Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[mtrsteve]

6 minutes ago, QuiggoldsPegLeg said:

I’m glad there’s no GWP, then I don’t feel bad about not buying the set right away. Better to wait until I have some more disposable income and double VIP points. 

Rarity doesn’t matter unless you’re planning on selling the thing you’re talking about. If it’s something you actually want to collect and hold onto, I’d rather everything be less rare, so then more people who also like said thing can get it more easily, and the market value is lower. It’s stupid to gatekeep people deriving joy from a collectible because you want to feel superior for owning a rare version. 

It's not about superiority, it's about the fun of the hunt. Granted that's a feeling I developed from before the internet era when hunting for rares meant actually being patient and vigilant, and not just opening up your wallet. I guess it is different these days.

[Megaflora]

I'd prefer GWPs to not be related to specific sets, since that can make the associated sets feel somewhat incomplete later down the line if you miss out on their initial release. 

Something like the Eiffel minifigure feels like an essential part of the Tower, imo. 

Otherwise, they're a nice way to put out smaller sets that don't easily fit into any existing themes. I'm not a big fan of the intentional effort Lego seems to be going through to obscure their release windows though. 

[zoth33]

13 hours ago, neithan said:

Why not compare Lego Sets? I try not to compare Lego Sets to non-Lego sets beacuse then Lego could never win.^^

 

But for me, the feeling of what you get for your money is important too. So I compare Sets. Do you have tje City Gardens? It has many details in every regard, a fun building experience and looks stunning. And it cost me only 230€ with a discount.

My biggest set is Hogwarts Castle, bought at 330€ - soooo...?

This (license) Set feels way too expensive (as I wrote in my first post, I really like it, but the price...). I love it that we finally get a new LotR Set, but Lego knows how to grab the cash of die-hard fans, releasing only one big set with a price beyond good and evil. That is my only real criticism. Even with applying Lego standards, 500€ is too much. But I`m repeating myself.^^

 

Because you are comparing sets that are not close to each other.  Like I said one is licensed Ninjago is not and the gardens is not the same style of build as Rivendell.  I was asking because you are complaining about price and I was just wondering if you have bought anything around 500 dollars.  And once again you are comparing Ninjago on price and that can have a discount where these sets won't.  That's fine that you think it's overpriced but it really isn't when you compare it to other licensed sets of that size or even like I said MK sets are really overpriced by your standards then.  And if you spent $400m dollars on Hogwarts realistically what is a 100 more for this set?  I'm not saying you can't compare lego sets at all but at least compare ones that are on the same level.  

[hikouki]

11 hours ago, Altair1 said:

This comparison is limited and buyest. Here is a fair comparison without discount (if you accept to be objective of course):

Hogwarts castle: 469.99 for 6060 pieces. Price per piece: 7.75. Minifigs:4. Microfigs:24.

Rivendell: 499.99 for 6167 pieces. Price per piece: 8.10. Minifigs:15. 

To summarize, the price per piece is almost the same. The main difference is that one set is microscale and has mostly microfigs, while the second one is a playset and has only minifigs. So it all comes down to personal taste. I personally think that both look great, but as I much prefer playsets (and I don't like microfigs) I bought several HP sets to make my own castle rather than this big one. And I will obviously buy Rivendell on day 1 :-)

Great analysis and I am with you on buying the set on day 1!

9 hours ago, Khargeust said:

Here are some impressions of the Rivendell set I want to share. As it is always difficult to point out what is right rather than what is wrong, I will be more talkative about the criticisms although I love the set.

The good :

- First, the return of the theme itself. I was in my dark ages when the LOTR and The Hobbit sets came out. When I got interested in LEGO again two-three years ago, the different minifigures and sets were already too expensive to look for. So I see this return as an indirect opportunity to get my hands on a universe that I missed. We will see if this release is followed by others, in any case it is already a chance to be contemporary with this set.

- The choice of colors and the architecture which transcribes well the atmosphere of the place.

- Nice balance between display set and play set.

- All of the Fellowship of the Ring miniatures!

- New molds and new prints.

The bad :

- The price. No doubt the large number of small parts artificially increases the price. But I still can't see where the 6167 pieces are. For such an amount, something is missing, a good third if not half of additional surface / builds...

- The fact that the back of the set is open. A second building half is missing so that the central building can be completely closed off at the rear. This was an opportunity to make a solid building with this light inversed V-shaped roof in the style of Roman architecture.
Thus, in my opinion the set can only really be exposed from the front contrary to what one of the lifestyle photos of the set suggests where the set is exposed from the back, the rendering is really awful... Back of the set looks a little cheap with these paintings inaccessible to miniatures. Something is missing. We could have imagined more living rooms as well as a complete hall with a spiral staircase.  Should I seek to acquire a second copy for this purpose? Aaah... Help!

