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

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, Cyberfounder said:

Like I said before, its more then that, but feel free to jump on it to satisfies your needs to call people out. How is that bingo card going? 

Bingo card's going fine, thank you for helping me fill it out! 

1 hour ago, Graupensuppe said:

I will... But since they decided to make this one of the most expensive UCS sets ever, I don't think it will sell as well as it could have.

What are you talking about? I can't get on bricklink right now but I can off the top of my head think of many more expensive UCS sets: All death stars, falcon, sandcrawler, star destroyer, same price as cloud city and ewok village, 

42 minutes ago, DeductedMiller said:

and the front of the cannons. Why?! They should be sleeker. And more conical.

...I think you mean the engines.... the big red conical things on top?

Edited July 16, 2021 by Mandalorianknight

[DeductedMiller]

16 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Bingo card's going fine, thank you for helping me fill it out! 

What are you talking about? I can't get on bricklink right now but I can off the top of my head think of many more expensive UCS sets: All death stars, falcon, sandcrawler, star destroyer, same price as cloud city and ewok village, 

...I think you mean the engines.... the big red conical things on top?

The engines…. That also double as canons on top. Against long range or slow targets, it used two mass driver missile launchers. That’s why the rockets also roll into them :)
 

 

[Graupensuppe]

25 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

What are you talking about? I can't get on bricklink right now but I can off the top of my head think of many more expensive UCS sets: All death stars, falcon, sandcrawler, star destroyer, same price as cloud city and ewok village

Only Star Destroyers, Millennium Falcons and Death Stars are more expensive. I didn't count Cloud City (which is MBS). The Ewok Village was 100€ cheaper, the Sandcrawler 50€.

The Gunship is more expensive than at least 21 other UCS sets. Not ideal if you're trying to test the demand.

25 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

...I think you mean the engines.... the big red conical things on top?

AFAIK the conical things on top that look like engines are the mass-driver missile launchers.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Graupensuppe

[Kit Figsto]

1 hour ago, Graupensuppe said:

Only Star Destroyers, Millennium Falcons and Death Stars are more expensive. I didn't count Cloud City (which is MBS). The Ewok Village was 100€ cheaper, the Sandcrawler 50€.

The Gunship is more expensive than at least 21 other UCS sets. Not ideal if you're trying to test the demand.

But that's the thing, if you (not you personally, I just mean "you" in a general sense) want this ship in true UCS scale, it's way bigger than pretty much every other ship they've done a UCS of, except the Star Destroyers and Death Stars, so a UCS version is going to be priced accordingly.  Yes, they could've done something for $200-250, but either proportionally it wouldn't work at that scale, or it wouldn't be that much bigger than a regular playscale version, and then it's no longer a UCS version.

Sure, they could've done what some suggested and did a $200 Gunship that's minifigure scale with some terrain and a Geonosian cannon or something, but then people would've just complained that they could've done a $140 Gunship and skipped all of the filler.  And from there, it's basically the same debacle as the Hoth thing, where adding a handful of related vehicles and scenes doesn't necessarily make something "UCS" in my opinion.

[lego the hutt]

History tends to repeat itself.  Home One didn't sell well after it won the fan vote...

[CodeNameGoldMember]

7 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Unsurprisingly, if you want more PT UCS sets, you’d better buy the Gunship https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-star-wars-designers-if-you-want-more-prequels-sets-buy-75309-republic-gunship/

Of course this means that a potential follow-up is pretty far away, considering how long UCS sets take to design  Venator in 2023 anyone? 

*Sigh* Guess I'll have to buy at least 3 then. And don't even try getting my hopes up about a Venator.

With this being released August 1st when would be a reasonable time-frame be for the AT-AT? I know most Fall UCS sets drop to VIP around mid-September and to general public around October 1st, but with the Gunship releasing in August, September seems like too quick of a turn around to drop another massive set the following month.

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, DeductedMiller said:

The engines…. That also double as canons on top. Against long range or slow targets, it used two mass driver missile launchers. That’s why the rockets also roll into them :)

Ah, I see.

3 hours ago, Graupensuppe said:

Only Star Destroyers, Millennium Falcons and Death Stars are more expensive. I didn't count Cloud City (which is MBS). The Ewok Village was 100€ cheaper, the Sandcrawler 50€.

The Gunship is more expensive than at least 21 other UCS sets. Not ideal if you're trying to test the demand.

I was able to get back on brickset and confirm some things. 

Definitively more expensive are 7-8 UCS sets: Both falcons, both ISDs, the SSD, and all death stars (2-3 depending on whether the 2016 one counts as different from the 2008 ones)

When you account for inflation, more sets such as the shuttle and sandcrawler are nearly the same price. Additionally, both Cloud city and the Cantina are the same price.

