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

[Flieger]

4 hours ago, ArrowBricks said:

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.

Although I still like the pilot, it is indeed clearly an AotC variant, if we are being generous. But then, the set is TCW and it not like printing all the way is somehow super expensive or beyond Lego's capacities. It is a simple oversight. 
...a minor one I am willing to tolerate given it is not a UCS. But as Lego's prices go up I am going to be less and less tolerant. If I had not been waiting for a V-19, I might shut my wallet. 

The problem is Lego knows.

They know this about the V-19. They also know the CTT set is a little more than a glorified battle pack and people will get it for the marines alone. And they know people accept the lack of proper kamas, either fully printed around the legs (my choice) or as cloth pieces.
So why would they waste resources improving the build or the minifigs? As long as people buy it, they won't. (Yes, I am one of those, though not in that particular case).

Edited July 6 by Flieger

[Meaf]

The talk about the CTT's stability issues are crazy to me because I remember when I was a kid that one of my friends (who had the CW version) threw it out of a window about ten feet off the ground, and it came out almost completely unscathed. That's just an anecdote of course but it's pretty funny when you compare it to the new one, which apparently starts falling apart under the smallest amount of duress. 

 

[MKJoshA]

23 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? 

No one was banned for talking about Gaza. And insulting Chinese people is not ok. My point was that Mandalorianknight clearly didn't mean to insult anyone. Jokes hit people different. We all need to understand that to have a good working relationship together online. There's no reason to ban you.

20 hours ago, DarDarJinks said:

No one is insulting anyone. You've got bigger issues in your country right now, stop yapping about politics and let's please stick to talking about Lego

This however is not okay. Don't mini-mod.

17 hours ago, Llewop said:

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…

This is a good analysis. Different cultures talk with each other differently. What's acceptable in one culture can come across as rude in another. We all need to 1) try harder to be less offensive when we learn about cultural differences and 2) don't be easy to offend when online. 

[Llewop]

I don’t know if anybody has mentioned it during our collective hating on the August wave. But Krennic and Yularen torsos leaked for the DS. 2 down 38 to go. Feel like so many people will be after these figures on bricklink or eBay but who would buy a $1000 set just to sell the figures out? I can see a lot of these figures being very expensive to get separately 

[Swordy]

I don’t believe I have within me an essay of opinion on the new wave that wouldn’t come off as redundant. The negative reactions to this wave, which I do share, are starting to discourage my passion, and I’d rather not add my torch to the blazing dumpster fire. So I’ll try a scattershot approach of opinionating, reacting to nonspecific reactions to this wave.

 

I’m consistently annoyed by the “Aayla’s lips aren’t pink” criticism. (Speaking of being polite online…) It’s splitting hairs when the argument is “The lips on a minifig have too much red in their pigment!” It comes down to subjective judgement more than objective criticism. Granted, these days, no minifig in LSW is without sin. Maybe we ought to stop caring so much about a little wrinkle or the eye colour and focus on the bigger issues… namely that the set itself is overpriced by at least $50 USD!

 

In my oh so very humble opinion, the UT-AT was never going to work as a LEGO set. People complain a CTT is too repetitive within the LEGO catalog, yet that fact is exactly why so many recognize it over the UT-AT. Furthermore, the UT-AT is very uninteresting as a design. A hovering rectangle of a tank is much more boring than the tank with ten massive wheels. To those who say the Galactic Marines must have come with a UT-AT, I’d encourage them to be grateful they have Galactic Marines available officially from LEGO at all. It would be dumb of TLG to cater to the fringe LEGO fanbase; and should they decide to, TLG is more than in their right to charge whatever price they can fish out of that vocal minority.
I’ll add this: If you want perfect clones, go to CAC; if you want cheap clones, go buy a knockoff. LEGO’s official minifigs, in this imperfect world, will never be both perfect and inexpensive at the same time.

