UCS Sets

[Fallenangel]

If you were to go back in time a couple decades, I'm sure you'd encounter people who felt the same way about Episode 5 and 6 ships compared to those in Episode 4. Heck, I'm an early 90s child and I hardly recognized the B-Wing when it first appeared as a set, simply because most of my memories of the original trilogy ships came from Star Wars: Rogue Squadron on the N64 (most of the missions in that game took place before Episode 6, with a few significant outliers).

Now, I think if you were to give the prequel trilogy a couple more decades to "ferment", so to speak, there would be fewer people who remembered it all that differently from the original trilogy, just as today there are a lot fewer people who impose a strict partition between Episode 4 and its sequels than there were in the 80s. It will take more than kids who grew up on the prequels reaching adulthood for that feeling of "new and different" to go away.

Keeping in mind the concept of a ship having its own identity, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between the sequels to Star Wars (Sequels?) and the Prequels. I feel that craft from Empire and Jedi were given unique personalities in their respective movies, whereas in the Prequels ships merely resembled other ships. The AT-AT is ‘iconic’ because it constitutes a symbol of Imperial power in itself, not because it looks like some other ship that also symbolizes Imperial power. The X-wing and Falcon were similarly given roles in the film separate from those assigned in Star Wars.

Having said that, the aforementioned N-1 and Delta-7, as well as a few other craft (J-type 327 Nubian), do possess qualities that don’t merely mimic those of others, thus not being unworthy candidates for the UCS label within the Prequels. In due time…

As for the recent trend regarding the blurry UCS classification: TLG can load the thing up with minifigs, add a supremely off-scale interior, I don't care...as long as the vehicle itself is worthy of display alongside the earlier heavy-hitters like 10030 and the big Falcon. The new SSD is a case in point: huge, great looking set, fun build, impressive on display despite the quirky interior - doesn't bother me one bit. I would rather have 10221 come with minifigs and an interior than not have the set released at all. I would even go as far as saying the minifigs in 10221 add a certain coolness factor even though I'm not a fig collector. An enhanced experience for me, and quite possibly an attribute that could push the indecisive buyer over the edge to make a purchase instead of passing over a big grey ship. Something for everyone, perhaps

Surely you can’t be this lowlead?

What you’re saying is that minifigures and play features are acceptable in a build so long as the aesthetic quality and generally superior quality of a UCS build is retained, which I agree with. The standards for LEGO sets have been steadily increasing, the gap between System and UCS shrinking. And that is definitely a good trend. What I don’t like is that with 10221 the LEGO Group lowered UCS standards – rather than only the sets approaching an established higher quality, they appear to want fans of the upper range to compromise as well.

Edited October 4, 2011 by fallenangel309

[StoutFiles]

My UCS AT-AT

There is an UCS AT-AT already?! But, I don't think Lego with go with a version as big as mine. I had alot of problems with the legs and hips. Making them strong enough to carry the weight of the body. The neck was another problem.

I don't see them releasing a set like this. I hope I'm wrong, I would love to see their solution to the problems I came across, but, don't see it happening.

I don't see it happening either. How much would those parts cost? I don't think they could sell a minifig-scaled AT-AT at a remotely reasonable price...I think the walking AT-AT is TLG's unofficial UCS. I also think we'll get a motorized Sandcrawler in the future if they remake the set.

it was explained in detail at GWLS why the 10221 had an interior, it was not legos choice it was ordered from George Lucas, Lego was just going to have the minifigs stud next to the sticker.

He's already ruining the OT, now he's ruining the UCS line? Is there anything he won't mess with?

[lowlead]

Surely you can’t be this this lowlead?

Err, guilty. Long time lurker

Edited October 4, 2011 by lowlead

[Fallenangel]

Err, guilty. Long time lurker

I knew you were active on FBTB, but I never thought I'd see you here as well! It's always neat when MOCers from the old FBTB forums show up on other LEGO sites. I'm a big fan of your Special Edition TIE fighter, by the way.

[lowlead]

Thanks!

I'm barely a MOCer these days, all I have to show for my own creations lately is a shortened SSD stand and some AT-AT 5.0 mods that I haven't posted yet. Hopefully I'll find some inspiration for new projects before long.