It's not exactly one of the most expensive UCS sets ever made.

[kidtheboss611]

37 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Ah, I see.

I was able to get back on brickset and confirm some things. 

Definitively more expensive are 7-8 UCS sets: Both falcons, both ISDs, the SSD, and all death stars (2-3 depending on whether the 2016 one counts as different from the 2008 ones)

When you account for inflation, more sets such as the shuttle and sandcrawler are nearly the same price. Additionally, both Cloud city and the Cantina are the same price.

It's not exactly one of the most expensive UCS sets ever made.

IMO the pricing is Lego doing the same thing that they did with the 501st BP. The demand was for a $15 set that was an army builder but Lego decided to make a $30 set to capitalize and while they did make incredible sales the first few months, sales have trailed off and thus the price is now $24. It's still a super popular set but could have been more so. The same pattern will happen to the Gunship and Lego will use it as an excuse as to why PT sets don't sell and make another F***KING X-WING. Now this is just a theory and it may be be cynical but I think it may be true. Also it makes a lot of sense from a marketing standpoint to see the demand and then milk it for all its worth even if you screw over some people whose budgets go up to $200 (which is what I thought the price should have been and what people who voted might have thought I'd be).

I'm still buying it but yah just my two cents. 

[mirkwoodspiders]

2 hours ago, CodeNameGoldMember said:

With this being released August 1st when would be a reasonable time-frame be for the AT-AT? I know most Fall UCS sets drop to VIP around mid-September and to general public around October 1st, but with the Gunship releasing in August, September seems like too quick of a turn around to drop another massive set the following month.

From what I understand, the AT-AT is rumored to have a late November release. Sometime around Black Friday would make a decent amount of sense, but we really don't know much at this point for release. November would make sense, as that would end up having left about 3 months between each of the large Star Wars releases:

R2-D2 - 5/4

UCS Gunship - 8/1

UCS AT-AT - 11/?

Whatever the case, if there is indeed a UCS AT-AT on the way this fall, it's a tremendous year for LEGO Star Wars. I know it's not even August, but I'm getting really intrigued as to what they have up their sleeves for the 2022 UCS/MBS sets. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by mirkwoodspiders
Spelling

[ARC2149Nova]

There was no way in hell the Gunship was going to be $200. That's absurd. I love this ship, I voted for it, and it's everything I expected, even more so, considering how they rendered certain details (never would've expected the rotating missile belts, or the ingenious build of the gun pods). It's a friggin' behemoth of a vessel, and in keeping with relative scale to other UCS ships, its size (and thus its price) is not unwarranted.

Also, can we stop acting as if we'll never see another system-scale gunship? It'll come eventually.

And finally, I'll keep saying until someone takes notice: This UCS vessel (in all its oversized-ness) is now cheaper than every prior minifig-scale version.

In addition, I think that it should be relatively easy to cut it down to size should it be a huge issue. I understand not being skilled in/wanting to moc the set, but still, its an option. Besides, they've already said in no uncertain terms: this is it, buy it or that's all folks. Which is quite shady, I must admit, but I'd rather not keep getting the same UCS sets recycled once the OT list hits the wall.

 

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, kidtheboss611 said:

IMO the pricing is Lego doing the same thing that they did with the 501st BP. The demand was for a $15 set that was an army builder but Lego decided to make a $30 set to capitalize and while they did make incredible sales the first few months, sales have trailed off and thus the price is now $24. It's still a super popular set but could have been more so. The same pattern will happen to the Gunship and Lego will use it as an excuse as to why PT sets don't sell and make another F***KING X-WING. Now this is just a theory and it may be be cynical but I think it may be true.

You had a bit of sense at first with "lego will take a set they know there's demand for (501st) and make it an expensive one". I'd argue there's nothing morally wrong with that, they're a business, and they're making a fan-requested set, but it's certainly possible, if circumstantial. You completely lost me with the end. LEGO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PREQUEL V OT. THEY ARE A COMPANY, THERE IS NO HIDDEN ANTI PREQUEL AGENDA. They stand nothing to gain from that, there's no logical reason for it, and indeed they'd suffer financial loss were it so, so it's running directly counter-intuitive to the main goal of a company. This theory is blatantly false, and once you bring an ounce of logic to it it's clearly not the case.

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

And finally, I'll keep saying until someone takes notice: This UCS vessel (in all its oversized-ness) is now cheaper than every prior minifig-scale version.

  Not when you bricklink the parts online, exclude stickers and figs, and replace the bubble turrets for the 2002 print versions... wait I'm sensing a downside here. (I did this and it worked well but took around 3 hours to list and source parts, as opposed to 3 seconds to click "buy" on the new one)

[hondohnaka]

Now that the Poe Dameron book’s been leaked you think we’ll see a list for Winter 2022 soon?

