LEGO Star Wars Set Discussion 2025 - READ FIRST POST!!!

[icm]

I still think it will make a nice moon bus for my army of white Classic Space astronauts, if I can get it without figures for maybe $60-$70. But if the build and value are this bad for the intended purpose, it's likely to warm shelves so hard I'll be lucky to find any used copies at any price.

moon bus - Moon bus - MOON BUS!!!

[Kaijumeister]

Just watched Solid Brix’s review of the Juggernaut, and I did not expect him to tear into it that much. In short:

- Structural issues galore, I’m shocked how easy it is to break this when handling it.

- The axle for the observation post has no stopper, so you can just pull the whole thing off when raising it.

- The ridiculously small size is all the more apparent when minifigures are placed around it.

Taking into account minifigures, weapons, stud shooter ammo, and the builds for the wheels, we’re looking at around 150 pieces or so for those. So that’s just over 660 pieces going into the main body of the tank itself. I can’t help but wonder why the parts budget for this set is this low, and how on earth the build passed Lego’s QC processes. Making the wheels brick built a huge misstep for this set and I wonder if they felt forced to do it because the main build is so small.

Apples and oranges, but just take a look at this year’s Arctic Exploration Science Lab Truck (£99.99 and 1064 pieces) or last year’s Command Rover and Crane Loader (£59.99 and 758 pieces) from Lego City: large, wheeled builds with robust designs and sizeable interiors. They put the Juggernaut to absolute shame.

On the positive side, Bacara and the Marines look fantastic and it’s nice they can all actually fit inside the build. But I don’t like the implication that just because more effort goes into minifigure moulds and prints that it’s somehow acceptable for the build itself to be this half baked. No longer planning to buy this even at discount.

It’s quite disappointing, a Juggernaut with the exact same minifigure lineup but with a build quality / piece count / volume similar to the Dark Falcon or ISD would have made for a brilliant set.

Edited July 5 by Kaijumeister

[Kit Figsto]

1 hour ago, BrickPrick said:

Yep, i see it in this very moment and can not believe it. What an absolutely abysmal display. Just can not fathom how much Lego screwed this set up and what went wrong there. While it was always gonna be extremely overpriced, i thought at least the set itself would be good for what it is. That you could buy it with a good conscious at a certain price point. But boy, does it have some structural flaws. For such a compact scale, it is just unacceptable. The downscaling is supposed to work in favor of the set's stability... not against. Downright shocking. 

I'm not usually one to get super upset with LEGO's decisions (the way I see it, it's a toy and it's out of my control, not worth me getting worked up over, and I can usually see some logic in the decision making) but this one is just ridiculous.  The size comparison is super telling.  I have no problem with downscaled sets, WHEN APPROPRIATE - I've said it many times on this forum, but the 2020/21 (forgot which year, exactly) versions of the X-Wing and TIE at $50 and $40, respectively, were perfect.  Good size, great price, just enough detail + minifigure inclusions to make a really fun playable and displayable set, especially since the prior versions of those sets were like $90 and $80 and much larger than they needed to be.

The problem is that there are sets that don't need to be downscaled, this being one of them.  Previous iterations of the set have shown that for the same exact piece count, they can make something larger, but once again, it's my biggest gripe with modern LEGO (specifically SW), as it's using a bunch of tiny pieces when previously, one would do the trick.  What is the aversion to using large pieces or making large models?  I'm not asking for the return of molded baseplates or giant classic space translucent window pieces, because I know that's not happening, but it feels as if every piece larger than, like, an 8x8 plate is being phased out.  Is it just cheapness?  

[Kaijumeister]

Double posting to prevent an essay post, but conversely I really like the MTT and V-19 having watched their reviews! 
 

The droid rack deployment mechanism on the MTT is phenomenally executed, we need more clever functions like that in Lego Star Wars. However, the rack can clearly accommodate one more slot for a droid on either side which at £140 is a significant oversight or shortcut. The V-19, despite the stubby proportions and lack of a wing mechanism looks to be a dense and swooshable build with close to perfect minifigures. Both sets are the highlight of the summer wave for me.

@Kit Figsto Completely agree with your points, I think the problem is threefold:

1. There’s no longer much consistency to matching price points to appropriate vehicles based on their size and function. Larger vehicles should merit larger sets, however we now see that Lego are perfectly willing to significantly downscale vehicles just to fit a price point. A Slave I at a £60 price point just doesn’t work, but I can also understand not wanting to make a £140 set of it the same year its equivalent UCS is also released (however, that also begs the question why they thought it was so important to release both the same year to begin with). Amusingly, single person starfighters and vehicles that should be sleek and compact continue to be oversized (Jedi Starfighters, AT-RTs, BARC Speeders etc.). I would argue that even this year’s U-Wing, as decent as it has turned out, should at least have had a more fleshed out interior being a troop transport and all.