Yeah, I really like the Eurobricks Forums for the constant activity. Here and FBTB are my goto places for all things LSW. Plus, there's a motorcycle thread here, which I'll contribute to soon.

-Cheers

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

No.

An interior in 10179 does compromise the strength of the build.

On the contrary, an interior in 10221 does compromise the spirit of the UCS line.

Well, I have heard that, but many people have designed interiors which, if I remember correctly, made a balance between strength and inner detail. Of course I've never been in front of one of those to know how sturdy they are.

[Aanchir]

Keeping in mind the concept of a ship having its own identity, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between the sequels to Star Wars (Sequels?) and the Prequels. I feel that craft from Empire and Jedi were given unique personalities in their respective movies, whereas in the Prequels ships merely resembled other ships. The AT-AT is ‘iconic’ because it constitutes a symbol of Imperial power in itself, not because it looks like some other ship that also symbolizes Imperial power. The X-wing and Falcon were similarly given roles in the film separate from those assigned in Star Wars.

Having said that, the aforementioned N-1 and Delta-7, as well as a few other craft (J-type 327 Nubian), do possess qualities that don’t merely mimic those of others, thus not being unworthy candidates for the UCS label within the Prequels. In due time…

Also podracers, loads of Trade Federation/CIS vehicles (like the MTT, AAT, or Vulture Droid), and a lot of vehicles seen on Coruscant. Overall, with the prequels I was quite impressed at how when there were similarities to OT ships, they seemed logical either because the PT ships were the OT ships' forerunners or just as a consequence of the ships sharing a galaxy with its own particular design standards.

Brickdoctor, your point about PT vehicles not being as iconic is pretty valid, for the most part, but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic? As I mentioned, I had never heard of a B-Wing until the LEGO one came out, and for me it still feels about as obscure as the ARC-170-- something that appeared in one of the movies, but not an extremely memorable part of any scenes (the ship I remember most vividly from the Battle of Endor, not including ground forces, was of course the timeless Millennium Falcon).

Is it just years of exposure that has given certain outstanding vehicle designs from the OT their iconic status? If that's the case, then I'm sure some of the vehicles that appear prominently in CW will end up holding a special place in some people's hearts once that has aged a couple decades. If it's a matter of unique design, there are plenty of Trade Federation/CIS ships that have that down pat.

If it's just a matter of the design quality being to a certain caliber to begin with, then things get a lot more subjective... I'm personally a huge fan of many podracer designs, with their heavily-customized "scrapyard" aesthetic and decorative paint schemes. And I had a lot of fun watching the podrace scene in Episode I. But other people consider the podrace scenes to be one of the weakest parts of the PT, and I'm sure there are many who find the design of podracers (with their flimsy connection between the cockpit and engines) too implausible to appreciate to the same degree as the sturdy-looking ships of the Rebel Alliance.

Overall, I like to remain optimistic that someday the prequels will be a little more widely acknowledged and appreciated, even if not to the same degree as the OT. I certainly feel that from an art/design perspective, the prequel trilogy had vehicles just as outstanding as many from the original trilogy. Certainly some PT vehicles can't hold a candle to some OT vehicles, but that cuts both ways-- I certainly consider the Naboo N-1 starfighter far superior to the Twin-Pod Cloud Car, for example.

[Fallenangel]

Also podracers, loads of Trade Federation/CIS vehicles (like the MTT, AAT, or Vulture Droid), and a lot of vehicles seen on Coruscant. Overall, with the prequels I was quite impressed at how when there were similarities to OT ships, they seemed logical either because the PT ships were the OT ships' forerunners or just as a consequence of the ships sharing a galaxy with its own particular design standards.

Brickdoctor, your point about PT vehicles not being as iconic is pretty valid, for the most part, but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic? As I mentioned, I had never heard of a B-Wing until the LEGO one came out, and for me it still feels about as obscure as the ARC-170-- something that appeared in one of the movies, but not an extremely memorable part of any scenes (the ship I remember most vividly from the Battle of Endor, not including ground forces, was of course the timeless Millennium Falcon).

Is it just years of exposure that has given certain outstanding vehicle designs from the OT their iconic status? If that's the case, then I'm sure some of the vehicles that appear prominently in CW will end up holding a special place in some people's hearts once that has aged a couple decades. If it's a matter of unique design, there are plenty of Trade Federation/CIS ships that have that down pat.

