[PRESS RELEASE] 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer

[SteamSewnEmpire]

So it's 700 bucks without any interior or interesting play features? Jeez, that is enormously disappointing. I had been waiting on this, but it's a no-brainer pass.

::edit:: Also, just 3 minifigs? Why??

Edited September 5, 2019 by SteamSewnEmpire

[DrasticPlastic]

What sold me is the comparison pics with the old Star Destroyer. That’s gorgeous - I have it on display - but this one is much better.

I’m just a bit disappointed that, despite being the price of the Falcon, it isn’t the same number of pieces. If 4,700 gets us this set - imagine what another 3,000 bricks could have done! If you’ll release a set once every 16 or so years, you have to make it count.

[Toastie]

>Another< incarnation of an "Imperial Star Destroyer"? I mean, they're ... sort of >very< simple shape-wise. Big yes. Impressive maybe. But ... cool? Or nifty? Or creative? Or full of surprises? Or ... 

So the progress here is size, weight, and brick count, right? As in a modular building becomes a powered-up modular building of "the same old" but occupying several base plates, a train of "the same old" becoming 20+ wide train ... is that it?

Hmmm.

I don't know.

OK, its really big. And it takes certainly some clever measures to hold it together. But for me it remains to be - well - big.

So in 2021 we will be seeing an even bigger Imperial Star Destroyer?

And in 2023 ...

No, not for me. I like the micro scale versions much better. They require - imagination - and not so much the brick'n'plates bonanza type thing.

Best
Thorsten

 

 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

1 hour ago, Toastie said:

>Another< incarnation of an "Imperial Star Destroyer"? I mean, they're ... sort of >very< simple shape-wise. Big yes. Impressive maybe. But ... cool? Or nifty? Or creative? Or full of surprises? Or ... 

So the progress here is size, weight, and brick count, right? As in a modular building becomes a powered-up modular building of "the same old" but occupying several base plates, a train of "the same old" becoming 20+ wide train ... is that it?

Hmmm.

I don't know.

OK, its really big. And it takes certainly some clever measures to hold it together. But for me it remains to be - well - big.

So in 2021 we will be seeing an even bigger Imperial Star Destroyer?

And in 2023 ...

No, not for me. I like the micro scale versions much better. They require - imagination - and not so much the brick'n'plates bonanza type thing.

Best
Thorsten

 

 

This is just me, but I think there's a certain point when size becomes counterproductive. The model is enormous, but:

- Isn't really to scale with anything else Lego is selling.

- Doesn't have an interior.

- Doesn't have many (if any) play features.

- Lacks the high minifigure count of similarly sized sets.

- Doesn't make an effort to conceal studs.

Frankly, my reaction is deteriorating the more I look at it. I'm experiencing shadows of last year's Echo Base.

Edited September 5, 2019 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Vindicare]

7 hours ago, Evergreen said:

Definitely. I just think MOC's and sets shouldn't be compared since MOC's have much more freedoms than sets. And MOC's look absolutely fantastic lol

 

I absolutely agree. Its just that a lot of people have been comparing ISD MOC's like Raskolnikov's or Onecase's to the new UCS set which sets over-the-top expectations. 

True. I’ve seen a lot of “I like it but...” MOC comments. MOC builders spoil us. 

[Mr. Cube]

5 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

This is just me, but I think there's a certain point when size becomes counterproductive. The model is enormous, but:

- Isn't really to scale with anything else Lego is selling.

- Doesn't have an interior.

- Doesn't have many (if any) play features.

- Lacks the high minifigure count of similarly sized sets.

- Doesn't make an effort to conceal studs.

Frankly, my reaction is deteriorating the more I look at it. I'm experiencing shadows of last year's Echo Base.

I take SW UCS sets like large display models, so it´s good that it lacks play features, play features belong to MBS sets, imho.

 

[Fuppylodders]

That price... I just can't even... Same as the MF but 2800 pieces LESS?!?! 
I get that piece count isn't always a good method (one 1x1 plate is not equal to one 12x6 wedge pate), but only a guide... and that weight is another method... but damn... for that price, not even an interior (I'm ok with that as I'd want it for display, but perhaps even just a few more Ties? ), only TWO minifigs that are unique, one having arm printing... well jeese... there are loads of other minifigs in non SW that get arm printing, it's like they use it to suck us in... but not even characters, just generic crew. And totally not anything you'd army build with. I get they're probably just filler minifigs just to give something...but for that price, I'd expect a chromed Darth Vader!! That'd have looked much more UCS suitable with this than 2 generics...

