LEGO Star Wars 2021 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[SEmrys]

Looks good. Not a set I'm particularly interested in myself, but it's a beautiful model. 

Are we playing Bingo yet? First post I saw was MandR's, but I didn't do so well. It's just all complaints about figures. A couple of comments that could pass for price and size complaints at a push, but overall, figures aside, people seem pretty positive?

[Stuartn]

Oh what a horrible set, no P2 Cody, why would TLG leave out the character that is the most critical to Star Wars and who is so iconically interconnected with the Gunship?

And the scale, how can I put minifigures in this, which is the utmost important purpose of a UCS set?

And the amount of studs, honestly, doesn’t TLG realise that LEGO is not about having studs?

And where are all the clones, every other set has way more figures?

For this insane price I want better and the Disney tax has struck again!

Just thought I would help out all The bingo players.

I completely agree with @kidtheboss611 that regardless of a vote a P1 pilot would have made a lot of sense, and since they aren’t really massable or as in demand as other figures resell prices shouldn’t be as bad, though it’s far from a dealbreaker for me.

Though that said, if P2 Cody was wanted, then it wouldn’t e a stretch to assume Mace Windu or Ponds were wanted as well as they are associated to the same degree as the gunship.

On another note, I would’ve preferred the net pieces in the ceiling if the troop bay instead of the railing pieces in the set, but other than that the set itself looks spectacular. If I can find this on sale I would definitely consider this set, I say on sale as the vehicle doesn’t interest me that much but the set is spectacular and I would be buying it for the build.

There are a lot of stickers in the build, and a lot of studs, but while it won’t be for everyone I think the balance is about right.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Stuartn

[jdubbs]

Re: Phase 2 Cody, LEGO was damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Don't include him? People will b!tch that he's been overlooked, once again. Do include him? People will b!tch that they have to pay $350 to get him. <insert shrug emoji here>

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, Modal said:

If only they had an event that could have properly revealed it before it got leaked.  

almost like a sort of convention..for legos... some sort of lego convention... 

2 hours ago, kidtheboss611 said:

I know UCS is for the builds and I have never had an issue with any of the fig choices (exclusive or not) in other UCS models but for this set specifically I think figs are kind of important. To reiterate, I understand UCS is for display not figs but considering it is $350 and a fan voted set IMO its ok to at least ask the question of why there was a section of the vote to pick a figure if those desires were never going to be considered. Just my opinion.

I disagree here, and I think I can explain this logically.

We agree UCS is for display, not for figs, at least generally. You list the reasons for this being an exception as the price being $350 and the set being a fan vote. No idea what the price has to do with it, the most recent $200 set had two figs, the most recent $700 set had two figs, UCS sets tend to have two figs now. The second part for you is the fan vote, right? How do you know the desires were never going to be considered? If I had to guess, they looked at the votes, and the characters with the most votes who were ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE SCENE were the clone commander and mace.

2 hours ago, hondohnaka said:

Looks really cool, but not for me. That Mace Windu head is going to be insane on Bricklink, though. 

I'm of the same opinion. Though if the mace head is bad, the clone commander is going to be INSANE.

1 hour ago, SEmrys said:

Looks good. Not a set I'm particularly interested in myself, but it's a beautiful model. 

Are we playing Bingo yet? First post I saw was MandR's, but I didn't do so well. It's just all complaints about figures. A couple of comments that could pass for price and size complaints at a push, but overall, figures aside, people seem pretty positive?

I've got a few spaces filled out, but no bingo yet. Instagram's got a ton of "it's too big" complaints, though.

[Terrasher]

The scale of the Gunship would be amazing for MOCed clone troopers using minifigure helmets but bodies with human proportions.

[Clone OPatra]

Personally this set is exactly what I expected: a good looking Gunship for sure, though the parts of the top nacelles front of the wings look a bit funky, but also just a bad choice for a UCS.