2. Even if large vehicles are allocated larger price points, it’s no longer a guarantee of being a good representation of the subject matter - see the Juggernaut. I will grant summer flagship sets tend to be at least decent most of the time, this year is the first time where the value for money is overwhelmingly bad.

3. With the dilution of system set quantities to accommodate fancy 18+ sets and buildable characters, there’s an unspoken expectation that what little system sets we do continue to get are the best they can possibly be within whatever constraints the designers have to work with. However we can see excessive shortcuts continue to be taken.

Edited July 5 by Kaijumeister

[CallumPears]

On 7/4/2025 at 4:12 PM, CF Mitch said:

I plan on BL-in Commander Bly as well as the regular 327th troopers. I'm not getting an entire MTT and whatnot just for that fig really. 

Interestingly I'm the exact opposite. 

I quite like the MTT build (even though I already have the 2007 set) but am so disappointed with the figures. Bly's various inaccurate markings combined with the usual kama issue, Aayla's lips being the wrong colour and her legs having some missing details, and the Commando Droids being the wrong colour. 

Hooray for cheap no-figures listings on eBay lol

30 minutes ago, Kaijumeister said:

On the positive side, Bacara and the Marines look fantastic and it’s nice they can all actually fit inside the build.

They look alright at first (aside from the kamas and missing pauldrons), but if you compare them with the actual designs from the movie there are several aspects which have been really messed up.

Don't know how the designers keep managing to fail so often with what should be the easiest part of their job (making the designs from scratch is impressive, so why is it the final hurdle of getting simple things like colours or the positions of certain markings correct that they keep messing up?). 

Edited July 5 by CallumPears

[Kaijumeister]

7 minutes ago, CallumPears said:

They look alright at first (aside from the kamas and missing pauldrons), but if you compare them with the actual designs from the movie there are several aspects which have been really messed up.

Don't know how the designers keep managing to fail so often with what should be the easiest part of their job (making the designs from scratch is impressive, so why is it the final hurdle of getting simple things like colours or the positions of certain markings correct that they keep messing up?). 

To be honest I think my standards when it comes to clone print accuracy are more lax than most. I do agree though that making errors like that when you’re literally working with the source material is bewildering to say the least. It’s a shame about the kamas too, they’re certainly aware of people being enthusiastic to bring them back but they’re clearly just refusing to do so at this point.

Edited July 5 by Kaijumeister

[Llewop]

15 minutes ago, Kaijumeister said:

To be honest I think my standards when it comes to clone print accuracy are more lax than most. I do agree though that making errors like that when you’re literally working with the source material is bewildering to say the least. It’s a shame about the kamas too, they’re certainly aware of people being enthusiastic to bring them back but they’re clearly just refusing to do so at this point.

I agree tbh Lego is kind of the last place you should be looking for 100% accuracy. There are other figures/toy companies that specialise in that. In 25 years of having Lego I’ve never been put off a figures design even when I was a kid the target audience it never annoyed me. 

im glad a lot of the reviewers are slamming the CTT I haven’t seen anyone be positive about it. The figures are the only good point for it but I wonder if the reviews will make Lego review the rrp or is it too late and if it sells bad it’ll just retire early?

having seen an MTT review I don’t know how previous ones deployed droids but this looks impressive and I’m leaning more towards getting this sooner rather than later and I’m at a point where I will support any kind of separatist set as LSW needs more of them 

[Flawless Cowboy]

What happened with the back of the MTT? It looks unfinished, nothing but studs. Even the 2014 model featured the right details. And the “weapons rack” feels like an afterthought. All the ingenuity went into the deployment mechanism and the model has nothing else going for it

[Llewop]

5 hours ago, Max_Lego said:

@MKJoshA, I remember you banned a guy for bringing in the Gaza events. And now you say that insulting Chinese people is perfectly fine. I understand everything, except one thing:

If I am the one responsible, why can't you just ban me already? 