If it's just a matter of the design quality being to a certain caliber to begin with, then things get a lot more subjective... I'm personally a huge fan of many podracer designs, with their heavily-customized "scrapyard" aesthetic and decorative paint schemes. And I had a lot of fun watching the podrace scene in Episode I. But other people consider the podrace scenes to be one of the weakest parts of the PT, and I'm sure there are many who find the design of podracers (with their flimsy connection between the cockpit and engines) too implausible to appreciate to the same degree as the sturdy-looking ships of the Rebel Alliance.

Overall, I like to remain optimistic that someday the prequels will be a little more widely acknowledged and appreciated, even if not to the same degree as the OT. I certainly feel that from an art/design perspective, the prequel trilogy had vehicles just as outstanding as many from the original trilogy. Certainly some PT vehicles can't hold a candle to some OT vehicles, but that cuts both ways-- I certainly consider the Naboo N-1 starfighter far superior to the Twin-Pod Cloud Car, for example.

Allow me to reaffirm my position on Prequel craft in general:

I have heard Original Trilogy fans state multiple times that the X-wing, TIE fighter, and Millennium Falcon, among other ships, have their own distinctive personalities and are just as much characters in the story as Luke, Han, and Leia. The ships of the Prequels and the Clone Wars, by contrast, are numerous, impossibly diverse, and strangely impersonal. This is apparent in the lack of closeup shots of said starships in the first two Prequels (something I found quite annoying). And the lack of tangible studio models restricts the amount of love you can give to the ship. I know there are model kit enthusiasts out there who know the weathering, detailing, and kitbashed parts of the Falcon or the X-wing on a level that only a true fan would. That kind of passion isn’t possible with a cold digital model. You can talk about the Nu-class shuttle and the Pelta frigate all you want but in the end they don’t feel as realistic as the Original Trilogy starships do.

And of course this all fits in with what Brickdoctor said about how visual effects can’t tell a great story.

[Masked Builder]

I would love to see some UCS PT sets. The CTT, ARC-170, and a RGS. All of those are on my list of USC sets to get when LEGO finally decides to make them.

The set just made a lot more sense in my eyes.

"The fans are gonna love it!"

I heartily agree with you there Doc.

[Brickdoctor]

Brickdoctor, your point about PT vehicles not being as iconic is pretty valid, for the most part, but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic? As I mentioned, I had never heard of a B-Wing until the LEGO one came out, and for me it still feels about as obscure as the ARC-170-- something that appeared in one of the movies, but not an extremely memorable part of any scenes (the ship I remember most vividly from the Battle of Endor, not including ground forces, was of course the timeless Millennium Falcon).

I've said this before, I think; a vehicle becomes iconic when it can be recognized instantly and certainly as a Star Wars vehicle by someone who has had little or no exposure to Star Wars. For the record, I don't think the B-wing can be considered an iconic craft. At the same time, I don't think there are any PT craft that can claim that recognizability. (unless you count the 74-Z, but it gets just seconds of screen time in the PT and is only recognizable because of its role in Jedi) The Venator probably comes the closest, largely because it's obviously a Star Destroyer and people associate Star Destroyers with Star Wars.

[AndyC]

Brickdoctor, your point about PT vehicles not being as iconic is pretty valid, for the most part, but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic? As I mentioned, I had never heard of a B-Wing until the LEGO one came out, and for me it still feels about as obscure as the ARC-170-- something that appeared in one of the movies, but not an extremely memorable part of any scenes (the ship I remember most vividly from the Battle of Endor, not including ground forces, was of course the timeless Millennium Falcon).

Hint: The B-Wing isn't particularly iconic. It's quite an interesting design but that is all, most folk probably wouldn't instantly associate it with Star Wars other than by sheer guesswork.

Fact is you can show someone with only a marginal passing interest in Star Wars an X-Wing and they will know exactly what it is, likewise for a TIE Fighter, the Falcon, an AT-AT and probably a Star Destroyer. Most of the other vehicles probably require a degree more geekiness to be recognised, in varying degrees with Snowspeeders, Slave I and Sebulba's Podracer probably being reasonably recognisable. PT ships tend to be less recognisable simply because they're largely derivative, which was of course a necessity to give the historic feel to them.