Why a bad choice? Because the Gunship isn't a small enough ship that scaling it up adds much detail to it (like Starfighters), while it also isn't a big enough ship that doing it at a larger than playset scale allows more justice to be done to it (like Star Destroyers). As a troop transport the Gunship is inherently a vehicle that you WANT to pose a lot of figures in/around, and a very well-engineered $150 version with Minifigures would completely do that justice. You don't need a Minifigure in an X-Wing cockpit to appreciate a big X-Wing, but a Gunship without pilots and gunners and troops on board looks like it's sitting in the hanger waiting to be used - i.e. not very exciting, like something is missing.

All in all, LEGO did perfectly what was voted for, but the people pushing for that vote are now complaining that they got exactly what they voted for (minus some figures, which is just a ridiculous complaint given that it's a UCS set and the recent Minifigure trends with this range).

[Kit Figsto]

2 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

Why a bad choice? Because the Gunship isn't a small enough ship that scaling it up adds much detail to it (like Starfighters), while it also isn't a big enough ship that doing it at a larger than playset scale allows more justice to be done to it (like Star Destroyers). As a troop transport the Gunship is inherently a vehicle that you WANT to pose a lot of figures in/around, and a very well-engineered $150 version with Minifigures would completely do that justice. You don't need a Minifigure in an X-Wing cockpit to appreciate a big X-Wing, but a Gunship without pilots and gunners and troops on board looks like it's sitting in the hanger waiting to be used - i.e. not very exciting, like something is missing.

All in all, LEGO did perfectly what was voted for, but the people pushing for that vote are now complaining that they got exactly what they voted for (minus some figures, which is just a ridiculous complaint given that it's a UCS set and the recent Minifigure trends with this range).

I can kind of agree, I think it looks really great, but it is definitely different from other UCS sets in that regard.  I feel like there's a few UCS ships that aren't too much larger than the normal playscale version (the Naboo fighter from the early 2000s, the X-Wing, I think the TIE, though I've never seen it in person), some of which work better than others, but this one was sort of in an awkward limbo where the normal playscale version is already really big, so scaling it up to an even bigger model is going to result in a massive set, but they couldn't realistically go much larger than this, since I don't think a $500-700 Gunship would sell well in the same way that they can justify that much for a Falcon or ISD.

And to your point about people getting exactly what they voted for, I feel like EB has been extremely level-headed about it on here, knowing from the beginning that it was likely non-figure scale, but there's way too many people on YouTube/Instagram/Reddit that think UCS = More stuff, and therefore this set should've had at least 12 clones.  In that regard, I would love a playscale Gunship and was almost hoping that the Nebulon B would've won the vote, so that a playscale Gunship would be more likely, as they seem to rarely keep a UCS and playscale version of the same vehicle on the shelves at one time (with the exception of the Falcon).  

In regards to the figure selection, I am definitely a little bit puzzled about why they didn't include a pilot.

[mirkwoodspiders]

2 hours ago, kidtheboss611 said:

For the record I don't want a P2 Cody in this set and you're right I have no clue what minifig won the vote but IMO it makes a lot of sense to put a AOTC pilot in this set regardless of the votes outcome cause it makes more sense as a complement to the ship then Mace or Ponds. According to lego's post the Gunship got 30,000 votes and I never thought they would actually release that info but if they were to release all the vote outcomes that would be great cause then we wouldn’t speculate on whether the figure choice was reflective of the vote. 

Also I think the reason nobody thinks "____________ figures are in this set, so perhaps those are the figures that got the most votes." is because Mace Windu isn't a character I think of when I think Gunship and neither is Commander Ponds.

Yeah, I'd really like to see just how many votes each minifigure got, but I have a feeling we'll never know. Honestly, the two figs for which I voted were Mace and Yoda. Other than clones, they're the two I associate most with the Gunship, especially Yoda, the first character we see on the Gunship in AOTC. I hope for all the P2 Cody fans we get him eventually, but I agree with some on this thread it's a catch-22... if he's included, the set is too expensive for him, if he's not, then it's a poor choice to leave him out. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by mirkwoodspiders
Spelling

[Clone OPatra]

20 minutes ago, Kit Figsto said:

And to your point about people getting exactly what they voted for, I feel like EB has been extremely level-headed about it on here, knowing from the beginning that it was likely non-figure scale, but there's way too many people on YouTube/Instagram/Reddit that think UCS = More stuff, and therefore this set should've had at least 12 clones. 

