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

[ARC2149Nova]

29 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

LEGO themselves have backed themselves into a corner with their outlandishly large/complex/overpriced TIE designs to the point that they can no longer do a bomber to match at a reasonable price point. 

I completely agree with this. They keep trying to increase the size of fighter craft to the point of ridiculous expense. If they were to make the next few TIEs along the size of, say the 2012 fighter, I'm sure they could crank out a few varieties at the $50-$70 price point, with $70 obviously reserved for the Bomber.

After all, a TIE of any kind doesn't need to be the size of an AT-AT! 

[Darth Malgus]

Agree with the sentiments here, a bomber shouldn't be that hard and to be fair looking at the reviews of the current wave with exception of a few sets the designs appear to be underwhelming. Making a set that others want and has as much presence as others shouldn't be too niche.

[BrickBob Studpants]

Or maybe they simply didn’t want to disclose the real reason: that the last one bombed so hard (pun definitely intended) they don’t want to release another minifig-scaled one ever again  I’m only semi-kidding here, I mean why hasn’t there been another version in 17 years? If that one had been a success, we surely would’ve had more than one remake since then. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the only OT set since the theme started that never got a single remake?

[TeddytheSpoon]

Just now, Lego-Freak said:

Or maybe they simply didn’t want to disclose the real reason: that the last one bombed so hard (pun definitely intended) they don’t want to release another minifig-scaled one ever again  I’m only semi-kidding here, I mean why hasn’t there been another version in 17 years? If that one had been a success, we surely would’ve had more than one remake since then. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the only OT set since the theme started that never got a single remake?

It won't be the only one, the TIE interceptor also hasn't been remade since 2006 and I'm sure there's more.

[BrickBob Studpants]

1 minute ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

It won't be the only one, the TIE interceptor also hasn't been remade since 2006 and I'm sure there's more.

That one at least had a UCS version and was part of the recent DSII GWP 

[Per_SW]

4 hours ago, Kim-Kwang-Seok said:

Im not defending a capitalistic-child toy company
But the interpretations here are waaay off. With weird sets like the Quadjumper or this huge transport ship from the Solo movie - they try to get sooooomething out of the new movies, as well as the new market comming with it. It's horrible sets still. The twin-pod car or the Wookie-Catamaran were released only with their specific movies and never again - cause it probably was the same situation.

And I never read out in no interview out that the designers are super nerds. They research a bit, mostly concept art, they know the movies. But I doubt they know all the shows and video games, where a product is popular. And do we know if the video game players are similarly strong basis of purchasing Lego sets, as kids are, who just saw movies? I would like numbers for that.

The problem is how sets are built today: SW has a 15-35 % tax, sets are with way more parts, many times oversized - the last Tie was 70? So A Defender would probably be 90-100? The Tie Bomber has two cockpits, which are both larger than the standard Tie one's - 110-120?.

The last Vader's Tie Fighter was actually undersized (solar panels to short, back of the undersides half built and undersized). It used the same basic cockpit structure as the Tie-Prototype. After this they changed the Tie design weirdly enough. Now it looks less round, less accurate and contains much more parts. So the problem is how and why they build sets this way now. I think they could also do a chibi-Tie Bomber, like the they did with Vader's Tie's for the castle and Death Star sets. But then again when they release a cheaper, chibi-like set as with the droid-tanks - people here riot. So I already see it comming: if th

Answering to your direct quote, I don't see how I implied the designers where nerds of any kind, or even supposed to be maniacally knowledgable on every little bit of SW lore.
I was just stating that the comment about buying everything on day one seemed like a poorly made quip when faced with a pretty justified question about the retired snowspeeder which could have paired well with the AT-AT (although it is worth mentioning that they probably just want us to by the 4+ version too :D ), adding that I heard something similar happened when Assault on Hoth first came out, just about when the last AT-AThad just retired.
Regarding the niche comment I agree with you that Lego tends to prioritize sets from the current or newest content over some remakes, but then again I think you can agree with me that some of these sets such as the aforementioned Quadjumper have the same or even less screentime than the Tie Bomber they are trying to tell us is too obscure. Then again, your argument about the overcomplicated builds for TIEs nowadays hits the mark on the problem quite well, I do agree wholeheartedly that the constant price creep has put them in the corner of having to make a 90-110$ Bomber if it has to align with the other recent TIEs.