 

V-19 is a disappointment to me—minifigs aside, of course. The build is too blockly and weirdly proportioned, particularly in the two outermost wings. The function of closing the center fin has been poorly executed as well. While yes, it was better to not expect the splendid function from 2008 to return, why redo the set if it’s as half-baked as this? I want to look forward to buying the set, but it’s going to require a lot of modification in order so I can fully enjoy it. (Might as well be a Corellian Freighter, eh?)
I feel the ARC-170 from earlier in the year was better rendered than the V-19, but because the ARC-170 has more passionate fans, for better or worse, the ARC suffered much more criticism and, frankly, nitpicking.

 

On 7/4/2025 at 2:36 PM, Mandalorianknight said:

The build itself sets the stage for some great advancements to the T-47

Orange blades return and the duros looks awesome.

I'll need an air nation one to conclude the quadrilogy in 2032.

(I could probably come up with a paragraph for each sentence in your post, haha, but let me try and restrain myself to just the topic of the Firespeeder.)

Speaking as someone who tried and failed to build a Snowspeeder (I could never figure out the cockpit/windshield situation while still fitting minifigs inside)… yeah, the new windscreen is perfect—perfect, everything, down to the last minute details. That said, I dislike the gap created by the 3x3 slopes, and, again, as someone who tried recreating a Snowspeeder before, I’m disappointed in the lack of innovation elsewhere in the build.

Jang mentioned in his overview video that the Firespeeder’s windshield appeared trans-orange in other renders, when clearly it’s meant to be trans-yellow, as per the front of the box. I also noticed the same about Sig Greebling’s lightsaber blade, leading me to believe it will, in fact, be a trans-yellow lightsaber. (Also, antidotally, it makes more sense that Siggy, as a guardian of the Cornerstone, would have a yellow lightsaber, given multiple examples throughout canon.)

Wait, wouldn’t the Joe-average Snowspeeder be an Air Nation one already? Now, a Water Nation one, as in a submarine-speeder, would be mighty intriguing in my book. (Is it clear by now I’m ignorant of The Last Airbender, lol?)

Edited July 6 by Swordy

[Mandalorianknight]

12 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

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.

What I always say is Andor's a better tv show, but Ahsoka's a better Star Wars.

I also hesitate to call Baylan an outright villain, at least if his motivation for going to peridea is what I think it is based on his earlier conversation with Shin- he's letting a warlord return to the galaxy, sure, but it's a necessary evil in his mind to let him essentially kill the devil, or at the least, do something that he believes will end the cycle of galactic war.

12 hours ago, ArrowBricks said:

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. 

I always assume the clone wars has some artistic license anyway- like I'd hope dooku wasn't waxing his beard to a sharp point during those three years.

11 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

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. 

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.  

It's such a big oversight I have to assume someone, somewhere figured it out during testing and they decided it wasn't worth it to try and fix it. I think they know a lot of the sales are going to come from people who just want the marines and will just have the tank sitting untouched at the base of the grey baseplate.

You could use dimple or divot as english words to refer to the small circular depression/hole in the center of those 8x16 tiles. And yeah, that's something they need to figure out.

[Mandalorianknight]

43 minutes ago, Swordy said:

In my oh so very humble opinion, the UT-AT was never going to work as a LEGO set. People complain a CTT is too repetitive within the LEGO catalog, yet that fact is exactly why so many recognize it over the UT-AT. Furthermore, the UT-AT is very uninteresting as a design. A hovering rectangle of a tank is much more boring than the tank with ten massive wheels. To those who say the Galactic Marines must have come with a UT-AT, I’d encourage them to be grateful they have Galactic Marines available officially from LEGO at all. It would be dumb of TLG to cater to the fringe LEGO fanbase; and should they decide to, TLG is more than in their right to charge whatever price they can fish out of that vocal minority.
I’ll add this: If you want perfect clones, go to CAC; if you want cheap clones, go buy a knockoff. LEGO’s official minifigs, in this imperfect world, will never be both perfect and inexpensive at the same time.

 

(I could probably come up with a paragraph for each sentence in your post, haha, but let me try and restrain myself to just the topic of the Firespeeder.)

