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

[HothFan1987]

46 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

That seems like a pretty wild assumption. Not sure there is much to support it, other than the label not appearing on the Tantive.

It's not a wild assumption at all. I'd have been very surprised if the MBS label did appear on the Tantive IV given it isn't a playset? Of course the proof will be if further MBS series are released.

[jdubbs]

44 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

It's not a wild assumption at all. I'd have been very surprised if the MBS label did appear on the Tantive IV given it isn't a playset? Of course the proof will be if further MBS series are released.

It’s a wild assumption in that you have nothing in the way of evidence or past experience to base it on. If you’d said “I doubt we’ll see more playsets” that at least would have some basis, given they’ve done back-to-back playsets that didn’t appear to sell very well. There’s nothing to suggest they won’t continue to use the MBS label if they do make more playsets, on the other hand.

I only mentioned the tantive since it lacked the USC label too, and straddled the line between display piece and playable set (given it had interior spaces, etc.)

There’s also no reason the MBS label can’t be applied to a non-playset. It’s Master Builder Series, not Master Playset Series after all. 

[HothFan1987]

18 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

It’s a wild assumption in that you have nothing in the way of evidence or past experience to base it on. If you’d said “I doubt we’ll see more playsets” that at least would have some basis, given they’ve done back-to-back playsets that didn’t appear to sell very well. There’s nothing to suggest they won’t continue to use the MBS label if they do make more playsets, on the other hand.

I only mentioned the tantive since it lacked the USC label too, and straddled the line between display piece and playable set (given it had interior spaces, etc.)

There’s also no reason the MBS label can’t be applied to a non-playset. It’s Master Builder Series, not Master Playset Series after all. 

How on earth do you know what I'm basing on? I know you know stuff from the posts, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't have basis and as far as I'm aware there's no forum rules that other people aren't allowed to share information? The lego website classified the MBS as being "built with the play aspect in mind, having many play features, functions and interior details." which obviously fits more to playsets as I wouldn't say the Tantive had "many" of those at all. I'm just saying don't expect to say the MBS label again.

[jdubbs]

3 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

How on earth do you know what I'm basing on? I know you know stuff from the posts, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't have basis and as far as I'm aware there's no forum rules that other people aren't allowed to share information? The lego website classified the MBS as being "built with the play aspect in mind, having many play features, functions and interior details." which obviously fits more to playsets as I wouldn't say the Tantive had "many" of those at all. I'm just saying don't expect to say the MBS label again.

You don't provide any basis for your assumption, so how is anyone supposed to know what you're basing it on? If you had a tangible reason to believe what you're asserting, you'd only need to say "I can't get into specifics, but I have reason to believe..." and that at least would qualify your post as something more than speculation. You say you're "sure" it's never going to be used again... I have far less certainty about things for which I have loads of evidence, than you seem to have about something for which you've offered zero evidence.

Believe what you want. It's a label on a box, with virtually zero significance to anyone other than a few very vocal people who obsess over these kinds of details. 

[HothFan1987]

Just now, jdubbs said:

You don't provide any basis for your assumption, so how is anyone supposed to know what you're basing it on? If you had a tangible reason to believe what you're asserting, you'd only need to say "I can't get into specifics, but I have reason to believe..." and that at least would qualify your post as something more than speculation. You say you're "sure" it's never going to be used again... I have far less certainty about things for which I have loads of evidence, than you seem to have about something for which you've offered zero evidence.

Believe what you want. It's a label on a box, with virtually zero significance to anyone other than a few very vocal people who obsess over these kinds of details. 

Given you (fairly) don't post evidence about what you know (which I, like others, appreciate you sharing), it's very rich for you to expect others to. For something that has "virtually zero significance" you're getting very worked up and "vocal" about it. I was merely answering a question someone posed about whether we would get a MBS set this yet clarifying that anything most likely wouldn't be under that label.

Please don't reply to me on this or patronise me again.

[Renown]

8 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

Given you (fairly) don't post evidence about what you know (which I, like others, appreciate you sharing), it's very rich for you to expect others to. For something that has "virtually zero significance" you're getting very worked up and "vocal" about it. I was merely answering a question someone posed about whether we would get a MBS set this yet clarifying that anything most likely wouldn't be under that label.

Please don't reply to me on this or patronise me again.

