2016 UCS Reaction

[MaxTube55]

2016 has been a very successful year for LEGO Star Wars. There so far have been 37 Star Wars sets released (including the 9 sets to be released September 30th). They also made a new LEGO Star Wars TV show, The Freemaker Adventures which just aired its final episode. But 2016's UCS sets have sparked loads and loads of controversy, when the images and details of 75098 UCS Assault on Hoth it sparked outrage as many people though it costed way too much, didn't deserve the UCS title, and was a lazy attempt with so much incompleteness, and other complaints. The other UCS set is the 75159 UCS Death Star, it also has been criticized as a lazy attempt and a cash grab by LEGO.

^ 75098 UCS Assault on Hoth

^ 75159 UCS Death Star

Set Reactions: Now I totally see everyone's point on 75098 and I think it was a very poor effort by TLG, but I differ from the majority on my opinion of 75159. I believe that 75159 is great, I have heard how upset people were when 10188 was discontinued, but it was very old and needed an update. Then when we got the update everyone is so outraged and upset with TLG for not changing it much. I see that people wanted something new, but 10188 was selling well for the 7.5 years it was being produced so why change it, everyone loved the set. Now I also see why people are upset about the price hike, but two factors called for it, first is that inflation sucks and accounts for roughly $50 of the increase, and second back in 2008 there was only LucasFilm with the rights to Star Wars, but now LEGO needs both Disney and LucasFilm licencing which isn't cheap, so it sucks but we know that this had to be done to continue to make profit. Also this might be slightly biased because I got to the LEGO and Star Wars buffet late and by the time I bought my first Star Wars set in late 2015 I was not yet big enough a fan to consider buying 10188, so I want 75159 badly an that is also my final reason for why there was nothing wrong with what TLG did with 75159, because there were so many more who wanted and couldn't get the original and we now have a second chance to get it. So leave your reactions to these two sets in the comments and May the Bricks be With You, Always.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MaxTube55

[Terrasher]

Assault on Hoth when video of it came out (the animated one with the AT-ATs): "Well, obviously there's gotta be way more than that!"

Tons of disappointment.

Death Star when rumors went nuts: "An outer shell? Half a sphere? Something different? I hope one of these is right!"

Tons of disappointment.

[Cwetqo]

I must say that in general I like both sets, buth both with some reservations. Assault on Hoth is great "one-in-all" set for someone who just started with LEGO SW and wants to get all sets. Almost everybody else already has something from hoth and by getting this set just get doubles. Another problem is "UCS" badge. In my opinion, very limited spots for expensive should be kept for sets which can not done with combining several smaller sets. ALL other UCS sets represent large, single big items, which could naver be be made with combination of "system" sets. Even Ewok willage, which only one which is a bit "scaterred" works only as a whole. Ok, maybe we could have on tree as a sets, but it would not look proper. But with Assault on Hoth, it's just a combination of several "system" scale sets. It's lazy, "cheap" and inslutig to fans of UCS series, who have to get it just to keep the series complete, even if it has no place in it.

With Death Star it's different. Even 10188 was not real "UCS" for me (that was DS2), but such set could never be made on "system" scale and it's good that they used the spot. I like this new version too. Ok, maybe I hoped for larger overhaul, but anthing added would skyrocket the price and we would just not be happy with smaller DS. So, main grudge here is the price. I understand inflation, I understand licence too, but still, 10188 also had license (it just went to Presidio instead and of Burbank), but still, 120 euro is too much.

I look forward to re-done 10179, but with this ratio it will cost 800 euro and I sincerely hope that they will make smaller version (still UCS but not that behemoth).

[MaxTube55]

Assault on Hoth when video of it came out (the animated one with the AT-ATs): "Well, obviously there's gotta be way more than that!"

Tons of disappointment.

Death Star when rumors went nuts: "An outer shell? Half a sphere? Something different? I hope one of these is right!"

Tons of disappointment.

I totally understand your disappointment, but I don't share it about 75159, but I do about 75098. I think opinion on the Death Star depends on if you got the old set or not (I'm not saying you did), and I did not. I would've loved an outer shell or something, but I'm not at all disappointed with 75159 and will most likely get it because I have a second shot at it.