That said, a UCS Venator would still sell like hot cakes (assuming George Lucas is kept out of design decisions this time!) because it's simply another gorgeous variation on the ISD and much loved by fans. Quite why is hard to say, something about it is just 'right' wheras say the Acclamator is instantly forgetable.

[XimenaPaulina]

but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic?

I've said this before, I think a vehicle becomes iconic when it can be recognized instantly and certainly as a Star Wars vehicle by someone who has had little or no exposure to Star Wars.

The question is, is there a particular way to tell if a certain SW vehicle "can be recognized instantly and certainly as a Star Wars vehicle by someone who has had little or no exposure to Star Wars" and hence confirm if they are "iconic" or not to these people? Any study/survey/data that can claim this? I cannot tell since obviously I am not one of these non-SW people, but to tell a certain SW vehicle isn't iconic is purely subjective and is dependent on the personal opinion of each individual. I can understand the veteran OT fans saying the X-Wing is iconic, but to claim that the same cannot be said about the younger generation's RGS is a bit biased IMO. It's like Michael Jordan fans saying LeBron James or Kobe Bryant isn't iconic. The way I see it, each generation of SW vehicles has it's own "flagship"/iconic vehicle, and that is how TLG is marketing the UCS sets. As mentioned countless times in this thread, it's all about the target audience, and it just so happened that right now the intended market of the UCS sets are the ones who grew up with the OT in the 70s/80s, and hence have the most "financial flexibility" at this point to buy these expensive UCS sets. Fast forward to the future 10-15 years from now (if the LSW license is still running), then we'd expect the target market of the UCS sets to shift to the CW previously-KFOLs-now-AFOLs.

I'm just glad I got into SW in the 90's, right smack in the middle of OT and PT/CW eras, so I tend to appreciate the best of both worlds. We already have the UCS X-Wing, which is my iconic OT vehicle, and I'd like to see a UCS RGS to represent the PT/CW, as it is one of the unique and better-looking vehicles in this era and isn't based on an OT vehicle. Though I recognize that a UCS RGS have to be substantially larger and more detailed than the system-scale one, which is already a large set in itself. It may pose problems in getting the appropriate parts-price balance but I'm still curious to see how TLG will pull it off in case they decide to release this.

[Brickdoctor]

Perhaps a better way to put it, then, would be to say that the more iconic craft are definitely OT. I don't think there's anyone who can deny that the T-65 and Falcon, to name two craft, are more recognizable than any PT craft.

I have no doubts that in a decade or so, when the PT/CW fans who are kids become adults, there will be more demand for PT/CW sets.

[StoutFiles]

Brickdoctor, your point about PT vehicles not being as iconic is pretty valid, for the most part, but at the same time one has to wonder how a ship becomes iconic? As I mentioned, I had never heard of a B-Wing until the LEGO one came out, and for me it still feels about as obscure as the ARC-170-- something that appeared in one of the movies, but not an extremely memorable part of any scenes (the ship I remember most vividly from the Battle of Endor, not including ground forces, was of course the timeless Millennium Falcon).

Iconic: It was in the OT. The OT movies are iconic, so naturally are all the ships and characters within them.

The PT is...well, the PT. Some things might be memorable, and even laughable, but nothing is iconic in it.

[Fallenangel]

The question is, is there a particular way to tell if a certain SW vehicle "can be recognized instantly and certainly as a Star Wars vehicle by someone who has had little or no exposure to Star Wars" and hence confirm if they are "iconic" or not to these people? Any study/survey/data that can claim this? I cannot tell since obviously I am not one of these non-SW people, but to tell a certain SW vehicle isn't iconic is purely subjective and is dependent on the personal opinion of each individual. I can understand the veteran OT fans saying the X-Wing is iconic, but to claim that the same cannot be said about the younger generation's RGS is a bit biased IMO. It's like Michael Jordan fans saying LeBron James or Kobe Bryant isn't iconic. The way I see it, each generation of SW vehicles has it's own "flagship"/iconic vehicle, and that is how TLG is marketing the UCS sets.