I think there is a difference between drip-feeding new information and making unfounded assumptions, no matter how confident one might feel in their gut instinct. Those in the know or with access to certain materials shouldn't feel forced to cite their sources when asked, or as has often been the case, pretty much bullied into, because ultimately, people with such information aren't under any obligation to share it in the first place. Wait and see for yourself is the simple alternative. It's up to each member to choose to believe them. 

However, when an opinion is expressed, as yours has been, with quite a great deal of confidence, it shouldn't necessarily be afforded those same privileges for fairly understandable reasons. I think by this point in time there is a general acceptance on the forum that this practice does nothing to benefit forum members long term and just drives away individuals who would be able to offer the forum a lot.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by Renown

[jdubbs]

17 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

Please don't reply to me on this or patronise me again.

No. You don't get to call me out on something and then expect me not to respond. 

17 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

Given you (fairly) don't post evidence about what you know (which I, like others, appreciate you sharing), it's very rich for you to expect others to.

I don't expect anything of you that I don't do myself. I may not be able to say "X person told me this" or "I saw this, this and that at Toy Fair" but I do differentiate between when I am assuming or guessing at something versus when I have a basis to believe something to be true, which is all I asked you to do. I do apologize if that came across as patronizing. That is all I will say on the matter.

Edited February 11, 2020 by jdubbs

[HothFan1987]

8 minutes ago, Renown said:

I think there is a difference between drip-feeding new information and making unfounded assumptions, no matter how confident one might feel in their gut instinct. Those in the know or with access to certain materials shouldn't feel forced to cite their sources when asked, or as has often been the case, pretty much bullied into, because ultimately, people with such information aren't under any obligation to share it in the first place. Wait and see for yourself is the simple alternative. It's up to each member to choose to believe them. 

However, when an opinion is expressed, as yours has been, with quite a great deal of confidence, it shouldn't necessarily be afforded those same privileges for fairly understandable reasons. I think by this point in time there is a general acceptance on the forum that this practice does nothing to benefit forum members long term and just drives away individuals who would be able to offer the forum a lot.  

Lesson learnt about trying to be helpful and share some information. In fact the attitude of the other poster has put me off using this forum at all.

Edited February 11, 2020 by HothFan1987
Amend to text

[MKJoshA]

The community should be thankful for leaks. No one should demand them. No one should insist on sources. Time always tells who the reliable leakers are. Everyone needs to take a chill pill.

[The_Chosen_1]

Funny that the subject of Master Builder Series is coming up; I just had this exchange with Jeremy (an extremely reliable source) on the Rebelscum forums last week. Seems as though the "MBS" moniker is no more.

 

[jdubbs]

10 minutes ago, The_Chosen_1 said:

Funny that the subject of Master Builder Series is coming up; I just had this exchange with Jeremy (an extremely reliable source) on the Rebelscum forums last week. Seems as though the "MBS" moniker is no more.

Thank you. That sounds pretty reliable.

[ARC2149Nova]

Well that sucks. Lego keeps coming up with subthemes for Star Wars, just to abandon them (*cough*Constraction*cough*). Though i suppose it won't stop them from releasing more sets in the vein of Cloud City, but under the UCS umbrella.

[The_Chosen_1]

Yes, I expect we'll see additional large location-based sets in the future, just not under the subtheme of "Master Builder Series". In fact, seeing how long ago Betrayal at Cloud City was released, I'd hope we're due for another one in the next year.

Edited February 11, 2020 by The_Chosen_1

[HothFan1987]

1 hour ago, jdubbs said:

Thank you. That sounds pretty reliable.

It could just be a wild assumption by Jens Kronvold Frederickson though.

[jdubbs]

5 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

It could just be a wild assumption by Jens Kronvold Frederickson though.

You're funny.

4 hours ago, HothFan1987 said:

In fact the attitude of the other poster has put me off using this forum at all.

Changed your mind, then? Good.

[w219]

2 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Well that sucks. Lego keeps coming up with subthemes for Star Wars, just to abandon them (*cough*Constraction*cough*). Though i suppose it won't stop them from releasing more sets in the vein of Cloud City, but under the UCS umbrella.

This were good sets, but maybe too late. 10 years ago, it could have worked better.