I must say that in general I like both sets, buth both with some reservations. Assault on Hoth is great "one-in-all" set for someone who just started with LEGO SW and wants to get all sets. Almost everybody else already has something from hoth and by getting this set just get doubles. Another problem is "UCS" badge. In my opinion, very limited spots for expensive should be kept for sets which can not done with combining several smaller sets. ALL other UCS sets represent large, single big items, which could naver be be made with combination of "system" sets. Even Ewok willage, which only one which is a bit "scaterred" works only as a whole. Ok, maybe we could have on tree as a sets, but it would not look proper. But with Assault on Hoth, it's just a combination of several "system" scale sets. It's lazy, "cheap" and inslutig to fans of UCS series, who have to get it just to keep the series complete, even if it has no place in it.

With Death Star it's different. Even 10188 was not real "UCS" for me (that was DS2), but such set could never be made on "system" scale and it's good that they used the spot. I like this new version too. Ok, maybe I hoped for larger overhaul, but anthing added would skyrocket the price and we would just not be happy with smaller DS. So, main grudge here is the price. I understand inflation, I understand licence too, but still, 10188 also had license (it just went to Presidio instead and of Burbank), but still, 120 euro is too much.

I look forward to re-done 10179, but with this ratio it will cost 800 euro and I sincerely hope that they will make smaller version (still UCS but not that behemoth).

Well a change would've been nice, but as stated earlier I don't care as I never got 10188. IMO I think real UCS needs exclusivity and a special feel not just display value, and if a giant LEGO Death Star doesn't have both I don't know what does, but what was done with 75098 doesn't hit either target. As for 10179 being re-released that would be amazing, with I think only 100 €/$ price hike. But, I think just as people are so upset about 10188's re-release, I expect people will feel the same about a 10179 re-release. I hope I hear more views on these sets.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MaxTube55

[RetroInferno]

People in the US think the 100$ hike increase is bad?

Look at what a guy from the UK has to pay for the thing, the price went from 275,99 pounds to 400 pounds.

I don't hate the 2016 Deathstar, but the 200 or so more pieces don't add better play or display value, and the price increase may somewhat be diminished in the US with inflation and such, but outside of the US? Heck no.

[bataleon]

I didn't pick up the old Death Star 10188 so I welcomed the idea of 75159.

As it turns out though I won't be buying it and quite frankly Lego Australia can EAD. They've listed in on the Australian Lego store as available from the 1st of October for AUD$800! (US$655).

Edited September 6, 2016 by bataleon

[NorvernRob]

People in the US think the 100$ hike increase is bad?

Look at what a guy from the UK has to pay for the thing, the price went from 275,99 pounds to 400 pounds.

I don't hate the 2016 Deathstar, but the 200 or so more pieces don't add better play or display value, and the price increase may somewhat be diminished in the US with inflation and such, but outside of the US? Heck no.

In some Scandanavian countries (Finland for one) the new DS is €599, equivalent to around £510 or $700!

[Flandy]

The price is rediculous, It keeps being said that this was a good seller, but are there any figures to back this up? The fact it was on sale for so long originally could be down to it being a slow seller, and certainly the number of unopened sets on ebay seems to indicate there were a lot of sets sold to speculators who thanks to this new set have lost out. How many of the originals were sold and how many are in the hands of kids who play with them? This new set just seems like a lost oppertunity to revamp and redisign the set to bring it up to 2016 lego standards.

[brobert]

I am, like most of the people, utterly disappointed by both of them. For the first time in my life, I can now afford a UCS set, and now they release these 2...I mean, even if you have sympathy for any of these, you gotta admit, this year is not the best to get into UCS.

The Hoth set is just ridiculous, unfinished, looks like all of the previous Hoth sets were just thrown into one box, and there you go.

The Death Star must be a cool playset. But it's no UCS to me. Since this iteration - like the previous one - will probably be in production for like 6-8 years, it's definitely no collectors item. And it's sure as hell no ultimate model.

It's just a bunch of scenes put together, regardless of which DS it was taking place on. It's a mess. It's probably fun for kids, but for that, it's stupid expensive.

So, I went with the UCS Slave-I instead.