- The stunted trees on the right side. In general trees could have more branches and leaves.

- The selection of minifigures is good but I would have preferred 3-5 more characters,let’s say 5 (additional elves, dwarves and humans), but in this case it would have been necessary to increase the surface of the board with more chairs. The statue figurines are a good addition but they do not count as real figurines in my opinion because they are not animated, it works more like a background. We could also have expected their headdress to be elvish as the "living" minifigures.

- The hairstyle of the elves. If it works well on its own, I find it a shame that it is generic and that it is intended for all elf characters. When we compare with the exclusive headdresses of the old figurines of Elrond or Arwenn, we deplore a loss. For example Legolas would have deserved a singular hairstyle, the generic headdress does not suit him so much as his front strands are too wide and also because his cheekbones have disappeared.

- The presence of stickers. For me it is indisputable, they should not exist, quite simply.

Despite everything, it remains a must have for me, but I will not buy it without double VIP points or with a discount. I am thinking of my local lego store which is not an official one but which nevertheless offers -15% on a receipt the week of our anniversary which is equivalent to a VIP Points x3 with automatic reduction, so the set would going to be 425€, which still seems too expensive to me but I could hardly have it cheaper because the product will remain exclusive like the 90 year old castle.

So, I'm going to take my time to acquire it, hoping that sales will be good, however, and that we see plenty of other sets appear afterwards, little ones or big ones. As I have already expressed it a little earlier here, I will be especially enthusiastic about the idea of a huge Bag End version of The Hobbit with all the dwarves of the Thorin or a Moria diorama (staging the confrontation with the cave troll or the Balrog).

Really great points and suggestions!

As much as everyone is disappointed with the price, including myself, I do wonder how it may be possible to carry out making this set at a much lower price tag? The only way I could think of is to release Rivendell in multiple sets that assemble together. I think that would be the only way to make it into, perhaps a dollhouse-style structure. They could have done two sets for the main building and a set or two for the grounds. Then again, Lego appears to hint that they are somewhat 'testing the waters' with this set. LOTR, at least in Lego form, does not seem to have as big of a following than HP or Marvel. Disadvantage to us fans.

7 hours ago, G_Brickley said:

This might reflect moreso my own wants but here goes. I've tried to space out the whole fellowship across a wave, plus some characters and locations that were left out in the OG sets.

Fellowship of the Ring: Boromir's Stand. 

• Probably the least likely one given how dark the subject is, but I was struggling to find any other scene that would provide the characters I was missing.
• Builds are the ruins where Aragorn tells Frodo to run, along with some additional trees and foliage.
• Figures are Aragorn, Boromir, Merry, Pippin, Lurtz, and two additional Uruk-hai.

Two Towers: Nazgul Attack.

• I'll be honest, I mainly just want a Fellbeast.
• Builds are a small portion of Osgiliath and a Fellbeast.
• Figures are Frodo, Sam, Gollum, Faramir, and a Ringwraith.

Return of the King: Mumakil Charge.

• Another creature build that I want to see (there may be a slight pattern to this).
• Build is a Mumakil.
• Figures are Legolas, Gimli, and three Haradrim.

The Hobbit: Smaug.

• I think Lord of the Rings adopting sets similar to the Hungarian Horntail or the Tallneck would be a great way for some smaller but still displayable sets.
• Build is Smaug with a base of piled-up gold and jewels.
• Figure is Bilbo in his blue coat.

Diorama: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

• Plenty of people have already expressed a want for this as a set in this thread.
• Builds are the Balrog and a portion of the bridge built on a black base with a "You shall not pass!" quote tile.
• Figure is Gandalf.

I'm not good with imagining hypothetical prices and piece counts, so I'll leave that to anyone else if they so wish 

Mamukil and Smaug would be great!

[RichardGoring]

2 hours ago, mtrsteve said:

It's not about superiority, it's about the fun of the hunt. Granted that's a feeling I developed from before the internet era when hunting for rares meant actually being patient and vigilant, and not just opening up your wallet. I guess it is different these days.

Agreed. There is very little that is genuinely rare nowadays. Just expensive. It irks me every so slightly when people claim to have found a rare item, when they usually just mean "I paid a stupid amount of money for this thing." Sadly, they don't show the level of joy I would expect, with some (but my no means all) clearly doing it for the social media impact.