I can’t remember who did the original comment but pretty sure it was a fellow Brit and I didn’t read it in a malicious way. Culturally we brits insult each other as a way of endearment. I’m sure other brits on here would say the same. Like you name the country we will have banter for it. America is allegedly britains greatest ally and trust me we hate Americans the most. If I knew all the brits on here I would honestly get in trouble with name calling but it wouldn’t be malicious it’s just cultural it’s hard to explain. Like I call my grandma a dickhead to her face sometimes and she calls me something worst. If you want to kind of understand the type of things that we say on a day to day just watch anything with Frankie Boyle in. The only way to spot a racist Brit at the moment is ask their opinion on boats crossing the channel…

[Kit Figsto]

1 hour ago, Kaijumeister said:

1. There’s no longer much consistency to matching price points to appropriate vehicles based on their size and function. Larger vehicles should merit larger sets, however we now see that Lego are perfectly willing to significantly downscale vehicles just to fit a price point. A Slave I at a £60 price point just doesn’t work, but I can also understand not wanting to make a £140 set of it the same year its equivalent UCS is also released (however, that also begs the question why they thought it was so important to release both the same year to begin with). Amusingly, single person starfighters and vehicles that should be sleek and compact continue to be oversized (Jedi Starfighters, AT-RTs, BARC Speeders etc.). I would argue that even this year’s U-Wing, as decent as it has turned out, should at least have had a more fleshed out interior being a troop transport and all.

2. Even if large vehicles are allocated larger price points, it’s no longer a guarantee of being a good representation of the subject matter - see the Juggernaut. I will grant summer flagship sets tend to be at least decent most of the time, this year is the first time where the value for money is overwhelmingly bad.

3. With the dilution of system set quantities to accommodate fancy 18+ sets and buildable characters, there’s an unspoken expectation that what little system sets we do continue to get are the best they can possibly be within whatever constraints the designers have to work with. However we can see excessive shortcuts continue to be taken.

Agree with all.  I don't think it's necessarily the designers' faults, as the Juggernaut is seemingly the first time in a while that I remember seeing a set with truly major stability issues (this problem was much, much more common 20-30 years ago, but it's really a thing of the past now), I'm guessing it's a lot more of constraints with budgets + part counts, which is where my issues lie.  The U-Wing is another great example of a set that probably shouldn't have been downscaled.  I own the previous one and the new one, in comparison, just doesn't look like as good of a toy.  The design itself is a little bit sleeker and cleaner, but as an actual, playable toy, the 2017 version seems far, far, far superior.  

The thing is, I would have no problem with paying $100-120 for an updated U-Wing at the same scale as the 2017 version.  What I don't want is a $70 version that's much smaller and somehow still seems overpriced.  There's certain sets that don't need to be scaled down, and there's also certain sets that somehow are simultaneously scaled down and still just as expensive as before.  They have to pick one, though.  

[Mandalorianknight]

1 hour ago, Kaijumeister said:

I can’t help but wonder why the parts budget for this set is this low

Because whether they're right or not, lego clearly feels that they can just put a random smattering of grey parts alongside clone troopers and people will buy it. This should be the best opportunity to prove them wrong, guys, PLEASE don't spend $160 on this just to pick up a few galactic marines.

1 hour ago, Kit Figsto said:

I'm not usually one to get super upset with LEGO's decisions (the way I see it, it's a toy and it's out of my control, not worth me getting worked up over, and I can usually see some logic in the decision making) but this one is just ridiculous.  The size comparison is super telling.  I have no problem with downscaled sets, WHEN APPROPRIATE - I've said it many times on this forum, but the 2020/21 (forgot which year, exactly) versions of the X-Wing and TIE at $50 and $40, respectively, were perfect.  Good size, great price, just enough detail + minifigure inclusions to make a really fun playable and displayable set, especially since the prior versions of those sets were like $90 and $80 and much larger than they needed to be.

The problem is that there are sets that don't need to be downscaled, this being one of them.  Previous iterations of the set have shown that for the same exact piece count, they can make something larger, but once again, it's my biggest gripe with modern LEGO (specifically SW), as it's using a bunch of tiny pieces when previously, one would do the trick.  What is the aversion to using large pieces or making large models?  I'm not asking for the return of molded baseplates or giant classic space translucent window pieces, because I know that's not happening, but it feels as if every piece larger than, like, an 8x8 plate is being phased out.  Is it just cheapness?  

It's not even just that it's downsized- it's downsized AND underdetailed! I'm fine with sets like the 2016 tank being a bit smaller than the last in exchange for excellent detailing, but this one, as @icm sort of implies, it's more in line with Classic Space's aesthetic than star wars. It looks like the Battlefront 2005 juggernaut model. 

