Random set of the day: Laval's Royal Fighter
Posted by Huwbot,
Today's random set is 70005 Laval's Royal Fighter, released during 2013. It's one of 57 Legends of Chima sets produced that year. It contains 417 pieces and 3 minifigs, and its retail price was US$39.99/£39.99.
It's owned by 3,230 Brickset members. If you want to add it to your collection you should find it for sale at BrickLink, where new ones sell for around $61.60, or eBay.
57 likes
32 comments on this article
Two days in a row of 2013 Chima sets? And on the same day as another animal-based theme's unveiling? Thank you, Huwbot, very cool!
Anyway, never got this set, but the Lion Tribe vehicles were awesome.
Great set! Still trying to hunt down this one; I started collecting Chima when the Outlands wave dropped and I barely missed this one and its corresponding wave.
The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle.
So Laval saw that Chi Razar was on the loose, and has shown up to do battle!
I personally like the wolf vehicles and spider vehicles better but the lions are cool. Chima was actually a great theme maybe they could reboot it when Ninjago finally dies after its 4th reboot/redesign not including the seasonal outfits.
Inspired by 7706?
Animals crossing a line too far.
@Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning.
@Maxbricks14: Or something from star Wars, considering 7679, 75182, and 75342.
7706's poor cousin
I really like this set, however it isn't one of my favourite Chima sets. I can see what Mark Stafford (the designer) was going for - a tank design, but it just feels very naked and lacking in some areas. Still a set I am very happy to own.
Even the vehicles are kind of pseudo-anthropomorphic based on the anthropomorphism of the characters. So meta, CHIMA.
Fabuland ain't never had none of that bunny car delivery service or a bear truck moving van...wait, didn't Friends have a dog show car that looked like a dog?
Ahhhhh!
I stand by my statement yesterday, figures are great, vehicles/mechs are meh...
@Endermen39: You make good points about the wolf vehicles (wasn't crazy about the spider ones), but I really liked the eagle vehicles, and the gorilla mech is chef's kiss.:D
@NotProfessorWhymzi said:
"somethings you should know:
1: this is a stealth tank.
2: eggplant is the jerk of fruit.
you're welcome!"
3. Eggplant should not be considered a food.
@560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use
@Brickalili said:
" @560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use"
Wouldn’t there not be an apostrophe? “The title suit is a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle” doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t the correct way just be “suits”?
I cannot believe Chima is a decade old already.
I mostly wrote the mid-sized sets of the theme's first wave off as technic frame vehicles built to perform one trick and look like an animal.
This one in particular looks striking but yet does look a bit too stretched out.
Although I still think vehicles overrepresent current sets, I actually miss those other qualities nowadays. Because this was a mid sized set at least. Now something like this would be overly detailed and full of complex shapes and have even less functionality for double the price.
And to me the best part about Chima were the smaller sets anyway. You got one excellent figure, a vehicle that does just as much as the bigger ones minus maybe one function, and they still looked like animals. Great stuff!
Oh and the animal mechs. 70003 is legendary!
I have to imagine that support beam will get jammed against something. Kind of defeats raising the vehicle up like that if it can't use suspension to handle the terrain. A simple tree stump would jam this thing.
@Endermen39 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use"
Wouldn’t there not be an apostrophe? “The title suit is a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle” doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t the correct way just be “suits”?"
Are they not pointing out that the titular fighter is in fact not the tank but an Iron Man style flying suit? Figured the armour those lions were wearing had to be for something
@MCLegoboy said:
"I have to imagine that support beam will get jammed against something. Kind of defeats raising the vehicle up like that if it can't use suspension to handle the terrain. A simple tree stump would jam this thing."
If I recall correctly, that beam wasn’t there in the preliminary images. It must’ve been added in last-minute for structural reasons.
@Endermen39 said:
"Wouldn’t there not be an apostrophe? “The title suit is a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle” doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t the correct way just be “suits”?"
No, there should be an apostrophe for the reason explained. The word "suits" simply indicates a plural (there are multiple suits). Yes, shortening "the suit is a fighter jet" to "the suit's a fighter jet" might sound odd, but it's grammatically correct.
@Lego_lord said:
"I stand by my statement yesterday, figures are great, vehicles/mechs are meh..."
Also,the show was mid,I watched the whole thing.
@Endermen39 said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use"
Wouldn’t there not be an apostrophe? “The title suit is a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle” doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t the correct way just be “suits”?"
Nope. Apostrophe internal affairs is perfectly right. The expanded sentence makes sense, but needs a comma and a hyphen, since “tank-like” is functioning as an adjective: the… suit is… a jet, not a … tank-like vehicle. Contracted: The … suit’s a … jet, not….
@Brickalili said:
" @560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use"
Apostrophe Court of Appeals would like to remind you that shoulder pads do not constitute a “suit”, and you’re not Denny Crane.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @560heliport said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"The title suit's a fighter jet not a tank like vehicle."
Excuse me, Apostrophe Police here. Consider this a warning. "
Excuse me, Apostrophe Internal Affairs here. The sentence is a contraction, a full version would be “the title suit is a fighter jet” so using an apostrophe (the same as we would for “don’t” instead of “do not” or “you’ll” instead of “you will”) is a legitimate grammatical use"
Apostrophe Court of Appeals would like to remind you that shoulder pads do not constitute a “suit”, and you’re not Denny Crane."
That sounds more like a case for the Fashion Police, not Apostrophe Police
Any lore?
@Brickalili said:
"That sounds more like a case for the Fashion Police, not Apostrophe Police"
Only if you try wearing those things under a suit coat.
One thing I vaguely remember about the Chima show was when people got Chi and powered up this sort of holographic version of their buildable action figure version would appear around them as an indication that they became stronger (not a permanent thing, more like a burst of power.)
The commercials and walmart displays and what not took this a step further and made the buildable figures into giant powered-up combatants the regular minifigs would have to deal with using the vehicles.
This added a sort of canon-adjacent excuse to play with sets in two completely different scales together, which is kinda cool.
This was a kooky design. The rest of the vehicle aside, the Lion head was lovely. I always appreciated the animal motifs that went into the Chima vehicles and this did a great job of capturing that with the head design. And the rest made for some decent parts, so overall this wasn't a terrible set to get. :)
Looks like the lion tribe got their hands on and modified an exo-force 7706 Mobile Defense Tank!