[mortesv]

It is all about marketing. The Hoth set is excellent, but not what people expect of a UCS set. The Sandcrawler a few years back was also called a UCS set - and it seems it started a trend that big play-sets are also UCS. That way a re-sissue of the 10188 could not, not be UCS.

I think certain fans can feel abandoned by this decision. UCS was large, fairly accurate and highly detailed models. Some future UCS sets may still be that, but from some collectors' perspective UCS is no longer just for "people like me" and thus the branding has lost its meaning to them.

On the other hand, more customers can now feel they are buying an exclusive product, but the more sets TLG brands UCS the more the exclusivity will fade.

In the end it is a marketing decision. I am sure TLG has thought this through. What it points to, is that old UCS customers are a niche market and the customer base is somewhat saturated. Lego is running out of models to give the UCS treatment and thus the branding needs to evolve.

Edited September 7, 2016 by mortesv

[brobert]

It is all about marketing. The Hoth set is excellent, but not what people expect of a UCS set. The Sandcrawler a few years back was also called a UCS set - and it seems it started a trend that big play-sets are also UCS. That way a re-sissue of the 10188 could not, not be UCS.

I think certain fans can feel abandoned by this decision. UCS was large, fairly accurate and highly detailed models. Some future UCS sets may still be that, but from some collector's perspective UCS is no longer just for "people like me" and thus the branding has lost its meaning to them.

On the other hand, more customers can now feels they are buying an exclusive product, but the more sets TLG brands UCS the more the exclusivity will fade.

In the end it is a marketing decision. I am sure TLG has thought this through. What it points to, is that old UCS customers are a niche market and the customer base is somewhat saturated. Lego is running out of models to give the UCS treatment and thus the branding needs to evolve.

You're right on many levels, but I think now more than ever, the UCS should retain it's exclusivity. Now that Disney will keep churning out new movies, TV-shows and whatnot, there will be material for "old-school" UCS sets, easily enough for 2 a year or so.

And Lucasfilm takes this niche market seriously. Just look at the movie replica line they launched, with props that cost more than a LEGO set ever could. They are right to target all segments of the market, but watering down the UCS-line is not a good idea on my opinion. They could've introduced a new label for big playsets, and leave UCS to be what it was...

[what]

The price is rediculous, It keeps being said that this was a good seller, but are there any figures to back this up? The fact it was on sale for so long originally could be down to it being a slow seller, and certainly the number of unopened sets on ebay seems to indicate there were a lot of sets sold to speculators who thanks to this new set have lost out. How many of the originals were sold and how many are in the hands of kids who play with them? This new set just seems like a lost oppertunity to revamp and redisign the set to bring it up to 2016 lego standards.

TLG is just lazy, no excuses, period.

[atlas]

I didn't pick up the old Death Star 10188 so I welcomed the idea of 75159.

As it turns out though I won't be buying it and quite frankly Lego Australia can EAD. They've listed in on the Australian Lego store as available from the 1st of October for AUD$800! (US$655).

Amen brother. The pricing is getting out of control. I know it's ridiculous and the quintessential first world problem, but really, what a rip off!

[rollermonkey]

Insult on Hoth could have been an all time great, with an accurate generator, an actually modular base instead of a couple of rehashed bits of wall, and an actual assault force.

The old Death Star was pretty popular, but frankly it was an incredibly dated looking structure. There are dozens of ways it could have been improved, instead they chose to update the minifigs and not much else. The new build still looks like something from 15 years ago. It's sad, really.

75098 might not have been a lazy design, but it's certainly not very impressive once laid out, at least Ewok Village looks big. 75159, on the other hand is pure laziness apart from the minifig designer(s).

That's my $0.02

[xboxtravis7992]

Assault on Hoth: Overpriced, not a cohesive model. Might be worth it someday at discount.

Death Star: Same old, but I never got the original... Will be buying this one after I save some money!

[GallardoLU]

Assault on Hoth: the set is not UCS, and the name has virtually no Assault, 2 imperials, equipped with a speeder bike and a turret... oh and maybe a wampa. that's not an assault, that's a recon finding a quick death. there are great elements in the set and I wouldn't be surprised if they slowly make their way out in cheaper sets later (after all Lego loves Hoth) that said I actually love hoth too so I am still inclined to like it but it is no UCS.