Oh yes, that part of my post was not aimed at the EB discussion. People here have had realistic and proper expectations for what a UCS Gunship would be, which the set itself has matched.

While a pilot would be good, any minfigure with an exclusive mould would leave a sour taste - until it's hopefully reused in another more attainable set. Personally I think the current trend of perhaps slightly better done or highly detailed variants of figures is a great way to go for UCS sets.

[Pedilego]

TBH the arrogance of the people shaming those that wanted/hoped for a minifigure scale UCS Gunship far more irritating than the set itself.

Hindsight is 20/20.

This is the first UCS to exceed both minifig scale and $200.

The UCS Gunship exceeded that threshold by nearly 2x the cost—a surprising move, given the trepidation companies have had around producing prequel products.

IMO it’s far more reasonable to think a UCS Gunship would keep with 20-years of precedence and be a more detailed, more sophisticated take on the ship at “minifigure scale”.

 

 

Anyways, ship looks good. Put me on the fence (for buying) for now. I’m looking forward to the reveal tomorrow.

[autolycus]

46 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

TBH the arrogance of the people shaming those that wanted/hoped for a minifigure scale UCS Gunship far more irritating than the set itself.

Hindsight is 20/20.

There were multiple people with good history of leaks or a good understanding of Lego’s decision processes saying there was no way it’d be minifig scale from very early on. Some on here laid into them for it. They were right though. It’s not minifig scale and it only has 2 figs, neither of which are Cody. That’s not hindsight. They called it months ago and got grief for it because some didn’t want to accept that UCS means something specific. UCS does not mean minifigure scale ship with lots of mini figures. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by autolycus

[Pedilego]

6 minutes ago, autolycus said:

There were multiple people with good history of leaks or a good understanding of Lego’s decision processes saying there was no way it’d be minifig scale from very early on. Some on here laid into them for it. They were right though. It’s not minifig scale and it only has 2 figs, neither of which are Cody. That’s not hindsight. They called it months ago and got grief for it because some didn’t want to accept that UCS means something specific. UCS does not mean minifigure scale ship with lots of mini figures. 

Yeah, I’ve been following. I’m referring to the criticism of the people that voted on the Gunship thinking that it could be minifigure scale—not that the reveal/confirmation of it not being minifigure scale is a surprise.

[Brikkyy13]

59 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

This is the first UCS to exceed both minifig scale and $200.

Lol wut. Almost every single UCS is far bigger than minifigure scale and a lot of sets weigh in with prices higher than $200USD

[Archer]

2 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

Personally this set is exactly what I expected: a good looking Gunship for sure, though the parts of the top nacelles front of the wings look a bit funky, but also just a bad choice for a UCS.

Why a bad choice? Because the Gunship isn't a small enough ship that scaling it up adds much detail to it (like Starfighters), while it also isn't a big enough ship that doing it at a larger than playset scale allows more justice to be done to it (like Star Destroyers). As a troop transport the Gunship is inherently a vehicle that you WANT to pose a lot of figures in/around, and a very well-engineered $150 version with Minifigures would completely do that justice. You don't need a Minifigure in an X-Wing cockpit to appreciate a big X-Wing, but a Gunship without pilots and gunners and troops on board looks like it's sitting in the hanger waiting to be used - i.e. not very exciting, like something is missing.

All in all, LEGO did perfectly what was voted for, but the people pushing for that vote are now complaining that they got exactly what they voted for (minus some figures, which is just a ridiculous complaint given that it's a UCS set and the recent Minifigure trends with this range).

