LEGO Star Wars 2020 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[jdubbs]

7 hours ago, Brikkyy13 said:

To me this is proof that the AFOL market isn't as large as we like to think it is. For years people on these forums asked for a new cloud city, and now it's going away just as fast as it came. I know it's not what a lot of people want to hear, but the OT doesn't resonate with the younger audience as much as it did with the older audience.

I think the conclusions you’re reaching are way off. This set was not aimed at AFOLs, but was clearly intended for kids, which I think is why a lot of AFOLs were disappointed in it. (It doesn’t help that AFOLs seemed to be of very different minds as to what the set should have been.) It has a lot of nice, small builds and interior spaces, but as a display piece it just doesn’t work... too large a footprint, too squat and amorphous, tenuous visible connection to the actual shape of the city.

And, if the OT weren’t resonating with younger shoppers, I doubt we’d be getting so damn many rehashes of OT sets. 

11 minutes ago, KevinMD said:

I assume you’re referring to the tantive? Wasn’t labeled a UCS but I agree. I also don’t understand why adults are interested in play sets / features in the first place but this forum says they are. 

Tantive was ANH. Last two ESB UCS sets were the snowspeeder and Assault on Hoth, neither of which was well-received. 

[Sneakguest]

2 hours ago, Hokierespect said:

Wasn’t there a rumor of a jabba the hut UCS a while back?  Something similar to the sail barge but minifigue  and playset themed. 

Only thought people talked about it due to the klatoonian head (which belonged to the Mandalorian) and a hairpiece from Leia (which probably was just the old one but without printing). What I recalled being mentioned a while back ago was something. Wookiee related, but cannot remember if it was mentioned here or somewhere else.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

59 minutes ago, KevinMD said:

I assume you’re referring to the tantive? Wasn’t labeled a UCS but I agree. I also don’t understand why adults are interested in play sets / features in the first place but this forum says they are. 

No, I was referring to the Assault of Hoth monstrosity.

I thought the Tantive received good reviews. What were the issues? 

 

51 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

Tantive was ANH. Last two ESB UCS sets were the snowspeeder and Assault on Hoth, neither of which was well-received. 

The sad bit is that the relative failure of these two Hoth based UCS sets probably adversely affected the chances of getting a UCS AT-AT. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Another Brick In The Wall

[KevinMD]

15 minutes ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

No, I was referring to the Assault of Hoth monstrosity.

I thought the Tantive received good reviews. What were the issues? 

 

The sad bit is that the relative failure of these two Hoth based UCS sets probably adversely affected the chances of getting a UCS AT-AT. 

I thought the problem with the tantive was the packed play features into a ship people were wanting a model of and sacrificed quality / size. I know for me, it doesn’t belong on a shelf and as such at best I am buying it for the figs (like all the MBS sets). The build up and then later let down was much more recent and painful, being a ship.

I’d long since forgotten about hoth, sorry about that!

[Magmafrost]

10 hours ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

The sad bit is that the relative failure of these two Hoth based UCS sets probably adversely affected the chances of getting a UCS AT-AT. 

The chance of getting a UCS AT-AT any time soon was 0% to begin with. Its just not possible to build one that meets Lego's strict stability requirements with pieces that currently exist.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Magmafrost

[Balrogofmorgoth]

My guess is that there retiring the Falcon because a) most people who buy it probably already have and b) they don’t want it to affect the ISD sales

[Another Brick In The Wall]

4 hours ago, Magmafrost said:

The chance of getting a UCS AT-AT any time soon was 0% to begin with. Its just not possible to build one that meets Lego's strict stability requirements with pieces that currently exist.

Thank you for the clarification. 

 

Btw, I thought some members here fixed the stability issues on cavegods’s AT-AT MOC, which was larger than UCS scale with some technics connections 

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/117382-cavegod-ucs-at-at-instructions/&page=4

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Another Brick In The Wall

[lego_guyon02]

5 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

My guess is that there retiring the Falcon because a) most people who buy it probably already have and b) they don’t want it to affect the ISD sales

Point B wouldn't make much sense because according to that info the Falcon is retiring late 2020, a whole year after the ISD releases

[Balrogofmorgoth]

5 hours ago, Guyon2002 said:

Point B wouldn't make much sense because according to that info the Falcon is retiring late 2020, a whole year after the ISD releases

They probably just don’t want them on the shelves together any longer than that

[m4st3rt3ch]

11 hours ago, Magmafrost said:

The chance of getting a UCS AT-AT any time soon was 0% to begin with. Its just not possible to build one that meets Lego's strict stability requirements with pieces that currently exist.

Do UCS sets have to meet stability requirements normal sets don't have to?

[lego_guyon02]

3 minutes ago, m4st3rt3ch said:

Do UCS sets have to meet stability requirements normal sets don't have to?

I wouldn't say so, the UCS ISD isn't anywhere near as stable as most normal sets (at least it doesn't look like it)

[m4st3rt3ch]

2 hours ago, Guyon2002 said:

I wouldn't say so, the UCS ISD isn't anywhere near as stable as most normal sets (at least it doesn't look like it)

Yes, it was more of a rhetorical question. 10178 (once sold as UCS), 8129, 75054, 4483, 30497...why again should a new UCS AT-AT be impossible?

Edit: Typo elminated

Edited September 9, 2019 by m4st3rt3ch

[Another Brick In The Wall]

 

2 hours ago, m4st3rt3ch said:

Yes, it was more of a rhetorical question. 10178 (once sold as UCS), 8129, 75054, 4483, 30479...why again should a new UCS AT-AT be impossible?