 

[Flieger]

4 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

Once again that interview I feel makes things worse than having no interview at all.

I am quite happy about them, even if I do not agree with some of their explanations.

The recent interviews clearly demonstrated that Lego knows how important the afols are for Star Wars, be it as parents or otherwise. They also understand that there is a generation of afols who want of PT/TCW-sets, system scale as well as UCS. I mean, it was rather obvious but it is nice to know Lego acknowledges that fact. The 'lego is making sets for kids'-argument may be true but it is getting weaker and weaker by the year when it comes to Star Wars.

 

11 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I want them to be interviewed about the IT-S next, because after this bantha fodder, I want to hear the contradictory logic they try to pull on us.

That will be very interesting, indeed. With the demand for TCW, The Mandalorian, and classic (non-ST) stuff, the IT-S is hard to explain. Arguing the price point of a system scale (!) TIE Bomber would be to high for such a nice set while releasing a 100€ I-TS is plain contradictory if that was the main reason

I do believe a modern TIE Bomber would easily be 100€, too, if not 120€. And while it is not as iconic as some other sets, it has a cult following who would easily pay that 120€, or buy it for their kids. Despite a few seconds of screentime in the movie, there were many toys e.g. And you cannot tell me all the other toy companies lost money with it all the time.

Yeah, it lost against the Gunship in the UCS scale, but the Gunship would have won against pretty everything except the most iconic OT vehicles. And the play value of the bomber if quite high anyway: bomb drop mechanism, spring loaded shooters, and space for minifigs, plus being very swooshable. It would be a good set.

[Mandalorianknight]

9 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Things like the Police Gunship or AT-OT I'll give them since they had some role in TCW (the police gunship specifically at the end of Season 5 was in quite a few of the episodes) or are recognizable enough (the Dropship's basically a gunship, AT-OT basically an AT-TE), but yeah, the Wookiee Catamaran/gunship were literally in ROTS for like five seconds.  With the Bomber, you could argue that it only has the one scene in ESB, but like you guys were pointing out, it's clearly a TIE Fighter and that alone makes it more recognizable than something like the Wookiee Gunship even if the actual screen time is similar.

I think in a way it's similar to the AT-OT (which, by the way, is the stupidest design in star wars. Literally one STAP, rocket b2, or even just a b1 with the high ground could massacre the troopers in there. Who, both in universe and at lucasfilm, thought that an open-top AT-TE made sense at all?), where it's a variant of a more well-known vehicle.

I must have missed the playability argument but that's even more asinine than their "too niche" argument. A TIE bomber would have at least an opening cockpit, spring loaded shooters, and a bomb drop function. That's already more than the past few TIE fighters. Then you could easily add a sort of opening storage compartment somewhere, too. Seriously, it's like they don't remember their own sets!

[TheNerdyOne_]

A lot of people here are ignoring a very crucial part of that interview answer.  They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough.  They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require.  The price range required for a figure-scale TIE Bomber is one that is almost exclusively reserved for highly recognizable vehicles with a ton of play value.  AFOLs might love a TIE Bomber regardless of the price range, but kids/parents don't want a giant expensive set with play features limited to dropping bombs and firing spring-loaded projectiles.  That price range is almost exclusively reserved for big play sets like locations or Star Destroyers or giant walkers.  Notice how the examples of "niche" vehicles LEGO has made are mostly all well below $100 (the main exception being the Resistance I-TS Transport, which is nothing more than an obvious order from Disney so that they have expensive Galaxy's Edge merchandise to sell).  The $100+ price range is one that not even highly recognizable and playable ships like the Invisible Hand or Home One have been able to get in to, and those have way more screen time.  Expecting a TIE Bomber of that size is simply unrealistic, and that's all the interview answer was saying.  It's out of their control.