1 hour ago, Kaijumeister said:

There’s no longer much consistency to matching price points to appropriate vehicles based on their size and function. Larger vehicles should merit larger sets, however we now see that Lego are perfectly willing to significantly downscale vehicles just to fit a price point. A Slave I at a £60 price point just doesn’t work, but I can also understand not wanting to make a £140 set of it the same year its equivalent UCS is also released (however, that also begs the question why they thought it was so important to release both the same year to begin with). Amusingly, single person starfighters and vehicles that should be sleek and compact continue to be oversized (Jedi Starfighters, AT-RTs, BARC Speeders etc.). I would argue that even this year’s U-Wing, as decent as it has turned out, should at least have had a more fleshed out interior being a troop transport and all.

It's a weird sort of condensing of sizes. Slave One should not be the same size as a 1-person starfighter.

[icm]

On 6/30/2025 at 9:22 PM, icm said:

I'm going to say something crazy here, but hear me out - 

In the past I've toyed with the idea of how the Clone Turbo Tank would fit in a Lego Space setting as a great big wheeled rover with fun suspension/steering, but 75413 is the first version of it that would really work in that setting.

• Previous versions of the CTT have used trans-brown tiles over light bluish gray plates to represent the windows at the front and the back, but this one uses new trans-dark blue plates and trans-blue tiles to have windows that actually let light through. It's got Space window colors like @danth likes so much.
• The brick-built wheels of the CTT remind me of the hubs of last year's Friends rover, and the whole body of the CTT is lower, smaller, and sleeker than previous versions.
• The gun turret on the top deck of the midsection has been shrunk down so much it looks like a satellite dish for communications, the blasters under the rear cockpit now look more like exhaust pipes than weapons, the big turret on the side of the midsection now looks like more comms or radiofrequency sensor gear, the mast-mounted observation post is now so clearly and irredeemably vulnerable that it must be another sensor or antenna or, if an observation post, one that was never intended for any combat situations.
• The main hold of the CTT, which has always been sparsely and skeletally furnished in previous versions, not great for carrying cargo and pretty awful for carrying troops, is now comfortably furnished to hold five seated troopers and could easily hold six or seven.
• The sand blue, trans-dark blue, and tiled surfaces really shift the aesthetic away from the heavily-studded armored Republic gray look, more towards a sleeker Space gray look.

So, yeah - the 75413 Republic Juggernaut is a pretty bad Clone Turbo Tank, but it's a pretty good large Space rover. If I can get it half price without minifigs, I'll load it up with a bunch of white Classics and with a CS'24 crew and see which looks better.

I'm not warming up to the Force Burner Snowspeeder yet, but I'll probably grab the windscreen on PaB or Bricklink and see if inspiration strikes for something Blacktron.

@Mandalorianknight, I laid it out in detail in this post from Monday, but I hadn't quite settled on the concept of a Moon bus yet. I think that with red tiles swapped for blue and a few small changes in cosmetic details, the new CTT could be a good neo-Classic Space Moon bus that would fit in well with the look of the 10497 Galaxy Explorer. There were several medium-sized Classic Space sets that were mostly gray, so it wouldn't be out of place among them. Picture this rolling across a gray Moonscape with lots of craters, delivering scientists and equipment from a spaceship at a landing pad to an excavation with a Kubrick/Clarke-style Monolith! Not that I'll ever build such a big scene, but that's what it suggests to me.

[Llewop]

14 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Because whether they're right or not, lego clearly feels that they can just put a random smattering of grey parts alongside clone troopers and people will buy it. This should be the best opportunity to prove them wrong, guys, PLEASE don't spend $160 on this just to pick up a few galactic marines.

It's not even just that it's downsized- it's downsized AND underdetailed! I'm fine with sets like the 2016 tank being a bit smaller than the last in exchange for excellent detailing, but this one, as @icm sort of implies, it's more in line with Classic Space's aesthetic than star wars. It looks like the Battlefront 2005 juggernaut model. 

It's a weird sort of condensing of sizes. Slave One should not be the same size as a 1-person starfighter.

I suppose the question is and I haven’t done any research with these remakes if they maintained their scale but with improved level of detail that we get with some of the new building and design techniques would we not see the prices go up even more so than they have now and if they do, how many people would want to pay for them? I’m not defending it but shrinkflation is everywhere and it’s a question we all got to ask ourselves is do we want it at the right scale but cost more or cost what it used to be but smaller? 

