Collecting UCS vs "regular" sets

[bjorn77]

Hi. Since I recently started buying SW Lego, I've been torn between the UCS sets and the standard (minifig scale) sets. Being that the scale is so different, they don't really go together at all. What's your view on this, do you buy both types or do you focus on one of them? The UCS sets seem a lot of fun to build, but I really don't have the space to display them anywhere, and the price tag is of course a bit hefty. I feel that you get a lot more value for money when buying the regular sets (price per peice etc), although the building experience might not be as good.

I might also add that I have a 3 months old son who will (hopefully) enjoy Lego in some years from now, and the playability of the standard sets should be much higher.

[cavegod]

I only collect the UCS Sets, of which none are on display at present as I hate dusting them! When I do build them my Daughters 6, 4 help me and no doubt my Son will when he's older. I would love to have a Lego room with them on display but at least I know that I have them for in the future when Space permits.

[mpaisana]

I only collect regular sets. They're less expensive and have more play value, I think. I love to see how they recreate small ships and scenes with few bricks and pieces! If you have a kid I sugest you get regular sets. I don't have kids yet but I plan to build a "legotheque" and for that, I want them to have as many different pieces and ships and scenes as possible (I also collect LOTR and Hobbit to get castle / pirate pieces)!

[Fuppylodders]

I have both! Well, I have the 10212 shuttle and Im collecting the pieces for the UCS y-wing, but I also have a lot of the 'minifig scale' vehicles such as the at-te, republic gunship, tie fighters etc. When I have a place of my own, ill probably display ucs seperate to the system stuff. I see no reason why not to collect both, afterall, if you like it, why not get it regardless of nametag?

[Walter Kovacs]

I collect both. I have five UCS sets currently, plus the MIDI sized Malevolence (the one where the instructions came from the Rescue R2 game) and a crapload of system sets. System sets give you more bang for the buck, so to speak. My UCS sets are display only, and are the only sets in my collection which never get taken apart. But UCS sets look simply

[Rook]

I've run into this problem too. I starting collecting in 2000 right after the 1999 series came along. Though by the time I realized I hadn't got all of the 1999 and 2000 sets it got a bit costly to chase some of them down. And there were several that personally weren't worth buying in the first place, the Bucket Set for example. So then when the UCS stuff starting coming out I bought a couple but soon realized that their price tags were just going up and up. So I decided to just buy Star Wars sets with Minifigures thinking that would solve the problem but then they released several UCS sets with Minifigures. So I gave up on the whole complete collection thing and in the mean time Lego keeps updating their contract with the Star Wars line. So in the end I have to say. Decide what your goal is the sets. If you want to build and play, stick to the Minifig stuff. It's to build and display only then the UCS is great because there’s only a few sets and you can save up to buy only a couple sets per year.

[Faefrost]

I do mainly the System / Minifig stuff. I love how detailed the UCS sets are and they look so fun. But I just don't have the space for them, plus at this stage I could never afford the ones I really want like the MF.

[mortesv]

I have a room filled with UCS sets - 18 I think. They do take up a lot of space, but when I dust them off - every other day - I really enjoy it :)

[The_Chosen_1]

^ Every other day! You must live next to a sawdust factory.

I also collect both, although I mainly stick to System-scale sets. I've restricted myself to only purchasing UCS sets that include minifigures, so I currently own the Millennium Falcon, Death Star, Imperial Shuttle, and Super Star Destroyer.

[BlueberryWaffles]

I like System better because dey have more minifigs.

[Brickdoctor]

I don't actually collect sets in what would be considered the proper or conventional way, since every set I buy is eventually broken down for pieces and I haven't actually displayed a set, System or UCS, in several years. But I think that you should start out with a mix of both, with the UCS primarily to display and the System primarily to play with. Over time I think you'll start to want more of the UCS accuracy* in the System sets and more of the System functionality in the UCS sets, and that leads to building your own models which can combine the best of both worlds, which I think should be the ultimate goal of every FOL.

*Okay, so UCS sets aren't completely accurate. But for the most part they look more accurate than their System counterparts.

[BrickieB]

I personally prefer the UCS sets as these are more of a challenge to build for adults, and I have no desire to play with them. However, I also have play sets and though these are interesting builds sometimes, I mainly bought them as future play toys for my kids. So UCS are daddy's toys :)

[Aeroeza]

I've always loved how Lego can push a good sculpt!! Throw a Star Wars ship into the mix and I'm a sucker. I think I've got one more UCS than Mortsev (and if I didn't I'd say I did anyway - AT AT doesn't count ). Big toys for big boys and space be dammed...