Speaking as someone who tried and failed to build a Snowspeeder (I could never figure out the cockpit/windshield situation while still fitting minifigs inside)… yeah, the new windscreen is perfect—perfect, everything, down to the last minute details. That said, the I dislike the gap created by the 3x3 slopes, and, again, as someone who tried recreating a Snowspeeder before, I’m disappointed in the lack of innovation elsewhere in the build.

Wait, wouldn’t the Joe-average Snowspeeder be an Air Nation one already? Now, a Water Nation one, as in a submarine-speeder, would be mighty intriguing in my book. (Is it clear by now I’m ignorant of The Last Airbender, lol?)

I agree with most of this- it's a bad idea for lego to target such a minority of the market, the UT-AT just doesn't work in the current environment at the price point it would command, and looking for perfect clone accuracy isn't what lego is for. (Along with a sort of wider point that I think there are a great many very, very big issues with this wave, and stuff like the visor print being misrepresented as from the cartoon rather than live action interpretation of the helmet or the flagship set not being obscure enough are kind of moot points compared to "half these sets are LITERALLY 50% or more overpriced" or "the flagship set has structural stability comparable to that of oragami")  

That said, while they're in their right to charge whatever price they want, I do think it's fair to say that the flagship set in the theme being so outlandishly overpriced is a big deal and a pretty understandable thing to take issue with.

 

Glad I won't be Sword'ied on everything, but as for the firespeeder-

Yeah, I agree. Like I said, the stage is set- but this specific model would not make a great snowspeeder. And not just because it's got a speeder bike sticking out of it's rear.

My assumption was snow = water. 

Edited July 6 by Mandalorianknight
Apologies for the double post, not sure why they didn't merge

[BrickPrick]

10 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

It's such a big oversight I have to assume someone, somewhere figured it out during testing and they decided it wasn't worth it to try and fix it. I think they know a lot of the sales are going to come from people who just want the marines and will just have the tank sitting untouched at the base of the grey baseplate.

You could use dimple or divot as english words to refer to the small circular depression/hole in the center of those 8x16 tiles. And yeah, that's something they need to figure out.

I mean, it's even explainable to some extent. This is the first CTT with a removable roof. So it's only logical you shouldn't try to pick it up there. But what happened to the rest of the top section? It's not like Solid Brix Studios threw this thing against a wall or something. He applied just enough pressure to pick it up and it was all falling apart in an apocalyptic manner. Still shocked about this. The unjustifiable Justifier bothered me because i initially missed out on Cad Bane... didn't really care for his ship. But the Tiny Turbo Tank bothers me more, because of both the new minifigures AND the actual set i have waited so long for. Don't know if i can come around on this one. 

Okay, i will keep this in mind. Not the first time you taught me a little language lesson. And for starters, i think it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to stop advertising the plaque as literally perfect. Even though, like i mentioned, i think there are worse or more meaningful marketing blunders out there. 

Edited July 7 by BrickPrick

[Darth_Bane13]

2 hours ago, Swordy said:

In my oh so very humble opinion, the UT-AT was never going to work as a LEGO set. People complain a CTT is too repetitive within the LEGO catalog, yet that fact is exactly why so many recognize it over the UT-AT. Furthermore, the UT-AT is very uninteresting as a design. A hovering rectangle of a tank is much more boring than the tank with ten massive wheels. To those who say the Galactic Marines must have come with a UT-AT, I’d encourage them to be grateful they have Galactic Marines available officially from LEGO at all. It would be dumb of TLG to cater to the fringe LEGO fanbase; and should they decide to, TLG is more than in their right to charge whatever price they can fish out of that vocal minority.
I’ll add this: If you want perfect clones, go to CAC; if you want cheap clones, go buy a knockoff. LEGO’s official minifigs, in this imperfect world, will never be both perfect and inexpensive at the same time.

