Subject:
|
Re: Baseplate research (sort-of)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:54:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
738 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Adrian Drake wrote:
> In lugnet.general, James Howse writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > oops, nearly forgot about the crater plate but that doesn't count
> >
> > Blasphemy!! Some of the best sets ever were built on crater plates. Your only
> > excuse for that comment may be that you missed out on the classic space era,
> > even then you should have due respect for minifigs that can spacewalk without
> > a visored helmet.
>
> Or, more likely, he didn't include it because it's different from all the
> other baseplates mentioned in the message, in that there are no raised
> surfaces upon which to build. No studs on the craters makes it tough to put a
> building on there. I agree that the old-fashioned crater plates are extremely
> nifty.
Hmm. I think this has been discussed before -- the crater plate in the
<set:6190> Aquashark set had studs *in* the crater. The older sets (like
<set:6987>) had no studs.
Were there any stud-bearing crater plates prior to 6190?
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Baseplate research (sort-of)
|
| (...) plates (...) Or, more likely, he didn't include it because it's different from all the other baseplates mentioned in the message, in that there are no raised surfaces upon which to build. No studs on the craters makes it tough to put a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