The model itself is impressive, I'm glad they did the underside properly too, rather than just flattening it out a'la UCS Executor. The greebles are nicely done, but the rear engine area just looks... odd... The engines look minimal in design as though, 'what's the smallest part count I can make these in?' kinda thing...

 

"Also comes with 2 blaster pistol weapons."

Oh hell I missed that selling point, I was going to pass on it... but it has 2 blasters! So that swayed it for me, I just must buy it now! That's kinda embarrassing even mentioning it as a 'feature' to list in this massive UCS set...

I'm kinda starting to feel like TLG are becoming scalpers themselves with this specific set because they know people will buy it at a high price regardless.... 

I'm even struggling to feel justified in using my £150 vip points to reduce the price because I just don't know if it's worth it...

It's size is impressive. It's details are nice. The Tantive is a nice, and to be honest expected touch (nice nonetheless). Anything else? Can't come up with anything...

Edited September 6, 2019 by Fuppylodders

[anothergol]

Too many studs exposed but I like it.

I also appreciate the few recolors/comeback, like the LBG mini-levers. And Bricks&Pieces would better come back online, because at this horrible price-to-part ratio, plus the fact it's an expensive SW set, no one on Bricklink is gonna part it out that's for sure.

10 hours ago, Vindicare said:

It’s more working with constraints. Official sets & MOCs aren’t comparable in my opinion. MOCs don’t necessarily have a limit they have to work in. Official sets have a price to meet. The only real limitation MOCs have is the patience a person has to work on a project. 

Official sets allow for recolors, that's a HUGE deal.

Official sets also normally have to be more solid, but it's not the case for these sets for adults. MF isn't exactly strong, and this one also looks like you will knock off many little parts by moving it around (which is not a criticism, it's good that Lego goes for more fragile but better looking builds).

 

And why would anyone want play features in this kind of pure display model? It's complaints like that lead to assault on hoth being marketed as UCS.
If there's one key thing Lego could have added for a fraction of the price gap, it's proper lighting, which of course Lego still doesn't do.
 

Edited September 6, 2019 by anothergol

[PBRStreetgang]

Fab release and I will be getting this for sure. Just love the bigger sets. 

I think I have room for it.....??   

As said above,...its a display piece, so I am fine with the lack of minifigs,....which are not to scale anyway. I guess a heap of internal stuff could have been done utilising the tiny minifigs like Hogwarts,...that way you could have hangers with tie-fighters, engine room etc etc.

But then,...how much would it cost and can the frame support the beast with all the internal stuff?? I am guessing, probably not.

Excellent release, in my view. 

Edited September 6, 2019 by PBRStreetgang

[Tariq j]

It's an excellent design. Space is definitely going to be the big issue. 

Regardless of price per piece/ price per weight or however you choose to measure the value £650 is still a lot of money to just drop on a set. It's certainly gonna look impressive on display at that size but I'm not sure if I'll buy it just yet.

[BrickG]

It looks good but it's no Falcon. I'm happy it exists but will skip it easily.

[SquirrelArmy]

It looks good but not £650 good. I’ll wait for the inevitable price drop. 

Also the positioning of the Tantive IV could be better. I know it’s matching what they’ve done with the SSD but the only place to put the T IV is below the ship getting tractor beamed into the interior. 

[kiwiatlarge]

Yeah, the minifigs is a non-issue for me. Unless you are into collecting unique minifigs you can't display them with it. They're really just hood ornaments for the stand. At least the Falcon you can do something with them.. As for the Star Destroyer, I am a little mixed about it. I do really like it and I'm all over the remakes of the classic ships of the OT in UCS. But I just don't know where to display it, lol... and it is a lot of coin. That said, I felt I easily got 4 times the build pleasure and experience out of the Falcon over the smaller ships.

[SquirrelArmy]

17 minutes ago, kiwiatlarge said:

Yeah, the minifigs is a non-issue for me. Unless you are into collecting unique minifigs you can't display them with it. They're really just hood ornaments for the stand. At least the Falcon you can do something with them.. As for the Star Destroyer, I am a little mixed about it. I do really like it and I'm all over the remakes of the classic ships of the OT in UCS. But I just don't know where to display it, lol... and it is a lot of coin. That said, I felt I easily got 4 times the build pleasure and experience out of the Falcon over the smaller ships.

Interesting that you mention the Falcon building experience. I don’t think there’s one to match it. However I found building the UCS SSD a little uninspiring compared to it. Endless rows of grey plates. It was all a bit bland. 

As a display piece it looks fantastic though and this new ship will look amazing next to it. Just have to decide if it’s worth the vast expense.