 

I'm really tired of seeing these types of arguments. "UT-AT is an uninteresting design" that's subjective and most would disagree, I don't see how it's "much more boring" than a rectangle with wheels. By your logic the Star Destroyer is just a gray triangle so it sucks. No I'm not gonna be grateful to the billion dollar company about sub par galactic marines with no waist capes in a $160 set. UT-AT also isn't anymore fringe than an AT-AP, swamp speeder and AT-OT, all of which have had sets. The turbo tank gets only a few seconds of screen time in ROTS. Lastly, LEGO made perfect clones 10 years ago, we know they're capable of it.

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I agree with most of this- it's a bad idea for lego to target such a minority of the market, the UT-AT just doesn't work in the current environment at the price point it would command, and looking for perfect clone accuracy isn't what lego is for.

Based on what? A reasonably priced, well built UT-AT, with good figures would FLY off shelves. Have you guys been living under a rock? It's clear how popular clone sets are, and I don't think a slightly more niche clone set would suddenly warm shelves. We got perfect clones 10 years ago but you guys seem to conveniently forget that.

[Mandalorianknight]

4 hours ago, BrickPrick said:

I mean, it's even explainable to some extent. This is the first CTT with a removable roof. So it's only logical you shouldn't try to pick it up there. But what happened to the rest of the top section? It's not like Solid Brix Studios threw this thing against a wall or something. He applied just enough pressure to pick it up and it was all falling apart in an apocalyptic manner. Still shocked about this. The unjustifiable Justifier bothered me because i initially missed out on Cad Bane... didn't really care for his ship. But the Tiny Turbo Tank bothers me more, because of both the new minifigures AND the actual set i have waiting so long for. Don't know if i can come around on this one. 

Okay, i will keep this in mind. Not the first time you taught me a little language lesson. And for starters, i think it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to stop advertising the plaque as literally perfect. Even though, like i mentioned, i think there are worse or more meaningful marketing blunders out there. 

What's worse is to my knowledge, while an extremely odd choice, the justifier was a fairly large ship and I never heard any complaints about the structural integrity. It may have been a strange set to make, but the turbo tank was a LOGICAL set to make that they somehow decimated not only by absurd pricing but a critical design flaw.

No problem- I'm just glad the forum IS in english, otherwise I'd be having a lot more difficult time than just missing a word now and then. 

3 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

Based on what? A reasonably priced, well built UT-AT, with good figures would FLY off shelves. Have you guys been living under a rock? It's clear how popular clone sets are, and I don't think a slightly more niche clone set would suddenly warm shelves. We got perfect clones 10 years ago but you guys seem to conveniently forget that.

Based on the fact that if you take a random selection of star wars fans, parents of kids aged 6-12, and kids aged 6-12, I guarantee you you will get many, MANY more people who recognize the turbo tank than a UT-AT.

The U-wing is pretty obscure, even by star wars hardware standards. Aside from two seconds in revenge of the sith, the UT-AT has, in over twenty years, the canonical appearances of... it's wreckage being mentioned in the book Tarkin and a panel or two in a flashback in the tie-in series to the disney galaxy's edge theme part. (And it's not better in legends- it was in a BF2005 cutscene and there was some more wreckage in TFU. That's it.) This isn't "oh it's not as well known as a star destroyer", this is like demanding a $160 Dornean Gunship. (I was going to say the GR-75, but no, that's actually been in a fair bit of ancillary stuff). The Turbo Tank has been in clone wars, there's a good deal more focus on it in the battlefront series- being the focal point of a map for one thing- and it's had three lego sets, which also adds to it- as far as I can tell, no company has taken the risk on a UT-AT toy, not just lego. 

Now I'm not someone who thinks a ship or vehicle being obscure means it shouldn't be in a set,  but I'm not going to pretend the more well known vehicle- that we haven't seen a set of for a decade - wouldn't sell better.

Edited July 7 by Mandalorianknight

[NoOneOfImportance]

Just now, Mandalorianknight said:

Based on the fact that if you take a random selection of star wars fans, parents of kids aged 6-12, and kids aged 6-12, I guarantee you you will get many, MANY more people who recognize the turbo tank than a UT-AT.