As for the size of TIE Fighters, the 2012 set is the exact same size as modern versions, simply less detailed.  The TIE scale has remained unchanged since that 2012 set, the current scale is a necessity thanks to the cockpit size needing to comfortably fit minifigures and be playable.  In fact, the TIE cockpit size has remained unchanged in general size since the very beginning.  The only thing that has really changed in regards to TIE Fighter size is the wings, in order to make them better proportioned.  And you know that if they went back to the smaller, badly proportioned wings (or cut back on the detail) the same people now complaining about the size of the TIEs would be the first to complain about that too.  The problem isn't the size of a TIE Bomber, the problem is the cost.  Disney's licensing fees are insane.  If we go by the $0.17 price/part ratio of the TIE Dagger, an 800 piece TIE Bomber would cost $140.  A TIE Bomber would have a chance under normal circumstances, LEGO just never really had a chance or reason to make another one prior to 2012.  But with those licensing fees we have now there is simply no way it will ever happen unless it's highly featured in a new movie and Disney really wants to push it on everyone.  I know nobody likes to hear that, but the designers in this interview were simply explaining that reality to the extent in which they're allowed to.

Let's not go blaming the set designers for everything simply because they're easy scapegoats.  The real problem here is the higher ups, primarily at Disney.  Set designers don't get much real say in sets they produce, it's been well known for years that LucasArts/Disney always got/gets final say on set production.  Don't blame set designers for things like what is/isn't getting made, or whether or not the AT-AT has any companion sets to go with.  Blame the Disney (and to a smaller extent LEGO) executives who are actually making these decisions, and then putting set designers front and center to shield themselves from blame.  Shooting the messengers does nothing to help anything.

Edited July 18, 2020 by TheNerdyOne_

[Anio]

The 2 last reviews I did for that summer wave.

Death Star Final Duel #75291 : http://www.techlug.fr/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=12165

Resistance IT-S Transport Ship #75293 : http://www.techlug.fr/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=12166

[storskogen]

«The lesson here is always to buy everything on day one» is clearly ironic. They are LEGO employees, and it’s in their interest that their products sell well. As LEGO employees, they defend the choices made,  which explains the arguments regarding the TIE Bomber. It comes often to commercial reasons. The Bomber is indeed very popular among AFOLs, but not among kids, as it did not appear in any recent film/show. I gave up and built a TIE Interceptor from Rebel Builder, now displayed among other LEGO TIEs. The next one will be the TIE Bomber. 

[jdubbs]

1 minute ago, storskogen said:

It comes often to commercial reasons. The Bomber is indeed very popular among AFOLs, but not among kids, as it did not appear in any recent film/show. I

It appeared several times in Rebels. A near-indistinguishable ship (technically a TIE boarding ship) appeared in Rogue One. And a First Order version appeared in Resistance.

[PreVizsla]

Yeah but you guys already got tie bomber in 2003,we never got lucrehulk which was in 3 movies,CW movie and in at least 12 CW episodes. Separatist landing craft 13 CW episodes,1 movie,1cw movie and nothing. No separatist dreadnought that was in 31 cw episodes. If they rework tie bomber they should first rework jango fetts 2002 slave 1.

[jdubbs]

2 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

Let's not go blaming the set designers for everything simply because they're easy scapegoats.  The real problem here is the higher ups, primarily at Disney.  Set designers don't get much real say in sets they produce, it's been well known for years that LucasArts/Disney always got/gets final say on set production.  Don't blame set designers for things like what is/isn't getting made, or whether or not the AT-AT has any companion sets to go with.  Blame the Disney (and to a smaller extent LEGO) executives who are actually making these decisions, and then putting set designers front and center to shield themselves from blame.  Shooting the messengers does nothing to help anything.

This is ill-informed hyperbole. Lucasfilm/Disney does approve licensees' products, sure. (This is true of virtually all licensors, not just Disney). But to suggest that they dictate the products being produced by the likes of LEGO, etc. is just factually incorrect. It is always a dialog between the two partners, not one company telling the other what to do (the simple truth is that neither company would agree to being dictated to by the other).