Next week: old man yells at cloud (again)

11 minutes ago, hikouki said:

As much as everyone is disappointed with the price, including myself, I do wonder how it may be possible to carry out making this set at a much lower price tag? The only way I could think of is to release Rivendell in multiple sets that assemble together. I think that would be the only way to make it into, perhaps a dollhouse-style structure. They could have done two sets for the main building and a set or two for the grounds. Then again, Lego appears to hint that they are somewhat 'testing the waters' with this set. LOTR, at least in Lego form, does not seem to have as big of a following than HP or Marvel. Disadvantage to us fans.

While a nice idea, I suspect that it would be less successful for LEGO. Yes, $500 prices out a lot of people from buying this set. But there are a load of hard core LOTR fans who are not (yet) into LEGO that will something as big, bold, and impressive as this, and happily drop $500 on it, in a way that they probably wouldn't if you had to combine all the sets. When the 2021 wave of Harry Potter launched, the Hogwarts stuff was panned, in part because most of the castle builds were small little segments. It was only after people started combining sets of the new style (probably into year 2, maybe even only this year) that you can see just how impressive they can be. The non-LEGO, LOTR fans likely wouldn't buy into it as much.

But as we've discussed, there is a lot of potential for great adult-focused sets that are small and neat and less expensive. And I hope that they release some of them.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

[McMurder_them_softly]

3 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

I’m in. Good to go for this one on day 1. 

[kuzyabricks]

36 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

Count me in! I've waited ten years for this!

[JimBaggins]

2 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

I agree, but I'll have to work long and hard to get that $500

[BrickBob Studpants]

6 hours ago, hikouki said:

The only way I could think of is to release Rivendell in multiple sets that assemble together.

That wouldn’t make any sense. That’d be like selling each floor of a modular building separately  Sets need to be able to stand on their own, and a segmented Rivendell wouldn‘t

[MAB]

3 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

Nobody should pay $500 for this set with the impression that they are sending a message that they want more of the same. Buy it because you like it and want this one.

I think it is a really nice set but I'm not buying it. I don't even think it is that bad value for money. For me the issue is the size and that I already have all the main characters and in most cases i prefer the existing ones. I'd also have to mod it to fit my existing shelves, buy new furniture or display in another room. So I'm just going to copy parts of it using existing parts and PAB orders for the white swirls and so on, and scale the design down slightly to fit. 

 

11 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

That wouldn’t make any sense. That’d be like selling each floor of a modular building separately  Sets need to be able to stand on their own, and a segmented Rivendell wouldn‘t

They could do a hall / building and courtyard, a separate bridge, and a separate gazebo. All stand alone fine, it is just that they are not as impressive as one big set. 

[hoppa]

13 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

That wouldn’t make any sense. That’d be like selling each floor of a modular building separately  Sets need to be able to stand on their own, and a segmented Rivendell wouldn‘t

Lego does exactly this with the HP theme, releasing parts of hogwarts that are modulair and connect together. There are smaller wings, towers, etc. Granted, not floors, but this principle could have been applied to Rivendel too. I am happy they didn't btw, but the suggestion isnt't far out there or something

[hikouki]

So, which major and supporting characters from the LOTR and Hobbit movies are pending to be released as minifigs? Which major characters from the book do you think are missing as well?

4 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

$500 is a lot of money, there’s no denying that. However, as lego fans and collectors, it’s been clear for a very long time that this is an expensive hobby, especially for those who collect bigger sets. With all that in mind, Rivendell looks like it will be worth every penny of that $500, and I’ll pay it happily for the chance to have LOTR back in such a perfect way. And it’s important to keep in mind that the  $500 is going towards a “lego, look, we clearly want more of this theme” fund.

Yes, voting with the pocket!

46 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

That wouldn’t make any sense. That’d be like selling each floor of a modular building separately  Sets need to be able to stand on their own, and a segmented Rivendell wouldn‘t

Harry Potter... as noted on the quote below:

29 minutes ago, hoppa said:

Lego does exactly this with the HP theme, releasing parts of hogwarts that are modulair and connect together. There are smaller wings, towers, etc. Granted, not floors, but this principle could have been applied to Rivendel too. I am happy they didn't btw, but the suggestion isnt't far out there or something

 

36 minutes ago, MAB said:

Nobody should pay $500 for this set with the impression that they are sending a message that they want more of the same. Buy it because you like it and want this one.

I think it is a really nice set but I'm not buying it. I don't even think it is that bad value for money. For me the issue is the size and that I already have all the main characters and in most cases i prefer the existing ones. I'd also have to mod it to fit my existing shelves, buy new furniture or display in another room. So I'm just going to copy parts of it using existing parts and PAB orders for the white swirls and so on, and scale the design down slightly to fit. 