The UT-AT is pretty obscure, even by star wars hardware standards. Aside from two seconds in revenge of the sith, the UT-AT has, in over twenty years, the canonical appearances of... it's wreckage being mentioned in the book Tarkin and a panel or two in a flashback in the tie-in series to the disney galaxy's edge theme part. (And it's not better in legends- it was in a BF2005 cutscene and there was some more wreckage in TFU. That's it.) This isn't "oh it's not as well known as a star destroyer", this is like demanding a $160 Dornean Gunship. (I was going to say the GR-75, but no, that's actually been in a fair bit of ancillary stuff). The Turbo Tank has been in clone wars, there's a good deal more focus on it in the battlefront series- being the focal point of a map for one thing- and it's had three lego sets, which also adds to it- as far as I can tell, no company has taken the risk on a UT-AT toy, not just lego. 

Now I'm not someone who thinks a ship or vehicle being obscure means it shouldn't be in a set,  but I'm not going to pretend the more well known vehicle- that we haven't seen a set of for a decade - wouldn't sell better.

I was debating posting something similar, but you got to it first. While the Star Wars bubble might recognize a UT-AT to an extent, no casual fan will, much less a kid who has limited ability to get any $160 sets and will want one they recognize. 

[mirkwoodspiders]

6 hours ago, Llewop said:

I don’t know if anybody has mentioned it during our collective hating on the August wave. But Krennic and Yularen torsos leaked for the DS. 2 down 38 to go. Feel like so many people will be after these figures on bricklink or eBay but who would buy a $1000 set just to sell the figures out? I can see a lot of these figures being very expensive to get separately 

Yeah, Death Star anticipation is getting buried under all the (merited) August wave criticism. It'll be both the highest piece count and price point ever for LSW. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around where all the figs will go in the set. I have to think it's going to have an extensive interior to be able to display 38. Then the question is where do the extra 5,000+ pieces go in comparison with 75159? DSI or DSII? Outer-plating or totally exposed interior? So many questions!

[icm]

31 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

 The Turbo Tank has been in clone wars, there's a good deal more focus on it in the battlefront series- being the focal point of a map for one thing- and it's had three lego sets, which also adds to it

Not to mention that the CTT was in the Episode III cross sections book, and was reprinted in two editions of Complete Vehicles

The only complaints about the Justifier's structural integrity were that the top wing flaps weren't secured on both ends, but the technic structure of the whole thing was sturdy.

Edited July 7 by icm

[Darth_Bane13]

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Based on the fact that if you take a random selection of star wars fans, parents of kids aged 6-12, and kids aged 6-12, I guarantee you you will get many, MANY more people who recognize the turbo tank than a UT-AT.

The U-wing is pretty obscure, even by star wars hardware standards. Aside from two seconds in revenge of the sith, the UT-AT has, in over twenty years, the canonical appearances of... it's wreckage being mentioned in the book Tarkin and a panel or two in a flashback in the tie-in series to the disney galaxy's edge theme part. (And it's not better in legends- it was in a BF2005 cutscene and there was some more wreckage in TFU. That's it.) This isn't "oh it's not as well known as a star destroyer", this is like demanding a $160 Dornean Gunship. (I was going to say the GR-75, but no, that's actually been in a fair bit of ancillary stuff). The Turbo Tank has been in clone wars, there's a good deal more focus on it in the battlefront series- being the focal point of a map for one thing- and it's had three lego sets, which also adds to it- as far as I can tell, no company has taken the risk on a UT-AT toy, not just lego. 

Now I'm not someone who thinks a ship or vehicle being obscure means it shouldn't be in a set,  but I'm not going to pretend the more well known vehicle- that we haven't seen a set of for a decade - wouldn't sell better.

You're ignoring the fact that the 2005 CTT was just as obscure as the UT-AT at the time and was still a very popular set.

So by your logic Lego should only make tie fighters, x-wings, and Millennium falcons since star wars fans, parents of kids aged 6-12, and kids aged 6-12, will recognize them WAY more than a CTT. You also ignored all the sets I mentioned that are just as obscure and yet were quite popular Lego sets. You also have to consider there are a lot of collectors who already have a CTT and would skip this one. At the end of the day they're both big clone vehicles that have highly desired clone troopers, the sales numbers would be negligible.