LEGO presents its plans for the upcoming quarter/year and Disney has an opportunity to offer feedback... in the form of "We love this. We're iffy on that. We wish there were more of this other thing, because we've got it coming up in XYZ and we'd like to cross-merchandise it." In some cases Disney's requests are honored; in some cases they're not. You need only look to the wide disparity in products offered by Hasbro vs. Funko vs. LEGO to see that the licensee has a great deal of sway in shaping the assortment of toys they offer. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by jdubbs

[Kit Figsto]

1 hour ago, PreVizsla said:

Yeah but you guys already got tie bomber in 2003,we never got lucrehulk which was in 3 movies,CW movie and in at least 12 CW episodes. Separatist landing craft 13 CW episodes,1 movie,1cw movie and nothing. No separatist dreadnought that was in 31 cw episodes. If they rework tie bomber they should first rework jango fetts 2002 slave 1.

I'm not saying those ships shouldn't be made but a TIE fighter is absolutely more recognizable and popular than all of those, and saying one came out in 2003 doesn't really mean much since I would guess over 75% of people who are collecting LEGO Star Wars today either weren't buying any in 2003 or don't have the Bomber.  And technically we did get a Dreadnought, they put out the Maleviolence in like 2010 or so.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

I just rebuilt both of older Soulless Ones, and I gotta say I'm disappointed to look at the new one after rebuilding those. The old one is a great nostalgic set, and it actually was one of the best builds from those times. The newer one (at least in my opinion) is superior to the newest one - I think the build looks a lot better (especially the "wings"), and the minifigures are also more unique.

[PicnicBasketSam]

About the TIE Bomber - The original 4479 from 2003 had 230 pieces, or about 1.44 times the number of parts in the regular TIE Fighter sets sold around the same time - about 160. The last regular TIE Fighter was released two years ago for Solo had 519 pieces, so 1.44 times that comes out to approximately 750 pieces to do a TIE Bomber. That would probably be at least $89.99 US, maybe more like $110, because LEGO has priced their starfighters at truly exorbitant levels since 2015, but when they're asking $80 for the Soulless One or the TIE Dagger I don't see much a difference there.

Where the designers might be looking instead, though, is the 75188 Resistance Bomber set from 2017 which ran $110 for 778 pieces, which a new TIE Bomber would probably be similar to in that regard... but that ship has like eight different places to put minifigures and some actual interior detail and a very clever bombing mechanism, and you're not going to get that with a TIE Bomber no matter how nice it is.

[ToaDraco]

I think the bottom line is they shot themselves in the foot with the oversized and massively overpriced fighters. They should have capped that type of set at $50. $90 for an X-Wing is not and will never be okay to me. It's not impossible to make scaled-down fighters with just as much detail at a much more reasonable price. At this point, I'm bracing myself for the day when we get $50 A-Wings. I'm so glad prequel era craft haven't suffered the same fate. The Delta-7, Delta-7b are just right. The Eta-2 could stand to be redesigned and a slight bit bigger but not by much. The last Vulture Droid was the perfect size too.

[2maxwell]

3 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I'm not saying those ships shouldn't be made but a TIE fighter is absolutely more recognizable and popular than all of those, and saying one came out in 2003 doesn't really mean much since I would guess over 75% of people who are collecting LEGO Star Wars today either weren't buying any in 2003 or don't have the Bomber.  And technically we did get a Dreadnought, they put out the Maleviolence in like 2010 or so.

Even as an OT fan, I think the Lucrehulk is actually much more iconic and recognizable than the TIE bomber.

[Per_SW]

7 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

Let's not go blaming the set designers for everything simply because they're easy scapegoats.  The real problem here is the higher ups

On this I agree completely with you, hence my use of "corporate answers" on my first post about hte matter. I do understand it's not the designers' fault a bomber won't be made in the near future because of the price point it would inevitably have, or that the AT-AT is not concurrent with a system Snowspeeder, but I was noting how their answers about the questions were not the best they could give from a PR standpoint.
That said, I do hope the next waves will be at least as good as this summer's one, because all faults aside I still think is a solid one.