[B34TBOXX5]

For me, it all depends on what you're after in the diverse Lego universe. You want bricks? You want models for display? You want a fleet for your army of minifigs? Some of the UCS are not appealing to me, specifically the ones in microscale. I like building things with the thought that a minifig will be operating it, cockpits, controls, should he have a droid? An escape pod? Part of the fun for me is trying to create a practical environment for my pilot/crew/operator, so I am only really attracted to minifig-scale sets. Not to say some of the UCS aren't, (AT-AT, Millenium Falcon) but if your set/moc isn't designed to accommodate a minifig, who's going to operate it?

I'm a big kid I guess, I get carried away with my imagination when i'm building.

My advice? No matter what you decide to do, if you are a Star Wars fan, do NOT pass up an opportunity to buy the 9493 X-Wing and 9492 TIE Fighter. They look amazing on the shelf together.

[Anio]

microscale

Just a remark about the word "microscale".

In Lego, microscale is actually not a scale but a size.

I mean, there is no UCS model which is "microscale" ! ^^

Some for mid-scale (MF and ISD).

[Vindicare]

I guess you could say I collect both. While I missed a lot of UCS in the Dark Days, I started with 10225 R2-D2. Granted he is my only one, I would get others. While I'm a big SW fan none of the ships interest me enough to buy them. I do like the ships, just not enough to spend that kind of cash when theres many other System sets I'd rather have. Now, a Slave I would be another thing completely.

[bjorn77]

My advice? No matter what you decide to do, if you are a Star Wars fan, do NOT pass up an opportunity to buy the 9493 X-Wing and 9492 TIE Fighter. They look amazing on the shelf together.

These were the first two I bought, and they are already displayed on a shelf together :). I just ned to create a stand for the X-Wing to display it in attack mode.

I am now building the 7965 Millennium Falcon, which is my 3rd SW set so far. Also bought a few Stormtroopers which I was missing in the set since it's the "escape from Death Star" scene :)

[B34TBOXX5]

I mean, there is no UCS model which is "microscale" ! ^^

I'm not one to argue, and I'm a noob when it comes to the AFOL world... But wouldn't the Star Destroyers be considered microscale? They include an ISD for scale to the SSD, it looks like what I would call microscale, but I could be wrong?

[Anio]

Yes, the mini ISD can be considered as microscaled.

But not the Executor.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Anio

[Brickdoctor]

It depends on your definition of micro-scale. TLG tends to define its scales by size of a model compared to the average set, not by the size of a model compared to the 'real' thing*. The Executor and its included ISD are at close to the same scale compared to the 'real' craft in Star Wars, but compared to the typical System set the Executor is much bigger and the ISD is much smaller. I know Anio tries to stick as close as possible to TLG's own definitions and regulations of terms and building techniques, so I assume that that is why he doesn't consider the Executor to micro-scale.

*See also the two midi-scale sets: at completely different scales compared to the 'real' Falcon and ISD, but close to the same size compared to each other.

[nukescientist]

As a SW collector, I buy one of everything. In hope that when I get my own house, I can display them all.

[Alcarin]

UCS is the way to go!

[legomas]

UCS are supposed to be "models" and regular sets "toys". However the difference is becoming less clear every year.

I only collect regular sets because I prefer the "toy" look. Also, modern regular sets are sufficiently good models to me.

If I want a better model I would use glue and paint instead of Lego.

[B34TBOXX5]

Yes, the mini ISD can be considered as microscaled.

But not the Executor.

It depends on your definition of micro-scale. TLG tends to define its scales by size of a model compared to the average set, not by the size of a model compared to the 'real' thing*. The Executor and its included ISD are at close to the same scale compared to the 'real' craft in Star Wars, but compared to the typical System set the Executor is much bigger and the ISD is much smaller. I know Anio tries to stick as close as possible to TLG's own definitions and regulations of terms and building techniques, so I assume that that is why he doesn't consider the Executor to micro-scale.

*See also the two midi-scale sets: at completely different scales compared to the 'real' Falcon and ISD, but close to the same size compared to each other.

I now understand completely what you mean by the different scales. The larger ships are detailed as per their relative size, but the ships that are smaller are detailed to minifig size. I never considered comparing the scales to "larger than" and "smaller than" system sets.

I should have just looked at Anio's flickr and It would have been realised a lot quicker...

[BrickG]

Minifigure scale all the way. But some UCSs are minifigure scale. Those are the best ones. :)