that the boatsman was being hijacked by the Black Falcon soldier in this set. At least, that's what the catalog and box front pictures looked like to me.
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:39 pm
by dyntar
ok.. so shoot me with a crossbow for digging up this thread..[ok shoot him /\ curse my slow typing] But the torso use in this set has always annoyed me.. i collected Eagles/falcons and then black dragons when i was growing up. The lions were always the enemy. [Lions also include the crusaders.. as they were always the same faction according to aussie catalogs..] .. Its kinda like a troll wearing a crown symbol on their torso.. it just aint done lol
The way i have always figured this set is that... the eagles had been dieing out because of the strength of the Lions/crusaders.
So they joined forces with the strengthening Black Dragon/knight faction.
thats why we get the Battle dragon and 6057 the sea dragon.
i figure this set to be the Eagle/Falcons last set before fully combining with the Black Dragons.
Even though the figure head is a dragon. In europe at medieval times most ships probably would have had dragon figureheads.
This is a great little set. Its kind of unbalanced to be a real boat. too tall to be a real ship of that size but it has a symbolic meaning to me as it was one of the last sets i got before entering my dark ages... after the Lions, Eagles/falcons and Black knights disappeared i lost interest.
This is when the good sets started to die out.
my 2 cents...
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:52 am
by Baned
This was my first Castle set, so I LOVED it on that fact alone. Soon followed it with 6103, 6009, 1491, 6042, and then more and more... haha
I always viewed this as a Black Knight's vessel that was taken over by the Falcon, and that's why a lot of official imagery of this set shows the oarsmen at "gunpoint" (or crossbow-point) and he had no weapons to defend himself.
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:30 am
by quaraga
I agree that the BF is in controll and forcing his slave to row.
as far as I can see though the BF doesnt have a quiver. also stirrup style c-bows are stupid (see the 100 year war in which the biggest problem the french faced was that stirrup c-bows got pwned by the englesh longbows) now crank c-bows (used in the crusades) were so powerful that the church banned the use of them against cristians(a crank of 10 pound draw weight that ended up with a bow of several hundred pound draw weight = aniallation)
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:23 am
by ottoatm
I can't believe I never posted on this set...!
I like this set very much - "back in the day" this was one of the few boats, and the dragon in front is cool for a set. I don't have a problem with the two factions in one boat, as you are free to define their relationship (allies, enemies fighting for control of the little boat as it speeds down a river, etc
) It's also a nice way to get some small pieces (if you want them) for a decent price.
Also, "back in the day" this was how you built your armies. These new battle packs are cheating! (but wonderful)
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:58 am
by J_MAN
This is an interesting set. The Black Falcon soldier looks weird in the red pants and a gray helmet, not to mention the lack and odd selection of weapons in this set.
A crossbow and a shield? Who can use a crossbow and a shield at the same time? But hey, two more knights and some accessories are always welcome, so for that I'd give this set a 6/10.
Re: Weekly Set Review: Battle Dragon
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:16 pm
by veevers24
i have two of these and stupidly as a child threw the second set of instructions away - doh
a good set with two minifigs
The best bit is the dragons head - I have seen people straight copy this in grey/dark grey for their MOCs