Random set of the day: Viking Catapult versus the Nidhogg Dragon
Posted by Huwbot,
Today's random set is 7017 Viking Catapult versus the Nidhogg Dragon , released during 2005. It's one of 5 Vikings sets produced that year. It contains 225 pieces and 2 minifigs, and its retail price was US$20/£12.99.
It's owned by 2,836 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 $228.70, or eBay.
77 likes
34 comments on this article
"They're no match for Nidhoggs!"
What is Nidhogg?
Is there any historical proof that dragons actually had horns?
I always loved these Viking sets for the giant monsters. I'm a sucker for dragons
@Brickbuilder0937 said:
"Is there any historical proof that dragons actually had horns?"
And what about vikings? I mean, nobody knows that theory!
Not saying I don't enjoy a lot of sets made today. But I miss the cool factor Lego used to have. My MOCs usually try to invoke this era of Lego.
@Brickbuilder0937 said:
"Is there any historical proof that dragons actually had horns?"
I hear that horns harvested from live dragons are the only ones you're allowed to bolt to the side of your Viking helmet. So, yeah, no, no horns on the dragons.
@Miyakan said:
"What is Nidhogg?"
He’s supposed to be a dragon or serpent that gnaws on the roots of Yggdrasil, the world tree, and eats corpses. He also trades insults with an eagle that lives at the tree’s crown by way of a giant squirrel who acts as a courier between the two.
@Miyakan said:
"What is Nidhogg?"
A creature from Norse mythology. But what's weird about this set is that, canonically, Nidhogg was a snake, not a dragon.
Either way, he didn't really do much except chew on the roots of Yggdrasil, the world tree, and throw insults at an Asgardian eagle by way of a giant squirrel named Ratatosk.
I kid you not, a giant SQUIRREL.
Boy would that have been something to see in this theme!
And if that lore drop felt overbearing... trust me, if tomorrow's random minifigure/set is from Pharaoh's Quest, you're going to get an EVEN NERDIER lore drop about Egyptian mythology.
looks more like a ballista to me
@Fishsticks said:
"looks more like a ballista to me"
Not just a ballista, a repeating ballista, that used the minifig stand from the soccer sets to launch its projectiles: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=30488c01&idColor=11T=S&C=11&O={%22color%22:11,%22iconly%22:0}
@AverageChimaEnjoyer:
Yup. Ratatosk even shows up in the Squirrel Girl podcast. That’s right. Giant god-squirrel chatting with a girl with the power…of squirrels!
@Brickbuilder0937 said:
"Is there any historical proof that dragons actually had horns?"
historical proof mythological creature...
Sorry if burst your bubble..
Bet I'm going get blocked many, Love Dragons though...
I loved this set. That dragon terrorized Cafe Corner for years!
I liked the boats in the Vikings theme. Especially the smaller one 7016. Brick built creatures were not that appealing. I think that's why I've passed on these sets.
One of my facourites and for some reason super nostalgic to me. From the teaser for the theme in the winter 2005 catalog to its online appearance (I printed out a image at the time in anticipation for it) ... man, was I excited to get this set!
Eventually I sold this one because of shelf space reasons but a few years ago I repurchased one again. I still deeply regret ever parting with it.
Why the hype? I just love the look of the balista and dragon, the minifigs are awesome, and it was my first set with cheese slopes, the viking horms and those shark wedge plates on the catapult. It also had this masterful simplicity to it, and yet a great amount of detail and posability thanks to the recoulored bionicle parts. And the cool factor...
Yeah, this one's great. Too bad about the aftermaket prices of the theme. Castle fans sometimes spoil things that way.
The Vikings theme was cool while it lasted, I really liked that while it occupied a similar niche to normal Castle sets it had a wildly different vibe, both in terms of the architecture and design and the layout of the sets being all about taking on what were essentially Nordic kaiju rather than conventional knight against knight. We hadn’t really had anything like it before and haven’t really since
One of the rare times that LEGO’s image is wrong. The art shows one minifigure, but Brickset’s info is correct that there are two in the set.
@GSR_MataNui said:
"I always loved these Viking sets for the giant monsters. I'm a sucker for dragons "
Me too. I have this dragon in my display collection and have had since its release.
Great theme!
I found the beasts in the Vikings theme remarkable. The merger of new, and seemingly useless, Bionicle pieces with system elements produced organic forms such as had never before existed in Lego sets. Even though they looked primitive at the time, and look even more so today, they were still something completely new and better than anything that had come before.