While there is no definite answer to that question, I think it is safe to say that, based on the reasons put forth in this thread, the more iconic craft are from the Original Trilogy. It was never explicitly stated in this thread that the LAAT/i wasn't as memorable as certain Original Trilogy craft - indeed, the consensus appears to be that in due time it could very well become somewhat representative of the Prequels.

As for how one would be executed, Anio said that there just isn't an interesting way to build a UCS LAAT/i. I would have to disagree with that claim - I for one would welcome a LAAT/i along the lines of psiaki's with a predominantly SNOT build. 10212 demonstrated that The LEGO Group was willing to use techniques that deviated from their usual, heavily studded approach - hopefully this trend will continue and the superior build quality of the UCS line will be upheld.

[XimenaPaulina]

Perhaps a better way to put it, then, would be to say that the more iconic craft are definitely OT. I don't think there's anyone who can deny that the T-65 and Falcon, to name two craft, are more recognizable than any PT craft.

While there is no definite answer to that question, I think it is safe to say that, based on the reasons put forth in this thread, the more iconic craft are from the Original Trilogy. It was never explicitly stated in this thread that the LAAT/i wasn't as memorable as certain Original Trilogy craft - indeed, the consensus appears to be that in due time it could very well become somewhat representative of the Prequels.

Now that I could accept, given the fact that OT vehicles have the benefit of being the 'original' and have more than 30 years of exposure under their belts compared to the relatively new vehicles from the PT/CW.

Iconic: It was in the OT. The OT movies are iconic, so naturally are all the ships and characters within them.

The PT is...well, the PT. Some things might be memorable, and even laughable, but nothing is iconic in it.

In StoutFiles's opinion, yes. But as a general opinion, that's taking it too far...

As for how one would be executed, Anio said that there just isn't an interesting way to build a UCS LAAT/i. I would have to disagree with that claim - I for one would welcome a LAAT/i along the lines of psiaki's with a predominantly SNOT build. 10212 demonstrated that The LEGO Group was willing to use techniques that deviated from their usual, heavily studded approach - hopefully this trend will continue and the superior build quality of the UCS line will be upheld.

I also think it is very possible for a UCS RGS, given that the LEGO medium is very flexible and ever evolving that newer parts/techniques may develop in the near future that would accommodate a larger-scale, better-designed, and more detailed version of the RGS.

[Fallenangel]

Now that I could accept, given the fact that OT vehicles have the benefit of being the 'original' and have more than 30 years of exposure under their belts compared to the relatively new vehicles from the PT/CW.

I also think it is very possible for a UCS RGS, given that the LEGO medium is very flexible and ever evolving that newer parts/techniques may develop in the near future that would accommodate a larger-scale, better-designed, and more detailed version of the RGS.

UCS Republic Gunship on! *

*Of course, Kiel, I'll be waiting to see your own take on the craft...

[StoutFiles]

In StoutFiles's opinion, yes. But as a general opinion, that's taking it too far...

The OT was a cultural phenomenon. The PT/CW, like the EU before it, just feeds off the established characters, ships, weapons, and universe of the OT. It can't be iconic because it's not its own idea. I'm not taking the word iconic and throwing it around willy nilly. To be iconic is to be memorable and sacred, something that every generation will look back and say "that's where it all began".

PT sets will sell because kids in general like SW, and they will want to buy SW things when they can afford them. But please, if we use the word iconic at this present time to describe the PT then we might as well just take a crap on the word.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StoutFiles

[XimenaPaulina]

UCS Republic Gunship on! *

*Of course, Kiel, I'll be waiting to see your own take on the craft...

Funny thing is even before you mentioned that I thought of trying it out in LDD after it was brought up in this discussion, I'll start with that and try to work things from there.

[Brickdoctor]

I also think it is very possible for a UCS RGS, given that the LEGO medium is very flexible and ever evolving that newer parts/techniques may develop in the near future that would accommodate a larger-scale, better-designed, and more detailed version of the RGS.

Agreed. To be honest, the RGS is one of the PT vehicles that has always intrigued me. I may not think the smooth, clean, white curves look Star Warsy, but it's always an interesting craft to see MOCed.

Besides, any vehicle based on an attack helicopter is always great fun to swoosh.

Pew-pew!