[Llewop]

1 hour ago, mirkwoodspiders said:

Yeah, Death Star anticipation is getting buried under all the (merited) August wave criticism. It'll be both the highest piece count and price point ever for LSW. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around where all the figs will go in the set. I have to think it's going to have an extensive interior to be able to display 38. Then the question is where do the extra 5,000+ pieces go in comparison with 75159? DSI or DSII? Outer-plating or totally exposed interior? So many questions!

I suppose the 5000 pieces extra will be Lego using smaller pieces compared to the last one. For the size and price maybe the interior will have more rooms than the last one? And maybe the extra pieces will mean it has full exterior and interior but the exterior would be panels to reveal inside? 

but yes the August wave does deserve the criticism. Can anybody remember a wave being so overpriced for what we are getting? And fans mostly agreeing with it? I still have found in the wild a couple of clone bros defending the CTT even in the face of the stability issues. I do wonder how it passed Lego’s quality test? I mean they cancelled an Indiana jones set a few year ago for stability issues. 
 

Would Lego actually be looking at the reviews and some of these comments and would they actually do anything or is it to late now 

[icm]

No, the CTT was in other merchandise at the time, including the very popular Dorling Kindersley Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections book for Episode III. Lego was not the only company making merchandise of the CTT in 2005.

[CloneCommando99]

Day #74 of my uphill battle.

1 hour ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

You're ignoring the fact that the 2005 CTT was just as obscure as the UT-AT at the time and was still a very popular set.

CTT had more screen time than UT AT. Around 15 seconds I’d say compared to the UT AT’s 5 seconds. Also the CTT was the focus of two of those 5 second shots instead of just being in the background like the UT AT, it also has the added bonus of not looking like the already on shelves AT TE in any way.

Market-wise Lego made the right choice. But still managed to execute (order 66) it abysmally.

1 hour ago, Llewop said:

Would Lego actually be looking at the reviews and some of these comments and would they actually do anything or is it to late now 

It’s too late. All we can do is pray for a better 2026.

[TeddytheSpoon]

A thing on wheels is also more fun as a toy than a thing on legs (stability issues notwithstanding).

[Darth Malgus]

On the current wave, I know from time to time we get Lego designers on here. I hope they see the feedback and take it on board...

Been in this since 99 and personally it is the most disappointing wave I can recall. So much hope, yet so poor execution.

[BrickPrick]

6 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

What's worse is to my knowledge, while an extremely odd choice, the justifier was a fairly large ship and I never heard any complaints about the structural integrity. It may have been a strange set to make, but the turbo tank was a LOGICAL set to make that they somehow decimated not only by absurd pricing but a critical design flaw.

No problem- I'm just glad the forum IS in english, otherwise I'd be having a lot more difficult time than just missing a word now and then. 

There were a couple of design flaws like the loose wings when you spin that thing. Or the underbelly of it being just extremely ugly, but yes... It was more famous for it's egregious pricing and less an structural desaster like the new Turbo Tank is. So the CTT hit me harder beyond the minifigures. 

Me too. While i was reading, listening and writing english every day regardless, this is actually my very first serious long-term attempt at a english based forum. And i feel quite comfortable to be playing my part by now. 

 

How anyone in this day and age can think a solidly executed UT-AT can't sell well because of obscurity or it's form factor is beyond me. The Clone Turbo Tank sucks megablocks but it's feared to be picked up by many fanatics because of the desirable minifigures. But the UT-AT wouldn't because it's less regocnizable? Come on, now... The "obscurity" argument is overrated. It's less about kids absolutely having to know certain vehicles  and more like yet another cool looking thing with Clone Troopers at the ready for action. 

Edited July 7 by BrickPrick

[TotoMagnus]

4 hours ago, Darth_Bane13 said:

You're ignoring the fact that the 2005 CTT was just as obscure as the UT-AT at the time and was still a very popular set.