 

[Sinthoras]

The first review is up by a french youtube channel Geekme3.

[MAB]

12 hours ago, Eggyslav said:

Such a HUGE SET, and only TWO minifigs? FOR SHAME!

It is strange, people often complain that LEGO puts desirable and exclusive minifigures in large and expensive sets. This time, they have put in two not so desirable figures and look at what happens.

It should really be the ship that sells rather than the minifigures on a set of this size. I'm glad they didn't put in half a dozen exclusive and desirable figures.

[NathanR]

Back in 2002 when the original UCS Star Destroyer was released, the set was too expensive and my parents considered me too young to have it.  I've waited fifteen years for Lego to release another one so I had a chance at getting it... and now I'm old enough for it, it's too expensive for me to justify buying. 

I can understand the high price.  Although there's 2000 feel parts than the current UCS Millennium Falcon, the parts are a lot bigger.  I looked into bricklinking 10030 a few years back and IIRC the 1x16 technic beams making up the interior frame came to ~60GBP alone. If you look at the designer video for 75252, you can see a much more complex (and hopefully stronger!) frame than 10030, with a lot of large technic panels.  

Another major change from 10030 is the outer skin on the main hull of the Star Destroyer.  Both use a sandwich of plates, three layers thicks. On 10030, you had one layer of wedge plates making up the skin shape, with 2xN plates (usually 2x16) running inside and outside to fix them together, but these plates were rather unsightly on the finished model.  For 75252, the hull skin is "doubled up", with two layers of wedge plates and one hidden layer of 2xN strips on the inside - it makes the final model much smoother and more accurate, but those wedge plates aren't cheap.

I don't get why people are complaining about the lack of minifigures. Personally, I don't think a set like this should have any. The UCS range was/is about large scale models of the vehicles. Minifigures only started appearing with 10179 Millennium Falcon, where a lucky coincidence meant the UCS scale was just the right size to allow a few figures in the cockpit.  For the same reason, I don't feel the need to have an interior for the Star Destroyer.  I'm also not sure the interior skeleton would be strong enough to support an interior hanging from it.

So all in all, 75252 is a beautiful model, fantastic details, and a fun-looking build. The price is fully justifiable, but unfortunately the finished model doesn't look like it should be that expensive.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Will a SW UCS set be retired soon? Y-Wing? 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Another Brick In The Wall

[AfolFree]

47 minutes ago, Sinthoras said:

The first review is up by a french youtube channel Geekme3.

For non-french speakers, the main info in this review is the weight of the thing, very similar to the weight of the MF. Which would make it technically cheaper.

17 minutes ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

Will a SW UCS be retired soon? Y-Wing? 

I doubt it. They already retired two UCS sets quite recently and the Y-Wing is barely 1-year old.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

2 minutes ago, AfolFree said:

For non-french speakers, the main info in this review is the weight of the thing, very similar to the weight of the MF. Which would make it technically cheaper.

I doubt it. They already retired two UCS sets quite recently and the Y-Wing is barely 1-year old.

Which UCS sets were recently retired? 

[AfolFree]

1 minute ago, Another Brick In The Wall said:

Which UCS sets were recently retired? 

Snowspeeder and Slave I

[nerdsforprez]

17 hours ago, Brick-Wombat said:

Price per piece is an overrated metric. Price per volume or price per weight is a much better metric in my opinion. With as many large pieces this set has, $700 seems about right.

+1

Calculations have actually been done on this showing PPG has a much better relationship with price than does PPP. 

 

[JimDude]

21 hours ago, LiLmeFromDaFuture said:

@ShaydDeGrai

The designer video somewhat shows how the panels connect—rather loosely in my opinion (see at 1:40).

 

 

Apologies for not having anything on-topic to add, but seeing my favorite classic-space set on that shelf both fills me with joy ("He chose ~my~ set and not that vastly over-hyped 928 (*)!") as well as with sadness ("they just don't make 'm like that anymore…").

 

(*) There, I said it. Feels good too.

Edited September 6, 2019 by JimDude
Added missing

[nerdsforprez]

BTW... speaking of weight.. I assume we don't have the weight of the box yet?

[Bartybum]

While I'm loving how this set looks, if there's anything to be complaining about it's the price, which is a direct result of TLC deciding to make a 1.1m long model - it's just unnecessarily WAY too big to be affordable by the majority.

With exception to the Falcon, UCS ships shouldn't be longer than 80cm; any more just isn't affordable. I wanna dabble in UCS one day, but I'm not interested in forking out a thousand dollars for some grey plates.

If they ever decide to do a UCS Venator, it's gotta be in an affordable size.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Bartybum