Starfighters they have the downsizing quite well the only thing they need to improve on is having pilots being able to sit and not lie down looks stupid imo. But these large land vehicles they need a finer balance. 

before we had pics and info just set names I wanted everything day 1 but after seeing more and more I’m struggling to justify it tbh the only one that I would is maybe the MTT I’ve never had one and I quite like the quirky separatist vehicles. 

im also lucky that my birthday is 31 July which means I normally have a whole Load of money for the August wave so chances are my family and wife will be paying for the MTT and anything else probably on a deal down the line 

[Kit Figsto]

53 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Because whether they're right or not, lego clearly feels that they can just put a random smattering of grey parts alongside clone troopers and people will buy it. This should be the best opportunity to prove them wrong, guys, PLEASE don't spend $160 on this just to pick up a few galactic marines.

I think this is also the issue.  People on YouTube on Instagram and Reddit are going to complain nonstop about prices/design/whatever else regardless, just as it's been for the past 5 years (and in this case, I do feel that it's justified), yet, lo and behold, I'll bet that most LEGO stores will still sell out of the majority of this wave on August 1st.  

There's no real incentive for them to change their design practices if stuff is still flying off of the shelves as it has been for years now.

[Darth_Bane13]

Seeing the new CTT just makes me wish we got a UT-AT instead. The new CTT looks so bad compared to the old ones.

[Tariq j]

Having seen Solid Brix’s review that CTT is pretty poor. In some way it feels like Juniors/4+ set that got upgraded to a regular set at the last minute or something.

[Gontron]

46 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

Having seen Solid Brix’s review that CTT is pretty poor. In some way it feels like Juniors/4+ set that got upgraded to a regular set at the last minute or something.

I've seen a few people making a conspiracy that it was a last minute vehicle swap because they weren't confident with a UT-AT. Honestly it feels that way, for some reason the proportions feel closer to something like in Bad Batch than live action. 

[BrickPrick]

4 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I'm not usually one to get super upset with LEGO's decisions (the way I see it, it's a toy and it's out of my control, not worth me getting worked up over, and I can usually see some logic in the decision making) but this one is just ridiculous.  The size comparison is super telling.  I have no problem with downscaled sets, WHEN APPROPRIATE - I've said it many times on this forum, but the 2020/21 (forgot which year, exactly) versions of the X-Wing and TIE at $50 and $40, respectively, were perfect.  Good size, great price, just enough detail + minifigure inclusions to make a really fun playable and displayable set, especially since the prior versions of those sets were like $90 and $80 and much larger than they needed to be.

The problem is that there are sets that don't need to be downscaled, this being one of them.  Previous iterations of the set have shown that for the same exact piece count, they can make something larger, but once again, it's my biggest gripe with modern LEGO (specifically SW), as it's using a bunch of tiny pieces when previously, one would do the trick.  What is the aversion to using large pieces or making large models?  I'm not asking for the return of molded baseplates or giant classic space translucent window pieces, because I know that's not happening, but it feels as if every piece larger than, like, an 8x8 plate is being phased out.  Is it just cheapness?  

I absolutely agree. Usually don't get too emotionally invested in criticizing of what is essentially a toy, either. But the Clone Turbo Tank hits different for me. I have waited a long time for a new one. Still regret not getting the 2016 model. Took it with a good amount of humor when this Tiny Tank finally got leaked and officially revealed. Yet another highly overpriced (and then some) set that will still be worth getting at a deep discount later on, i thought. But seeing the structural integrity being this incredibly flawed, left me speechless in some sequences... and sad. No minifigure FOMO can change this right now. As well as it shouldn't. 

And yep... i have said it many times here already, too... Overall, if executed reasonably, i don't mind Lego's ways of downsizing sets. On the contrary, i usually prefer the new more compact scale of some ships. The 2021 TIE Fighter you've mentioned is a great example of that. While the same year's X-Wing was very impressive for being sold at half the Euro price compared to the 2018 version (which i also quite like). But yeah, the CTT is meant to be a huge vehicle, so it just doesn't lend itself well to being downsized even further. Especially not at the disadvantages of less detailed design and shabby stability, which both should have been the typical trade-offs for being smaller scale to begin with! 

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

It's not even just that it's downsized- it's downsized AND underdetailed! I'm fine with sets like the 2016 tank being a bit smaller than the last in exchange for excellent detailing, but this one, as @icm sort of implies, it's more in line with Classic Space's aesthetic than star wars. It looks like the Battlefront 2005 juggernaut model. 

It's a weird sort of condensing of sizes. Slave One should not be the same size as a 1-person starfighter.