Death Star (rev 2): never liked the play set style of the first one, and willingly chose to not buy it (with no regrets) the new one is exactly the same in my eyes and therefor is an easy choice not to get it. the only complaint I have is that the re-release took up a spot that could have been a different UCS set, otherwise there is no difference for me from when 10188 was still around.

so am I thrilled with 2016, no, not even close, it's the first in 4 years that I haven't gotten a UCS set. but neither am I upset about it, in fact this just boosts my VIP points for winter and into 2017 to help with savings on the next truly great UCS.

[mickywrx]

Insult on Hoth could have been an all time great, with an accurate generator, an actually modular base instead of a couple of rehashed bits of wall, and an actual assault force.

Maybe one of the Snowtroopers is Chuck Norris? ;)

Must admit, I agree with most of what's already been said.

Empire is my favourite film, so I was really looking forward to the Hoth UCS. It would have sat well with the AT-AT that I have, had it not been utterly terrible.

Death Star, as already said, is just lazy.

[Daphatty]

Assault on Hoth should not be in the UCS category. Period. It is a play set. Nothing more.

Death Star V2 version II (yes, that was intentional) is a cash grab. I'd love to see a reference that shows TLG actually pays Disney and Lucasfilm licensing rights. That makes no sense to me.

And on a related note, I feel that disappointment towards UCS sets will always be a "thing" until TLG re-releases 10221, 10179, and/or 10030. Even then, people will still complain.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Daphatty

[eldiano]

The problem with the Hoth set was the subsequent smaller sets that are identical, it was clearly obvious that Lego designed the UCS set first but their mistake was double dipping on the smaller sets based off it.

The Death Star, although the ultimate Lego set, I think everyone was hoping for a new rehaul or update of this set, what we got was the complete opposite, they could have gotten rid of decal's, updated more components from it, and above all made a better throne room for Palpatine considering the final duel has newer and better pieces than the standard set. So many missed opportunities.

Edited September 8, 2016 by eldiano

[TheBrickHitHouse]

Oh no! Not more people moaning only certain sets are 'true' UCS - as if there's some sort of science to this...

Hoth and the Death Star were just absurdly priced. If Hoth had been half the price we'd have probably concluded 'it was alright'

[brobert]

Oh no! Not more people moaning only certain sets are 'true' UCS - as if there's some sort of science to this...

Hoth and the Death Star were just absurdly priced. If Hoth had been half the price we'd have probably concluded 'it was alright'

Well, apprently the only common thing is in UCS sets recently is the huge price tag. To me, UCS sets meant greatly detailed, big format sets, which are not really targeted to kids, as they consist of way more pieces than normal sets, and don't have too many play features.

[Dukeside]

Although Hoth is overpriced I am fine with the set since I missed all the previous Hoth sets, and eBay sellers want to price gouge everyone. I don't care for resellers buying up tons of sets and inflating prices. I just want to build Lego. I do not like the Death Star re-release but in a way it's good for the same reasons. I am hoping resellers will stop buying up sets and let us who love Lego to buy them.

I am hoping Lego will release some older sets for the same reasons. A 40th anniversary MF would fit the bill nicely!

[HawkLord]

Both sets are designed to appeal to new collectors who had missed out on the bulk of Hoth material (2009-2011) or the first Death Star (2008). As such, they disappointed vocal, more long-standing fans because neither really were exciting based on the re-issue design both have.

I'm one of the disappointed in the sense that I essentially already have both sets from my old material. But, I will say that I fully understand and support Lego making this move. Both are easy, low-effort, high-profit margin sets which should add some padding to Lego's bottomline. Given the recent article of Lego scaling back to ensure quality, I can fully understand how these two sets were created in this way.

[Lobot]

From my perspective, 2016 has been a very poor year for Star Wars LEGO in general. I had high hopes when I first heard rumours about a UCS Hoth set, well until I saw it. It's a sad state of affairs when the only sets that I've actually looked forward to building were both £19.99 (Droid Escape & Carbon-Freezing Chamber). I expect to be disappointed, but perhaps the 2017 Snowspeeder will turn things around, otherwise it's going to be another cheap year for me

[Covi]

I share Lobots comments, but on the other hand I had some 'free' budget to get that UCS Tie Fighter.