[ARC2149Nova]

7 hours ago, TheNerdyOne_ said:

A lot of people here are ignoring a very crucial part of that interview answer.  They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough.  They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require.  The price range required for a figure-scale TIE Bomber is one that is almost exclusively reserved for highly recognizable vehicles with a ton of play value.  AFOLs might love a TIE Bomber regardless of the price range, but kids/parents don't want a giant expensive set with play features limited to dropping bombs and firing spring-loaded projectiles.  That price range is almost exclusively reserved for big play sets like locations or Star Destroyers or giant walkers.  Notice how the examples of "niche" vehicles LEGO has made are mostly all well below $100 (the main exception being the Resistance I-TS Transport, which is nothing more than an obvious order from Disney so that they have expensive Galaxy's Edge merchandise to sell).  The $100+ price range is one that not even highly recognizable and playable ships like the Invisible Hand or Home One have been able to get in to, and those have way more screen time.  Expecting a TIE Bomber of that size is simply unrealistic, and that's all the interview answer was saying.  It's out of their control.

Don't even attempt to defend this lazy logic. All these intricate excuses when it just comes down to whether or not they really want to make one. Even large ships and walkers only have the basic amount of play features. Open this hatch, seat this figure, launch this projectile. No matter how much you try to spin this, it fails on every level.

"They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough.  They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require."

This is such a literal contradiction it's not even funny. Tacking on that extra bit changes nothing. There hasn't been a real "playset" (for Star Wars at least) in ages. A Bomber is quite par for the course. This isn't just about one ship, though. If something like the TIE Bomber gets leaked on because of this logic, then what's to stop them from saying the same about anything? What's next? ARC-170? new B-Wing?

Disney can only influence so much. I'm actually starting to suspect that Lego (or at least the teams behind certain themes) are their own worst enemy.

13 hours ago, Lego-Freak said:

Or maybe they simply didn’t want to disclose the real reason: that the last one bombed so hard (pun definitely intended) they don’t want to release another minifig-scaled one ever again  I’m only semi-kidding here, I mean why hasn’t there been another version in 17 years? If that one had been a success, we surely would’ve had more than one remake since then. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the only OT set since the theme started that never got a single remake?

Dude, the last TIE Bomber was so long ago, that's a pretty poor reason. It hasn't been made in over 17 years because they've been either (a) preoccupied, or (b) just been putting it off, to the point where making one is "financially unfeasible".

4 hours ago, PreVizsla said:

Yeah but you guys already got tie bomber in 2003,we never got lucrehulk which was in 3 movies,CW movie and in at least 12 CW episodes. Separatist landing craft 13 CW episodes,1 movie,1cw movie and nothing. No separatist dreadnought that was in 31 cw episodes. If they rework tie bomber they should first rework jango fetts 2002 slave 1.

First off, no one buying sets now is going to hunt down a 17-year-old, massively outdated set. I'll go back as far as 2013, maybe 2012 in rare cases, because of the current "style" if you will. But 2003? Hell no, and many would agree with me. I understand if you prefer the older type sets, nothing wrong with that of course, but a 2003 TIE (of any make) and a 2016/17/18 TIE just won't mix.

And yes, while many of us would like a Jango's Slave I remake, arguably TIE Bomber/Interceptor takes precedence.

15 minutes ago, 2maxwell said:

Even as an OT fan, I think the Lucrehulk is actually much more iconic and recognizable than the TIE bomber.

I would agree with that. The problem in any case isn't the recognition, it's the use of that as an excuse, when it's clearly not the case. 

[Mandalorianknight]

 

3 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Don't even attempt to defend this lazy logic. All these intricate excuses when it just comes down to whether or not they really want to make one. Even large ships and walkers only have the basic amount of play features. Open this hatch, seat this figure, launch this projectile. No matter how much you try to spin this, it fails on every level.

"They never said that the TIE Bomber was simply too niche, or not playable enough.  They said that the TIE Bomber was too niche and not playable enough for the price range it would require."

This is such a literal contradiction it's not even funny. Tacking on that extra bit changes nothing. There hasn't been a real "playset" (for Star Wars at least) in ages. A Bomber is quite par for the course. This isn't just about one ship, though. If something like the TIE Bomber gets leaked on because of this logic, then what's to stop them from saying the same about anything? What's next? ARC-170? new B-Wing?

Disney can only influence so much. I'm actually starting to suspect that Lego (or at least the teams behind certain themes) are their own worst enemy.