Agree 100%. I'm definitely a person who wants to see more prequel UCS, but I knew from the time of voting that the gunship would be in a weird spot for UCS scale. There are only a handful of ships that fit the 120-160 dollar mark at minifig scale and the gunship is one such ship. I wanted the Nebulon frigate myself, but would prefer if they tried doing one of the Republic or CIS Capital ships as a UCS. (I do think the gunship is a good choice as far as recognizable and interesting prequel ship design, as far as selling the product goes)

That said the Ship is very well done from what I can see, but I own the 2013 Gunship and its a very solid build that holds up, so I'll save my money on this one. Got $800 AT-ATs to buy.

[Pedilego]

10 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

Lol wut. Almost every single UCS is far bigger than minifigure scale and a lot of sets weigh in with prices higher than $200USD

Which one(s)?

e.g. Sandcrawler, Falcon, ISD are NOT greater than minifigure scale.

e.g. X-Wing, A-Wing are NOT greater than $200.

[Clone OPatra]

14 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

Lol wut. Almost every single UCS is far bigger than minifigure scale and a lot of sets weigh in with prices higher than $200USD

No, reread the post and I think @Pedilego is right. The starships which are larger than minfigure scale have been $200 USD. The UCS sets which are above $200USD are either minfigure scale (Falcon, Shuttle) or smaller than minifigure scale (Star Destroyers).

[Stuartn]

2 hours ago, Terrasher said:

The scale of the Gunship would be amazing for MOCed clone troopers using minifigure helmets but bodies with human proportions.

I was thinking that myself, I am going to have to start working on prototypes

[Gontron]

I'm not saying some people were unreasonable from the get go, I just think LEGO should've given a potential price range for each set during the vote since they had preliminary builds and should not have asked for minifigure suggestions at all. That being said, I will end up buying the set as the LAAT is my favorite SW vehicle. 

[jdubbs]

39 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

No, reread the post and I think @Pedilego is right. The starships which are larger than minfigure scale have been $200 USD. The UCS sets which are above $200USD are either minfigure scale (Falcon, Shuttle) or smaller than minifigure scale (Star Destroyers).

The thing is, it's a pretty arbitrary statistic/factoid, and one that amounts only to correlation, not causality — I would be surprised if anyone at LEGO treated this as even vague guidance for pricing/designing UCS sets, let alone a hard-and-fast rule. And I doubt many of the people voting for the Gunship in the fan poll considered this or were even aware of the statistic. 

Bear in mind the last System gunship was only slightly smaller than minifig scale (and really only in length, not in height/wingspan/etc.) So the only way LEGO could have done a minifig-scale gunship at even $200 (never mind $300+) would be to load it up with dozens of minifigs and some side-builds, but I don't think that would rise to LEGO's idea of a "UCS set"... which is what this poll advertised. And I bet a lot of people would still find fault with that, asking why LEGO couldn't just release the gunship as a wide-release $120 set and sell the side builds separately, and some clones in a battle pack. Which, maybe after this they will eventually do?

Edited July 15, 2021 by jdubbs

[Clone OPatra]

8 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

The thing is, it's a pretty arbitrary statistic/factoid, and one that amounts only to correlation, not causality — I would be surprised if anyone at LEGO treated this as even vague guidance for pricing/designing UCS sets, let alone a hard-and-fast rule. And I doubt many of the people voting for the Gunship in the fan poll considered this or were even aware of the statistic. 

Oh I agree, I don't think the statistic is necessarily relevant at all, while being true. I was just backing up that it's true.

However, part of it does perhaps correlate to what I wrote about previously - previous UCS ships were either small ships like starfighters scaled up, huge ships scaled down but still large, or semi-big ships done at Minifigure scale. We haven't seen a mid-sized ship scaled up before, and perhaps for good reason, since this one at least didn't really need to be scaled up to capture its detail.

I'd love to see more UCS Prequel designs, though I don't buy UCS sets so it would be purely seeing them for me. A Droid Control Ship would be fabulous and easier to capture its curves in a UCS set, or certainly UCS Venator or Invisible Hand. Though the last time they tried a Prequel starfighter flopped, it's been a long time and a UCS Eta or ARC-170 could sell well today.