Your average Ninjago dragon today blows the Viking beasts out of the water, much like 10497 blows 497 out of the water. But that doesn't diminish the earlier builds in the least.
I did find the non-beast elements in Vikings a bit disappointing. They were sparse and often weirdly Technic-y. The war machine in this set, for example, does not exactly scream AD 900. So what. These were still some of the best Lego play sets of the ten years spanning 1997–2007.
@AllenSmith said:
"...
Your average Ninjago dragon today blows the Viking beasts out of the water, much like 10497 blows 497 out of the water. But that doesn't diminish the earlier builds in the least.
...
"
Actually this one dragon is superior to many Ninjago dragons: It has solid wings. The Elves dragons had these too, man I wish I owned some of these.
Overall this Vikings dragon is very stbale build and thus quite playable. Only its head was maybe a little too fragile.
Today there are exceptions like 71810 but most of the dragons are with their foil or paper wings way too fragile to play with. Once this material bends or tears, have fun with your one-winged dragon. Sure, thanks to that they can be bigger and more detailed but I still miss this solid plastic wings.
This dragon has a treasure addiction. It's not worth getting shot at over a tiny chest of jewels you'll never even use.
I must say, I'm definitely loving this Norse mythology chat. It's a shame Lego didn't expand more on this Vikings theme, you think it would've been a doddle, what with it being Scandinavian but it'd quite odd they didn't go further with it. I think the most recent sets of 21343 Viking Village and 31132 drakaar and serpent really compliment well the past Vikings theme and shows how awesome they can be when smoothing out the previous niggles.
I wish I haven’t ignored Vikings sets back in the day. I didn’t like the design of monsters, but as the years went by they grew on me
@Zander said:
"One of the rare times that LEGO’s image is wrong. The art shows one minifigure, but Brickset’s info is correct that there are two in the set."
Better than showing two on the box when there's only one in the set.
I have this. It's actually a really nice set with nice parts, and for me it is basically my only true set of this theme. It's not actually a catapult in the traditional sense; it's basically a flick-fire missile machine. One of those soccer things with springs that are used to make Minifigs "kick" soccer balls is used to fire flick-fires in rapid succession. Or, in theory, at least. I can't remember how well the "clip" of flick-fires moved down to the next flick after the previous.
Also, it comes with a dark bley treasure chest, which is awesome. Too bad the gems were all yellow, would've preferred variety.
@AllenSmith said:
"Your average Ninjago dragon today blows the Viking beasts out of the water, much like 10497 blows 497 out of the water. "
I agree for certain sets but having both 497 an 10497, I wouldn't go as far as "blowing out of water".
@Zander said:
"One of the rare times that LEGO’s image is wrong. The art shows one minifigure, but Brickset’s info is correct that there are two in the set.
"
He obviously got eaten by the Dragon.
The horns are usually the bones left over after the skeleton is put back together by paleontologist's who don't know where else to put them.
This is a prime era of nostalgia for me - I'm overly fond of the 2000s sets, but 2003-2008 was a sweet spot for me. Vikings sets were not ones I got much of (I believe I got the smallest set), but spent hours combing over in catalogs. The intergrated BIONICLE parts into the creatures really got the gears spinning in my head. And this one had an excellent recolor - a Toa Nuva leg in dark red. I think a few other sets would later have that and the dark tan claws, but it was nice to see the part again after a few years.
I'm indifferent on the Viking figs, generally don't like the siege engine, but this set is a classic to me for the dragon: this isnTHE Smaug of my LEGO-verse, the stanadrad by which all other dragons are measured.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @Zander said:
"One of the rare times that LEGO’s image is wrong. The art shows one minifigure, but Brickset’s info is correct that there are two in the set."
Better than showing two on the box when there's only one in the set.
"
The box art actually shows the correct number of two minifigures. LEGO’s error is on the cover of the instructions, the image used by Brickset.
@Murdoch17 said:
"He obviously got eaten by the Dragon."
Between the time you open the box which shows both minifigures and the time you get to the instructions which only shows one, one of them was eaten. I like that idea! I’m sure that’s what LEGO would say :~P
I have my dragon from this set perched nicely on top of 21343
@rainstorm26 said:
"I have my dragon from this set perched nicely on top of 21343"
I used to have Gargantos from 76205 perched on top of 10270. Not quite the same thing, I know, but he did show up in a city in the movie...