 

They could do a hall / building and courtyard, a separate bridge, and a separate gazebo. All stand alone fine, it is just that they are not as impressive as one big set. 

Just wondering if you are using IKEA cabinets? Which ones? I'm hoping it fits my Regissor. The ModuCase and TerraVault are just so expensive!

[BrickBob Studpants]

I knew the HP comparison would be coming  Thing is, those sets can stand on their own because they‘re playsets, not display models. The microscale Hogwarts also wouldn‘t make sense as several split-up sets.

And we spend a TON more screentime in Hogwarts compared to Rivendell. Splitting Hogwarts up into segments representing scenes from 8 movies works, while splitting a location seen in 2 movies for a handful of scenes wouldn‘t, IMO.

Also, who buys a set that includes nothing more than a bridge and a gazebo?!

Edited February 10, 2023 by BrickBob Studpants

[Blazej_Holen]

22 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

I knew the HP comparison would be coming  Thing is, those sets can stand on their own because they‘re playsets, not display models. The microscale Hogwarts also wouldn‘t make sense as several split-up sets.

And we spend a TON more screentime in Hogwarts compared to Rivendell. Splitting Hogwarts up into segments representing scenes from 8 movies works, while splitting a location seen in 2 movies for a handful of scenes wouldn‘t, IMO.

Also, who buys a set that includes nothing more than a bridge and a gazebo?!

I would buy such set :D But then I would be happier to buy Rivendell as a whole as it is right now :) 

BTW: comparison to HP Castle segments is out of place, not just for the reasons mentioned above, but also that those segments in HP line arent as impressive design-vise, not to mention that we will. probably get multiple same characters (Gazebo scene with Arwen and Aragorn, possibly Elrond; Council scene with Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and frankly most of the Fellowship if not all + Elrond. Then Study/tower scene with again Elrond and Gandalf, possibly Bilbo and Frodo... Ufff thank you but no thank you :) 

I was thinking about all those nitpicks and also the price discussion and came to conclusion... To me, it is must buy, but I can wait for a little while since the GWP isn't desirable for me... It is still the most beautiful set Lego ever released, even though there are some things I don't quite like (aside from the price)... To me, it would be great for 450 USD, and without any stickers. Then I wouldn't say a thing. But then, we are not living in a perfect world arent we? :D

 

[MAB]

2 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

I knew the HP comparison would be coming  Thing is, those sets can stand on their own because they‘re playsets, not display models. The microscale Hogwarts also wouldn‘t make sense as several split-up sets.

 

They are also from a theme primarily aimed at children with lower price points.

2 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Also, who buys a set that includes nothing more than a bridge and a gazebo?!

I would buy a set with the gazebo alone, without the bridge. That contains a lot of the swirly white parts I will need to buy from PAB. It would have made a nice and reasonably priced Hobbit set - Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman meet in the gazebo.

 

People still buy the original Council of Elrond and that is far less impressive than the gazebo.

Edited February 10, 2023 by MAB

[hikouki]

2 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

...

Also, who buys a set that includes nothing more than a bridge and a gazebo?!

I would.

The set us is such that the gazebo and bridge scenery can detach! Further, is that the gazebo alone can be plucked out of the set on its own - the lead (?) designer demonstrated that in a YT video, and explained that people may want to display it by itself.

And yes, as someone pointed out earlier, The Council of Elrond set is a joke compared to this new set but people are still after it.

2 hours ago, Blazej_Holen said:

I would buy such set :D But then I would be happier to buy Rivendell as a whole as it is right now :) 

...

I was thinking about all those nitpicks and also the price discussion and came to conclusion... To me, it is must buy, but I can wait for a little while since the GWP isn't desirable for me... It is still the most beautiful set Lego ever released, even though there are some things I don't quite like (aside from the price)... To me, it would be great for 450 USD, and without any stickers. Then I wouldn't say a thing. But then, we are not living in a perfect world arent we? :D

 

Thanks for pointing out those stickers! I think that for a set that is supposed to be as 'grand' as this one, stickers should be banned. I could understand stickers on the Speed Champs series - keeping the costs as close to a certain price point as possible. But if you are selling a $500 set and there are stickers??? Lego, I hope you are listening - imagine being served reheated instant pizza in the first class cabin of a flight!

Our world has never been perfect. But yes, we are now living in a very different world (from two years ago, prior to covid). Everything is now so expensive - especially the already costly Legos.

Edited February 10, 2023 by hikouki

[MAB]

21 minutes ago, hikouki said:

Thanks for pointing out those stickers! I think that for a set that is supposed to be as 'grand' as this one, stickers should be banned.