[jdubbs]

2 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

I'd love to see more UCS Prequel designs, though I don't buy UCS sets so it would be purely seeing them for me. A Droid Control Ship would be fabulous and easier to capture its curves in a UCS set, or certainly UCS Venator or Invisible Hand. Though the last time they tried a Prequel starfighter flopped, it's been a long time and a UCS Eta or ARC-170 could sell well today.

Yeah I wouldn't mind seeing the tan ATT tank in this scale, or even another attempt at the Naboo Fighter.... I think either would make really nice display models. I doubt they will venture into the capital ships until they run out of OT ones to do (or redo), unless this set ends up selling like gangbusters, perhaps. 

[Pedilego]

I absolutely think that $199.99 has been a purposeful pricing area that was a happy medium of ‘added detail’ for smaller ships while still being generally affordable.

Again, I think it’s more reasonable to think ^that than to think it’s a coincidence that the Slave I, X-Wing, Y-Wing, A-Wing (!), and many other sets (not just Star Wars) tend to land there or close by.

And, no, buyers/voters don’t need to be consciously aware of it to made decisions from it. After all, I researched the statistic specifically because the Gunship’s size and price went against my own intuition.

 

As for a $200 minifig scale Gunship, I’ve posted an in-depth breakdown how easy that’d be couple of times. I’ll refrain from re-posting again for now.

 

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you think I’m right—it matters if you think my logic is even plausible. Because, if so, it’s reasonable enough for people to have voted for the Gunship and to be disappointed when it wasn’t minifigure scale.

[MaximillianRebo]

4 hours ago, jdubbs said:

Re: Phase 2 Cody, LEGO was damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Don't include him? People will b!tch that he's been overlooked, once again. Do include him? People will b!tch that they have to pay $350 to get him. <insert shrug emoji here>

The same could be said about the set itself. If the TIE Bomber or Nebulon B had been chosen, the response would have been "Lego hates the Prequels" and when the Gunship was chosen, I don't think there were many other outcomes in terms of scale and number of figs than what we see today.

Possibly the only path to please everyone would have been to go with a UCS Nebulon B (or Bomber) and at the same time announce a playscale Gunship for the upcoming winter wave.

[TeddytheSpoon]

Regarding figures, I'm assuming the reason Mace and a commander were included is to make the set more accessible to the more casual fans - the people who voted for it aren't the only target market for this, after all. Having Mace Windu in the set might jog people's memory and give them an association with Mace's big moment in AOTC, more so than two pilots would have done.

15 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you think I’m right—it matters if you think my logic is even plausible. Because, if so, it’s reasonable enough for people to have voted for the Gunship and to be disappointed when it wasn’t minifigure scale.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected it to be around the $200 mark, since as you say that's sort of what the precedent was. But it was always explicitly stated that it would be a UCS set, and the only UCS set at 'true' minifigure scale at that price point was the Slave I (which incidentally is also the only UCS set to include more than two figures and be $200 or less). So people can be disappointed, but they shouldn't be surprised.

Edited July 15, 2021 by TeddytheSpoon

[Clone OPatra]

14 minutes ago, Pedilego said:

As for a $200 minifig scale Gunship, I’ve posted an in-depth breakdown how easy that’d be couple of times. I’ll refrain from re-posting again for now.

I can't say I recall your breakdowns specifically, but the thing is, a minifig-scale Gunship wouldn't be much different in size from the ones they've already done. Therefore boosting the price up to $200 for added detail or functions would also seem a bit sour when a $120-150 price point and level of detail would be perfectly good for the same thing. All of the $200 UCS sets are significantly larger and more detailed than their play-scale counterparts, as is the Gunship that LEGO is releasing.

All-in-all, the Gunship is uncharted territory for a lot of reasons, including: mid-sized ship scaled up, amongst the higher priced UCS sets (though not the mega expensive level), but also the result of a fan vote.