AND fragile! Which is an absolute no-go at this smaller scale. And to be fair, pretty unusual for Lego Star Wars quality standards these days. Like, you can think what you want about the trend of downscaling sets, most of them got more robust than ever... with or without technic handle. To see such an outlier, doesn't make any sense to me. And i'm not sure if this is for me anymore... It certainly got harder for me to justify after watching this review.

Clone Turbo Tank and Jango's Slave 1... This year is tough in terms of the downsizing. Lego got too "creative" when it comes to forcing these sets into specific price points they either don't belong to (Slave 1) or aren't just nearly providing enough value (Republic "Juggernaut"). 

1 hour ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

Seeing the new CTT just makes me wish we got a UT-AT instead. The new CTT looks so bad compared to the old ones.

This. But unfortunately, the power of forcing desirable minifigures into another flagship set was stronger. The UT-AT would obviously never matched this price tag. Simply basing the CTT on Kashyyyk, although repetitive, would have been a better way as well. More expected standard figures would have meant no expensive helmet moulds and kept the price down. And thus, a reasonably bigger budget left for the actual build. Or how about they didn't spread themself so thin by wasting 150+ pieces on buildable wheels?! Size-wise, it could have at least matched the 2016 model and it would have been so much better. Even for this price... Seriously, so many other routes this could have gone instead. 

1 hour ago, Tariq j said:

Having seen Solid Brix’s review that CTT is pretty poor. In some way it feels like Juniors/4+ set that got upgraded to a regular set at the last minute or something.

Well, being just shy of 20 cent per piece in the US, it certainly screams 4+ set. In hindsight, this is actually pretty hilarious, as the first rumors had the CTT described as being the 4+ set for $55. 

Edited July 5 by BrickPrick

[NoOneOfImportance]

3 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

 

Well, being just shy of 20 cent per piece in the US, it certainly screams 4+ set. In hindsight, this is actually pretty hilarious, as the first rumors had the CTT described as being the 4+ set for $55. 

It was never rumored as a 4+ set, but it was rumored at $55 ($50 at that point) for a short bit due a set number mixup between that and the Snowspeeder... 

Yeah I have mixed thoughts on the Turbo. I don't hate the downsizing in this case. I think a lot of it looks pretty solid from an appearance standpoint, but Solid Brix' comments about the missing cannons, etc. have definitely swayed me a bit. The build of it all is just so unstable. That's fine enough for me as a display set, but awful as a kids' product (which it is).

[CloneCommando99]

Day #73 of Tie Avenger pleading

[Classic_Spaceman]

23 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

He’s seen putting on a flight suit in a under attack A-Wing hangar in concept art.

TIL about this concept art (link here)!
That first shot is just begging for a two-faction battle pack (or two separate packs, but that feels less likely)! We also still need a New Republic pack (regular NR troopers, pilot, officer), as well as one with Morgan’s mercs and HK droids (though I admit that the latter is probably not happening at this point 🫤). 
I am not sure we can take that image as confirmation that Ezra will be flying an A-wing specifically, since hangars in S1 featured a mix of ships (both A-wings and X-wings are present during Baylan and Shin’s arrival scene). That said, it is probably likely, since A-wings are the quintessential Rebels fighter (so it would make sense as a callback, similar to Sabine’s painted 614-AvA in S1). 
 

58 minutes ago, NoOneOfImportance said:

Yeah I have mixed thoughts on the Turbo. I don't hate the downsizing in this case. I think a lot of it looks pretty solid from an appearance standpoint, but Solid Brix' comments about the missing cannons, etc. have definitely swayed me a bit. The build of it all is just so unstable. That's fine enough for me as a display set, but awful as a kids' product (which it is).

The Juggernaut really feels like a gutted midi-scale set. I would honestly have preferred to get a midi-scale CTT with exclusive Bacara and Mundi ‘figs, and saved the Galactic Marines for a super battle pack in 2026 (which would also potentially have allowed for a new pauldron mould with stud on the back (usable for Galactic Marines and ARC Troopers) to be made). 🫤
 

Edited July 6 by Classic_Spaceman

[Mandalorianknight]

9 hours ago, icm said:

@Mandalorianknight, I laid it out in detail in this post from Monday, but I hadn't quite settled on the concept of a Moon bus yet. I think that with red tiles swapped for blue and a few small changes in cosmetic details, the new CTT could be a good neo-Classic Space Moon bus that would fit in well with the look of the 10497 Galaxy Explorer. There were several medium-sized Classic Space sets that were mostly gray, so it wouldn't be out of place among them. Picture this rolling across a gray Moonscape with lots of craters, delivering scientists and equipment from a spaceship at a landing pad to an excavation with a Kubrick/Clarke-style Monolith! Not that I'll ever build such a big scene, but that's what it suggests to me.