[The_Chosen_1]

52 minutes ago, HothFan1987 said:

It could just be a wild assumption by Jens Kronvold Frederickson though.

I'm pretty sure the lead creative director on the Lego Star Wars theme knows what he's talking about.

[Kit Figsto]

Ultimately I never understood why the UCS label was regarded as this “sacred” thing and therefore they couldn’t release playsets under the moniker.  The Ewok Village was UCS and no one had an issue with it, but just because people didn’t like the Hoth set, suddenly it became such a big deal.  If you don’t like a UCS playset but still collect UCS sets, just don’t buy it.  That’s more money saved for you.  Relating this to 2020, a lot of speculation seemed to think that they’d release an MBS/playset type set in the fall D2C slot.  Wonder if that’s a lot less likely now.

[AndrewShun]

Imagine assuming things and blaming others when they assume different things

Edited February 11, 2020 by AndrewShun

[HothFan1987]

1 hour ago, The_Chosen_1 said:

I'm pretty sure the lead creative director on the Lego Star Wars theme knows what he's talking about.

Well, quite. 

[Mandalorianknight]

22 hours ago, LurkingEhlek said:

Well, C-3PO showed up in an AT-AT once for some reason, so who knows?

You forgot the scene where c-3po takes on the entire empire? He takes down like 50 at-ats! 

21 hours ago, blujay563 said:

Same! I have a whole hoth diorama set up with the ucs assault on hoth and a few other sets but i was never able to track down an at-at for a decent price so my imperials finally have a chance against the rebels?

I had a similar thing awhile back, but then sold assault on hoth because it ended up being as bad as everyone said it was.

6 hours ago, jdubbs said:

I don't expect anything of you that I don't do myself. I may not be able to say "X person told me this" or "I saw this, this and that at Toy Fair" but I do differentiate between when I am assuming or guessing at something versus when I have a basis to believe something to be true, which is all I asked you to do. I do apologize if that came across as patronizing. That is all I will say on the matter.

And thank you for that. There are alot of people who won't differentiate, or pretend to know things they don't.

[Sneakguest]

1 hour ago, Kit Figsto said:

Ultimately I never understood why the UCS label was regarded as this “sacred” thing and therefore they couldn’t release playsets under the moniker.  The Ewok Village was UCS and no one had an issue with it, but just because people didn’t like the Hoth set, suddenly it became such a big deal.  If you don’t like a UCS playset but still collect UCS sets, just don’t buy it.  That’s more money saved for you.  Relating this to 2020, a lot of speculation seemed to think that they’d release an MBS/playset type set in the fall D2C slot.  Wonder if that’s a lot less likely now.

If there is nobody holding any information here, I would say, from looking at the past that lego has been pretty random with large playsets, locations or not as well as UCS that has alot of figures and those that dont. 2016 we got to playsets, otherwise most years since the Ewok village, there has been a larger playset with many figures, I see the exceptions being 2015 and last year where they were no large sets with close to ten figures and more. So I think an educated guess is tricky, however doesn't usually stop some people here...

[Balrogofmorgoth]

I really hope they keep releasing MBS style sets even if they don’t use that title for them. I love the big playsets with lots of minifigs, they’re great for exclusive variants and collectibility 

[LegoStarWarsFan777]

I do not know as much as some other people on these forums but I do know some stuff so I’m going to speculate about the April wave. We don’t know what the fourth set is but I think it’ll be the throne room set from TROS. Let me explain, the Skywalker saga video game could release before the summer wave gets revealed and typically the video games are based on actual mini figures and set builds so I don’t think that they would release the game before that set. Also, most of the summer wave sets are supposed to be prequel era based. 

[mon-o-mat]

4 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Ultimately I never understood why the UCS label was regarded as this “sacred” thing and therefore they couldn’t release playsets under the moniker.  The Ewok Village was UCS and no one had an issue with it, but just because people didn’t like the Hoth set, suddenly it became such a big deal.  If you don’t like a UCS playset but still collect UCS sets, just don’t buy it.  That’s more money saved for you.  Relating this to 2020, a lot of speculation seemed to think that they’d release an MBS/playset type set in the fall D2C slot.  Wonder if that’s a lot less likely now.

Generally, I would say, the reason for this is, that bad sets take up the place for potential good sets, therefore people don't like them. This is especially true for UCS-sets, where you only get two a year.