[XimenaPaulina]

The OT was a cultural phenomenon. The PT/CW, like the EU before it, just feeds off the established characters, ships, weapons, and universe of the OT. It can't be iconic because it's not its own idea. I'm not taking the word iconic and throwing it around willy nilly. To be iconic is to be memorable and sacred, something that every generation will look back and say "that's where it all began".

PT sets will sell because kids in general like SW, and they will want to buy SW things when they can afford them. But please, if we use the word iconic at this present time to describe the PT then we might as well just take a crap on the word.

If that is your strict definition of iconic, then I respect that as your opinion. Unfortunately, I have a different way of looking at the term iconic myself. I view iconicity as a generational thing, and again, please excuse me if I'm going with non-LEGO, non-SW, real-world analogies: If 'original' icons such as the OT, Madonna (music), Michael Jordan (basketball) are trailblazers in their respective fields, etc., then does that mean newer concepts/ideas/personalities who have recently sprung up and followed in their footsteps such as PT/CW, Lady Gaga, LeBron James/Kobe Bryant cannot be regarded as icons just because they are based off from something original?

[Fallenangel]

Funny thing is even before you mentioned that I thought of trying it out in LDD after it was brought up in this discussion, I'll start with that and try to work things from there.

You mentioned in your other Republic Gunship MOC thread that you were considering revisiting the craft, so that's what I was referring to.

The OT was a cultural phenomenon. The PT/CW, like the EU before it, just feeds off the established characters, ships, weapons, and universe of the OT. It can't be iconic because it's not its own idea. I'm not taking the word iconic and throwing it around willy nilly. To be iconic is to be memorable and sacred, something that every generation will look back and say "that's where it all began".

PT sets will sell because kids in general like SW, and they will want to buy SW things when they can afford them. But please, if we use the word iconic at this present time to describe the PT then we might as well just take a crap on the word.

This is certainly true from a cultural viewpoint, but for this discussion - concerning the viability of marketing meritable display models to dedicated FOLs and possibly children - I feel it is necessary to stretch or otherwise modify our standards of what is memorable or 'iconic' to accommodate the standards of the target audience of the Prequels. Remember that these kids also went gaga over 'N Sync and Digimon.

[2maxwell]

This is certainly true from a cultural viewpoint, but for this discussion - concerning the viability of marketing meritable display models to dedicated FOLs and possibly children - I feel it is necessary to stretch or otherwise modify our standards of what is memorable or 'iconic' to accommodate the standards of the target audience of the Prequels. Remember that these kids also went gaga over 'N Sync and Digimon.

Yeah, you clearly don't get which group of kids you're talking about. The 'N Sync and Digimon craze was my group of kids. Early 90s kids. Kids in college and grad school right now. PT/CW kids are still in high school.

Oh, and please, don't pretend that your generation was somehow culturally superior. Yes, there is a generational gap, but that doesnt mean that kids today have lower standards than in the past. Kids from all generations liked stupid things. God knows what kids liked back then, but it was probably stupid.

[Fallenangel]

Yeah, you clearly don't get which group of kids you're talking about. The 'N Sync and Digimon craze was my group of kids. Early 90s kids. Kids in college and grad school right now. PT/CW kids are still in high school.

Oh, and please, don't pretend that your generation was somehow culturally superior. Yes, there is a generational gap, but that doesnt mean that kids today have lower standards than in the past. Kids from all generations liked stupid things. God knows what kids liked back then, but it was probably stupid.

Ah, early 90s. My mistake - at some point they all start to run together...

I wasn't trying to imply any sort of cultural superiority - I was trying more to make the point that children and youth in general easily make icons out of the contemporary. As you said, kids have always liked stupid things - it's very possible that a few decades into the future the Prequels (or even all of Star Wars for that matter) could be viewed as just another one of those stupid things.

@KielDaMan: I'm afraid I don't quite see how linguistics ties into all this. But in any case, I feel it is important to note that StoutFiles used the phrase 'in time' in evaluating whether or not the Prequels could be considered iconic. Perhaps the contemporary figures you mentioned in your post will be rightfully considered iconic to their respective fields; perhaps not. It's been well established that StoutFiles has a very conservative and exclusive view of the Star Wars franchise, which is why he cannot regard the Prequels as icons, at least not at this present time.

Edited October 8, 2011 by fallenangel309

[apps]

Pretty sure it was just created for the tie fighter game but what about a UCS tie defender??