The CTT wasn’t that obscure in 2005 due to it being based on Concept Art for the AT-AT. So the design was kinda familiar (or well-known) to the Fans even before the movie got released.
The UT-AT on the other hand…got barely any form of recognition, it lived more or less only on some ILM Databanks. the form of propulsion also changed from it being a hovering vehicle before it was „revealed“ as being some form of skiing/sledding vehicle, iirc. 
 

That being said…Star Wars to a part lives and thrives from obscure Background characters or vehicles (the Rebel Attack Sled on Hoth being my favorite Shitto Vehicle), so a UT-AT would have been perfectly fine with me. Hell, with this figure selection I would have even preferred it over the CTT and on a whole it would sell equally compared to a CTT imho. (For the record: I wouldn’t have bought it, but I also won‘t buy the CTT). 

[Kaijumeister]

I’m just profoundly salty that obscure vehicles continue to be made whilst the LSW team refuse to touch things like the Stinger Mantis and Purge Trooper Battle Pack with a 10 foot pole.

For what it’s worth, I’m in the camp that a UT-AT is a little too obscure to focus a flagship summer set on (especially as its only representation in canon and Legends media is being blown up). But then again, Star Wars is the only theme where no matter how obscure something is, it’ll still be desirable to some extent (plus they made that gigantic Justifier a few years back).

From next year onwards, my main hopes for the theme in addition to a reduced emphasis on buildable items is a return to form for flagship summer sets - not gutting the piece count and actually giving solid builds. The penny pinching with this theme this year has been more absurd than normal.

Edited July 7 by Kaijumeister

[Sucram]

Shitty fake AI generated Death Star “leak” floating around on Instagram. Looks kinda cool though I cant lie

[TheScaryDoor]

Solid Brix uploaded a review of the AT-ST UCS. Like K-2SO, a review via Video helped me alot to get a better impression of the set. I need definitely both 😊.

[Llewop]

3 hours ago, Kaijumeister said:

I’m just profoundly salty that obscure vehicles continue to be made whilst the LSW team refuse to touch things like the Stinger Mantis and Purge Trooper Battle Pack with a 10 foot pole.

For what it’s worth, I’m in the camp that a UT-AT is a little too obscure to focus a flagship summer set on (especially as its only representation in canon and Legends media is being blown up). But then again, Star Wars is the only theme where no matter how obscure something is, it’ll still be desirable to some extent (plus they made that gigantic Justifier a few years back).

From next year onwards, my main hopes for the theme in addition to a reduced emphasis on buildable items is a return to form for flagship summer sets - not gutting the piece count and actually giving solid builds. The penny pinching with this theme this year has been more absurd than normal.

Not trying to single you out but you are this weeks “why do they make this set and not this set” I get it’s frustrating but like SW is massive and only a finite amount of sets can go on the shelf at once. Every week someone says a similar statement last week it was OT fans. I’m not happy with the wave either and have been guilty of wanting other sets but I’ve just grown in to a realist and I accept that if the wave produces things I don’t like I’m saving money. Kind of like “girl maths” when that was a thing online.  

Say there was a Stinger Mantis that too is very obscure only to gamers which I don’t know how much fallen order or survivor sold but I bet the % of players that also collect Lego or would be willing to buy a set is really low. I’ve accepted the fate that we are in a different era to when the old republic or even the force unleashed sets came out back in the day. The sets for the summer have been executed poorly price and design but there are whole lot of new figures that we haven’t had before or for a long time. But had they got the prices right (a lot lower than what they are listed for) people would be saying this is a great wave. 

all the time the buildables sets sell, the helmets sell, and these overpriced sets sell why would lego change? They are business and they love profit. Even in the face of these design flaws in the CTT and the overpriced battle packs there are still people out there who want to buy them day 1 and I’ve even seen some looneys want to buy multiple. The fact that the influencer reviews have been overwhelmingly negative does give me hope that in the long run for next year they might alter course but it ultimately depends on sales figures.