If stickers were "banned" from expensive sets, then I imagine that for this set it would mean:

- no pictures or other decorations on the rear side wall,

- no Mithrill armour,

- no pattern on the bed or bedroom walls,

- maybe a printed 1x2 tile with "There and Back Again" if they can reuse it elsewhere.

The decorations don't really add a much to this set as so much of the detail is brick built, so chances are the decorations for minor details and Easter Eggs would just disappear.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

42 minutes ago, MAB said:

If stickers were "banned" from expensive sets, then I imagine that for this set it would mean:

- no pictures or other decorations on the rear side wall,

- no Mithrill armour,

- no pattern on the bed or bedroom walls,

- maybe a printed 1x2 tile with "There and Back Again" if they can reuse it elsewhere.

The decorations don't really add a much to this set as so much of the detail is brick built, so chances are the decorations for minor details and Easter Eggs would just disappear.

Yes, I agree, stickers are a necessary evil sometimes. It’s not like they would all be replaced with prints. There would just be less detail. I don’t love stickers but I also understand that they’re necessary to capture things that can’t be done with bricks and won’t be done with prints 

5 hours ago, MAB said:

Nobody should pay $500 for this set with the impression that they are sending a message that they want more of the same. Buy it because you like it and want this one.

Why can’t both apply? I love this set and will buy it day one. But at the same time, by spending this much money on this set I’m telling lego I want more. That’s perfectly realistic 

[Altair1]

3 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Why can’t both apply? I love this set and will buy it day one. But at the same time, by spending this much money on this set I’m telling lego I want more. That’s perfectly realistic 

I agree, you can very well do both. And so will I !

[Lordhelmet]

20 minutes ago, Altair1 said:

I agree, you can very well do both. And so will I !

Same, the worst thing that could happen is this set not selling well and Lego taking that as there is not a fan base for LOTR and canceling any play set or future plans.  I think we all agree their intro back into LOTR could have been better (play sets, dioramas, etc.). But we have brickheadz and a pricey (but awesome looking) set.  I’ll be doing my part to keep the theme alive and well, and will thoroughly enjoy an excellent set that is reminiscent of the old theme style (with more detail).  I do also like the Aragorn Arwen brickheadz (surprisingly as I do not like brickheadz in general).  Those two were fun to build and look pretty decent all things considered.  
 

Side note - the response “you’re just signaling you want more big sets or more brickheadz by buying these” has been discussed like twenty times in this thread. Let’s just not go through that again as we can go read back through pages 35-65 to hear all the points.

[BitByBrick]

Overall really like the presentation of this set. Huge LOTR fan. Not sure how soon of a purchase it will be for me. Saving up will be the first issue ($500 is a monster purchase for me) Next finding a place to properly display it (ideas anyone?) Also waiting for double VIP points and/or a nice gift with purchase to soften the blow of dropping so much coin. In a perfect world, these will be able to happen sooner rather than later. Mid-summer maybe? Here’s hoping! 

[neithan]

17 hours ago, Altair1 said:

 You guys are quite patient! No way will I wait to get a hold of my ''precious'' (especially knowing that it will most likely go out of stock pretty fast, and possibly for a while)

Sooo.... you can wait till its back and maybe is available at retailers with a nice discount?

Why the hurry? Honest question, I was never able to understand why I have to own a set the moment it is available? If I get it half a year later for a lower price there is nothing I missed... with the upside of having money saved.^^

Edited February 10, 2023 by neithan

[Balrogofmorgoth]

8 minutes ago, neithan said:

Sooo.... you can wait till its back and maybe is available at retailers with a nice discount?

Why the hurry? Honest question, I was never able to understand why I have to own a set the moment it is available? If I get it half a year later for a lower price there is nothing I missed... with the upside of having money saved.^^

I typically don’t feel the need to buy a set “day one”. There are some exceptions though. This is the strongest desire I’ve ever had to own a lego set on day one since the original LOTR line. It’s more about Tolkien’s works and Peter Jackson’s films having such a huge impact on who I am as a person than anything else. To have those things honored with such a gorgeous lego set makes it a definite day one purchase for me. I just want to have it as soon as physically possible

[Altair1]

6 minutes ago, neithan said:

Sooo.... you can wait till its back and maybe is available at retailers with a nice discount?

Why the hurry? Honest question, I was never able to understand why I have to own a set the moment it is available? If I get it half a year later for a lower price there is nothing I missed... with the upside of having money saved.^^

Oh I just happen to have saved enough money to buy it full price, and I have been waiting so long for it that I want to build it as soon as I can! I don't do that with every set, but this one is really special to me :-)