I totally get what you mean- something about the way they've done up the.. (cockpit? this is a ground vehicle, I'm not sure what you'd call that section. The cab?)  in this one gives me classic space vibes.

9 hours ago, Llewop said:

I suppose the question is and I haven’t done any research with these remakes if they maintained their scale but with improved level of detail that we get with some of the new building and design techniques would we not see the prices go up even more so than they have now and if they do, how many people would want to pay for them? I’m not defending it but shrinkflation is everywhere and it’s a question we all got to ask ourselves is do we want it at the right scale but cost more or cost what it used to be but smaller? 

This is a tradeoff I've talked about before and am generally in favor of, but it's just not the case for the Turbo Tank. It's undersized AND less detailed than the 2016 one, and yet paradoxically more expensive even after accounting for inflation. Add in the stability issues, and that's astoundingly bad.

8 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I think this is also the issue.  People on YouTube on Instagram and Reddit are going to complain nonstop about prices/design/whatever else regardless, just as it's been for the past 5 years (and in this case, I do feel that it's justified), yet, lo and behold, I'll bet that most LEGO stores will still sell out of the majority of this wave on August 1st.  

There's no real incentive for them to change their design practices if stuff is still flying off of the shelves as it has been for years now.

Yeah, exactly. Though I do wonder how frontloaded these purchases will be- I could see a lot of these selling out early on but being 30-40% off by Christmas as sales drop off after the initial rush.

2 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

TIL about this concept art (link here)!
That first shot is just begging for a two-faction battle pack (or two separate packs, but that feels less likely)! We also still need a New Republic pack (regular NR troopers, pilot, officer), as well as one with Morgan’s mercs and HK droids (though I admit that the latter is probably not happening at this point 🫤). 
I am not sure we can take that image as confirmation that Ezra will be flying an A-wing specifically, since hangars in S1 featured a mix of ships (both A-wings and X-wings are present during Baylan and Shin’s arrival scene). That said, it is probably likely, since A-wings are the quintessential Rebels fighter (so it would make sense as a callback, similar to Sabine’s painted 614-AvA in S1). 

I'm a big fan of Ahsoka (The show, though I don't mind the character herself either) and I'm glad lego's covered it as much as they have- I'm hoping they keep it up for the second season. Season 2 especially is heading into Thrawn Trilogy territory, and those legends books might be my personal favorite star wars content (and the best depiction of Luke Skywalker). 

On the A-wing I'd also note that Ezra flies it in Rebels, so it would make sense that way too. (I don't remember exactly but he may have flown a Y-wing for a bit once or twice, but it was in situations where it was the only ship availible. He specifically chooses the A-wing the one time he goes Kenobi hunting, and it seems more like his style than a bomber IMO)

 

 

To give lego some points and prove I'm not trying to be unnecessarily critical, I saw an MTT review today and realized the droids are, in fact, gunmetal in the final set, not dark brown. That's a huge improvement, and I'm very happy to hear it. I've been criticizing them for the droids being the wrong color, and I was wrong to do so.

7 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

AND fragile! Which is an absolute no-go at this smaller scale. And to be fair, pretty unusual for Lego Star Wars quality standards these days. Like, you can think what you want about the trend of downscaling sets, most of them got more robust than ever... with or without technic handle. To see such an outlier, doesn't make any sense to me. And i'm not sure if this is for me anymore... It certainly got harder for me to justify after watching this review.

Clone Turbo Tank and Jango's Slave 1... This year is tough in terms of the downsizing. Lego got too "creative" when it comes to forcing these sets into specific price points they either don't belong to (Slave 1) or aren't just nearly providing enough value (Republic "Juggernaut"). 

Well said. Stability issues of this kind are very rare with lego nowadays. People bandy about "lego is lazy", often in situations where it doesn't apply, but this is certainly one where it does. They either failed to do their standard quality checking, or knew about this issue and didn't care. (I honestly think it's the latter. I think these prices and builds imply that lego believes sales of these sets will be fully driven by the figures, and that no one actually cares about the builds, which is sad to see.)

 

Edited July 6 by Mandalorianknight

[ArrowBricks]

I have just noticed another 212th incident. 

The Clone Pilot is shown to have the visor go all the way to the edge on the box and all the other photos. In reality, this is not the case as shown by reviews. 