What is 30479? 

[m4st3rt3ch]

Just now, Another Brick In The Wall said:

 

What is 30479? 

Sorry, 30497.

[lego the hutt]

15 hours ago, m4st3rt3ch said:

why again should a new UCS AT-AT be impossible?

Edit: Typo elminated

This is an old question that has been discussed to death.  A Lego rep. responded to it a few years back saying that Lego has attempted to design a UCS sized at-at but it didn't pass QC tests for stability.

The cavegod moc was crazy unstable...dont bump the table type of unstable.  Even if it was made more stable with technic pieces I would expect it still wouldn't be stable enough for Lego's standards.

[TeufelHund]

On 9/8/2019 at 9:42 AM, Brikkyy13 said:

And so the Death Star’s 12 year long reign will come to an end. I was beginning to expect that set to be around for ever.

Maybe the revised version didn't sell that well given a lot of AFOLs would have had the original and the newer version was just the same thing with updated minifigs?

Would take a completely new version to get me interested.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

23 minutes ago, TeufelHund said:

Maybe the revised version didn't sell that well given a lot of AFOLs would have had the original and the newer version was just the same thing with updated minifigs?

Would take a completely new version to get me interested.

A closed up version. I got the original open one so I didn’t throw $500 at the updated version. I kinda regret even getting the other one though, it just doesn’t look good all open like that. I’d love an updated Death Star and Death Star II that are closed up and just for display

[Robianco]

That Dec 31 2020 date would mean the Death Star and Falcon would be gone, following on from CC in Dec 2019. The Slave 1 and Snowspeeder have already recently gone. Tantive is also due to go (I'm listing this as it's also listed in the exclusives part of the Lego site).

That's a pretty big clearout of your flagship sets. The ISD is a monster but I'm interested in what they will add to that shelf offering (including the Y-Wing which should still be around) over the next 14 or so months in anticipation of the DS and Milf retiring.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

21 hours ago, Robianco said:

 

That's a pretty big clearout of your flagship sets. The ISD is a monster but I'm interested in what they will add to that shelf offering (including the Y-Wing which should still be around) over the next 14 or so months in anticipation of the DS and Milf retiring.

Another UCs take on the Imperial Shuttle is a certainty. It can only go one way, though, because 10212 was close to perfection in my view.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Robianco]

1 hour ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

Another UCs take on the Imperial Shuttle is a certainty. It can only go one way, though, because 10212 was close to perfection in my view.

To be honest I never quite realise how many had been remade. X-Wing, Y-Wing, Snowspeeder, Death Star, Milf, Yoda Bust, Sandcrawler, ISD, Cloud City and the Tantive. (I've included Tantive as even though it's smaller it's still an exclusive set and almost £200, it's also packaged similar to a UCS set). The Shuttle wouldn't be a bad shout but there's been absolutely no indication or rumour as to what it might be. I wouldn't want to start even mentioning it as other sites then post these comments as rumours and they end up back here as some kind of very early leak.

[Eaglefan344]

On 9/7/2019 at 6:08 PM, m4st3rt3ch said:

Set retirements:

July 2020

75214 Anakin’s Jedi Starfighter
75234 AT-AP Walker
75237 TIE Fighter Attack

December 2020

75159 Death Star
75192 Millennium Falcon
75220 Sandcrawler
75235 X-Wing Starfighter Trench Run
75236 Duel on Starkiller Base
75239 Action Battle Hoth Generator Attack
75240 Major Vonreg’s TIE Fighter
75241 Action Battle Echo Base Defense
75242 Black Ace TIE Interceptor
75243 Slave I – 20th Anniversary Edition
75244 Tantive IV
75251 Darth Vader’s Castle
75258 Anakin’s Podracer – 20th Anniversary Edition

Is this based off of actual evidence or just guesses?

[lego_guyon02]

7 minutes ago, Eaglefan344 said:

Is this based off of actual evidence or just guesses?

This information came from Rebelscum and to my knowledge they have been pretty reliable in the past

[Eaglefan344]

14 minutes ago, Guyon2002 said:

This information came from Rebelscum and to my knowledge they have been pretty reliable in the past

Thanks for clarifying. I'm surprised that the UCS Y-wing isn't on either list. 

[lowlead]

7 hours ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

Another UCS take on the Imperial Shuttle is a certainty. It can only go one way, though, because 10212 was close to perfection in my view.

^^Agreed...close.

I would love to see another UCS Lambda Shuttle because there's room for improvement on 10212, if you ask me.  The engine exhaust looked pretty bad, so I modified mine to my liking.  Also, the taper of the cockpit nose section was too extreme.  To be fair, it's probably one of the most difficult shapes to achieve accurately with LEGO elements, but it bugs me every time I look at it - which is dozens of times a day.  I still haven't thought of a good solution...

But a new UCS Lambda-class with the Emperor, 4 Royal Guards and an officer or two!  YES PLEASE!!

Edited September 11, 2019 by lowlead
added link

[Frizzlefry25]

On 9/9/2019 at 9:25 PM, lego the hutt said:

This is an old question that has been discussed to death.  A Lego rep. responded to it a few years back saying that Lego has attempted to design a UCS sized at-at but it didn't pass QC tests for stability.

The cavegod moc was crazy unstable...dont bump the table type of unstable.  Even if it was made more stable with technic pieces I would expect it still wouldn't be stable enough for Lego's standards.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, what size AT-AT do we consider to be UCS. I have built raskolnikovs Plus size AT-AT, which I know is not Cavegod proportions, but seems very stable to me, and I would consider that to be a UCS ballpark size.