Subject:
|
Re: Giant Cruiser and MOC contest
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:11:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
575 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.space, Bill Jackson writes:
> > Mini-Fig scale is the primary scale, but I'm not sure about nano-fig. What
> > does everyone think about letting nano-fig entries in? I personally think it
> > would ruin the contest.....
>
> How about spliting the contest into 2 catagories. 1 nano-fig and the other
> mini-fig. This would let those with smaller collections still participate. I
> definitly don't think Mini-Fig and Nano-figs creations should be judged
> side-by-side in this instance though.
Yeah, it's probably best to have them judged seperately, but I feel I have to
point out - I wasn't thinking "small" - I was thinking "largest I can pull off
with my collection", which is maybe 3 or 4 feet. A Battlestar at minifig
scale would be roughly 1000 studs long. (or roughly 5000 - depends on which
set of numbers you take)
I don't have my handydandy stud-to-foot-ometer here, but either way, it's
big. At least a couple hundred feet - which is distinctly more Lego than I
have.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Giant Cruiser and MOC contest
|
| (...) How about spliting the contest into 2 catagories. 1 nano-fig and the other mini-fig. This would let those with smaller collections still participate. I definitly don't think Mini-Fig and Nano-figs creations should be judged side-by-side in (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