Interestingly, the AOTC version shouldn’t have the visor go all the way around, although probably slightly further than what we get in practice. But the V-19 is based on the Clone Wars where the visor goes all the way to the edge. 

Either way, sad to see LEGO up to their same tricks again. I have been waiting 15 years for the proper pilot, and it’s nearly perfect. Interested to hear thoughts. 

[CloneCommando99]

4 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

I am not sure we can take that image as confirmation that Ezra will be flying an A-wing specifically, since hangars in S1 featured a mix of ships (both A-wings and X-wings are present during Baylan and Shin’s arrival scene). That said, it is probably likely, since A-wings are the quintessential Rebels fighter (so it would make sense as a callback, similar to Sabine’s painted 614-AvA in S1). 

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

On the A-wing I'd also note that Ezra flies it in Rebels, so it would make sense that way too. (I don't remember exactly but he may have flown a Y-wing for a bit once or twice, but it was in situations where it was the only ship availible. He specifically chooses the A-wing the one time he goes Kenobi hunting, and it seems more like his style than a bomber IMO)

There’s also the fact he’s putting on a green flight suit. Which is probably the flight suit colour most associated with A-Wings.

2 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I'm a big fan of Ahsoka (The show, though I don't mind the character herself either) and I'm glad lego's covered it as much as they have- I'm hoping they keep it up for the second season. Season 2 especially is heading into Thrawn Trilogy territory, and those legends books might be my personal favorite star wars content (and the best depiction of Luke Skywalker). 

I liked Ahsoka. Believe me, it’s no Andor. But I’d argue it’s as good as Mando S1. It’s got hype moments, aura and by far the best Disney force sensitive villain in Baylan.

I do think that a lot of my enjoyment when it first came out was purely by the relief it was better than its predecessor Mando S3. Which was a low bar tbh
 

S2 will likely also have hype moments and aura. Purely because my goat Gillad Pellaeon will probably be in it. And Tie Defenders will make a return. Heck, maybe Thrawn will even see the benefits of reviving the Tie Avenger program.

 

 

The more I see of the summer wave… the more I’m convinced that the U-Wing is the best play-set of the year. 4 great minifigures, stability, a relatively fair price and better proportions than the 2016 model. I do agree with others that it does lack some of the playability required for a troop transport. But the 2016 one wasn’t that great either. You could barely place troops in the 2016 troop bay.

 

Edit: Damn. Lego really managed to megabluck up the printing on a perfect helmet and make it look bad. (Clone Pilot)

Edited July 6 by CloneCommando99

[BrickPrick]

5 hours ago, NoOneOfImportance said:

It was never rumored as a 4+ set, but it was rumored at $55 ($50 at that point) for a short bit due a set number mixup between that and the Snowspeeder... 

Oh yeah, you are right. There was no 4+. Just the confusion with the RTG Snowspeeder. I got this one mixed up. 

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Well said. Stability issues of this kind are very rare with lego nowadays. People bandy about "lego is lazy", often in situations where it doesn't apply, but this is certainly one where it does. They either failed to do their standard quality checking, or knew about this issue and didn't care. (I honestly think it's the latter. I think these prices and builds imply that lego believes sales of these sets will be fully driven by the figures, and that no one actually cares about the builds, which is sad to see.)

Thank you. This gotta be a classic case of completely slipping through quality assurance. Nobody must have picked up the Clone Turbo Tank from the top. Otherwise they would have noticed that this thing is about as stable as a house of cards. At least that's what i "hope" has happened... Because if they were aware of it all and just didn't care in the first place, there might be more sets like this upon us. 

And yes, this is a sad thing to see. A set with this many shortcomings at this price point... for such a highly requested popular vehicle. How can the 2022 AT-TE be awesome and this Turbo Tank this awful? The quality gap is huge beyond belief... when it should have been close to each other. While it's still ways off, i might need to put a new birthday gift on my wishlist. 

21 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

Either way, sad to see LEGO up to their same tricks again. I have been waiting 15 years for the proper pilot, and it’s nearly perfect. Interested to hear thoughts. 

Typical Lego marketing move. While i get they have to make the product look as appealing as possible in order to attract more customers, there should be a fine line between this and straight up false advertisement. Due to the renders of the minifigures, i am used to the colors not being as sharp as they show on the box. Like when they print white on black or something. Or the big ugly (>>how do you say in english?<<) in the center of printed UCS plaques. But they shouldn't highlight the printing on spots where it's not on the final figure. If you show helmet A, you better deliver helmet A, not B. This form of marketing is pushing it in my eyes. Makes the aforementioned "fine line" pretty blurry.