First off, no one buying sets now is going to hunt down a 17-year-old, massively outdated set. I'll go back as far as 2013, maybe 2012 in rare cases, because of the current "style" if you will. But 2003? Hell no, and many would agree with me. I understand if you prefer the older type sets, nothing wrong with that of course, but a 2003 TIE (of any make) and a 2016/17/18 TIE just won't mix.

Agreed, with everything here. A TIE bomber isn't any less playable than a Gozanti or republic frigate, sans maybe a bit of interior space. (even then, add some room in the second cockpit and bam it's a boarding shuttle and now has more playability than most capital ship sets). 

Agreed about the second part too, I mean I don't think disney's even remotely related to this thing. Heck, I don't think it's even corporate policy at lego that's responsible for this. The designers just have some really flawed logic in what they're saying.

Aaaand agreed with the third point, too! The 2003 tie bomber is so outdated and inaccurate that it's like there wasn't one at all. I'd want a TIE bomber remake if the last one didn't have the 6x6 dish they've been using the last few years, much less if the last one was somehow blue and still used the old dark gray!

7 hours ago, PreVizsla said:

Yeah but you guys already got tie bomber in 2003,we never got lucrehulk which was in 3 movies,CW movie and in at least 12 CW episodes. Separatist landing craft 13 CW episodes,1 movie,1cw movie and nothing. No separatist dreadnought that was in 31 cw episodes. If they rework tie bomber they should first rework jango fetts 2002 slave 1.

First off, i don't get the "you guys" and "we" here. Most people here want both a new bomber and a lucrehulk.

Also I dare you to look at the 2003 bomber and have the same opinion, It. Is. Blue. Why is it blue? What possessed the designers to make it blue? WHYYYY? 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Mandalorianknight

[2maxwell]

53 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Also I dare you to look at the 2003 bomber and have the same opinion, It. Is. Blue. Why is it blue? What possessed the designers to make it blue? WHYYYY?

The reason is that the original TIE fighters in ANH were only the grey they were due to the technological constraints of green screens at the time. In the later movies, the color was updated to be a light bluish gray. The lego designers were working off assets from the later movie and interpreted the color as being blue, especially in comparison to the much less blue gray they had at their disposal at the time. Although they recognized their error eventually, I think most of the original TIE fighter variants were done in that color scheme to maintain continuity before they eventually switched over to bluish gray for all TIEs.

[Kit Figsto]

5 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

First off, no one buying sets now is going to hunt down a 17-year-old, massively outdated set. I'll go back as far as 2013, maybe 2012 in rare cases, because of the current "style" if you will. But 2003? Hell no, and many would agree with me. I understand if you prefer the older type sets, nothing wrong with that of course, but a 2003 TIE (of any make) and a 2016/17/18 TIE just won't mix.

I think at this point most people buying the old sets are after them either for nostalgia/liking the era, completing a collection, they happen to stumble upon one priced well, or they really like the vehicle.  I don't really see many people seeking out the Slave I from 2000 or whatever because it's the best model of the ship, you can buy the new one and have money to spare instead of paying what some sealed copies of the 7144 version are going for right now (which apparently has shot way up, I don’t remember that being a $150 set).  And on the topic of price, the 2003 TIE Bomber is like $200-250 sealed for a model that has just over 200 pieces.  Very few collectors are going to be able to justify spending that on a sealed copy of the set.  

Of course, a TIE Bomber from 2003 isn't up to the same standard as what one would look like today, and although I really really enjoy sets from that era (and not just the Star Wars, but the Town/City and the Island Xtreme Stunts too) but most anything made today is going to be easily more accurate than the something based on the same source material from that period.  So yeah, I agree, I would say around 2006-2008 was when things started to shift ot be a bit more of what they are today and by 2010-2013ish is when it really became the same style/standard that we're used to now across most themes that have been around for that long.  

I think with pretty much any sets, saying "we got one X number of years ago" and if that number is over like 10, it's probably due for a remake unless it's something stupidly obscure.  Even though the TIE Bomber isn't heavily featured, it's got sort of a cult following due to the fact that it's a TIE and people love to collect those, and it's been in non-movie stuff quite a bit.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by Kit Figsto

[Bantha Fodder]

5 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

 *snipp*

I agree 100% with your post.