[kidtheboss611]

3 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

 LEGO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PREQUEL V OT. THEY ARE A COMPANY, THERE IS NO HIDDEN ANTI PREQUEL AGENDA. 

That's just not what I said. My point is that they don't perceive prequel sets to do well thus they will use poor gunship sales as evidence from a biz side that they shouldn't make PT UCS. Not as as an agenda for liking OT but just as a tried and true method. It's my belief that that's not a fair way of measuring success since the ship is more expensive than other recent OT models (A Wing, Y Wing, R2). and instead should revert to OT. Again, that's not me saying they have an agenda but rather me saying they don't care to take a chance on more prequel UCS content. 

Also no need to get so defensive of the OT, we all love it, some of us would just love to not see the X-Wing for a while even if they sell incredibly well every time.

[TeddytheSpoon]

8 hours ago, lego the hutt said:

History tends to repeat itself.  Home One didn't sell well after it won the fan vote...

Was Home One a fan vote? I love that set.

How expensive do we think the Nebbie or bomber would have been, had they been made? I could see the bomber being around the $200 mark (maybe $250, since the TIE fighter was $200 and I presume it would be roughly the same scale), but I think the Nebulon could quite easily have been $350 as well. Most other UCS capital ships we've seen have been on the pricey side.

1 hour ago, hondohnaka said:

Now that the Poe Dameron book’s been leaked you think we’ll see a list for Winter 2022 soon?

I'm not going to expect for another two or three months. That Poe figure, though... The TFA version of him seems to be everywhere.

[Brikkyy13]

2 hours ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

3 hours ago, hondohnaka said:

 

I'm not going to expect for another two or three months. That Poe figure, though... The TFA version of him seems to be everywhere.

Where else did he turn up? 4+ X-Wing at the start of the year, then one of the European magazines iirc? Anyway, I wonder if this is any indication that LEGO has an abundance of parts for sequel figures lying around in their factories. If we’re still getting Rey in 2030 advent calendars we’ll know 

[Klaus-Dieter]

Thank you all very much for the news!

Apart from the Tatooine Homestead (which is in principle no set, but a GWP) there is sadly no single SW set this year of interest for me.

Plus it's really a pity that TLG sells three UCS sets but no single Master Builder Series set.

[BrickBob Studpants]

8 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Besides, they've already said in no uncertain terms: this is it, buy it or that's all folks. Which is quite shady, I must admit, but I'd rather not keep getting the same UCS sets recycled once the OT list hits the wall.

Nothing shady about that IMO, it‘s just how business works: if you want more of the thing, buy the thing  If you want to see a sequel to movie X, watch movie X 

[1974]

3 hours ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

How expensive do we think the Nebbie or bomber would have been, had they been made?

Very difficult to say. That ship can easily be made in many different scales from the one we got allready and up to a meter long with 5000 parts and a 500$ pricetag (which would make it the biggest flying greeble ever )

Going really huge to could provide lots of interesting building techniques and colours. Something huge that is not just a big freaking triangle for once could be awesome

Edit : I'm talking about the Nebbie only. The bomber would have been UCS Tie size surely

Edited July 17, 2021 by 1974

[lego the hutt]

11 hours ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

Was Home One a fan vote? I love that set.

Yes, it was the same format where fans voted for 1 of 3 sets.

 

The 2009 Fan's Choice Set is a set where people voted on three alternatives for a 2009 Star Wars LEGO set. Voting was from May 10 to 18, 2008. The three alternatives were:

• The Arrest of Palpatine
• Slave I and Cloud City Landing Platform
• Mon Calamari Cruiser Set

It was later found that the winner of the contest was the Mon Calamari Cruiser Set, and became the 7754 Home One Mon Calamari Star Cruiser.

Edited July 17, 2021 by lego the hutt

[jdubbs]

7 hours ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

How expensive do we think the Nebbie or bomber would have been, had they been made? I could see the bomber being around the $200 mark (maybe $250, since the TIE fighter was $200 and I presume it would be roughly the same scale), but I think the Nebulon could quite easily have been $350 as well. Most other UCS capital ships we've seen have been on the pricey side.

At the same scale as the UCS TIE Fighter, a UCS TIE Bomber would easily be $300-350. It may seem like an equivalently sized ship, but it's deceptively large, especially when you consider how dense a LEGO build of it would be. I'd say the wings would be roughly the same number of parts (rotate the TIE Fighter's wings 90º, segment them into thirds) but you'd need 2-3 of the TIE Fighter's cockpits for each of the Bomber's cylinders. Just compare MOCs of the two ships made by the same designer... the Bomber is consistently 2x the number of parts of the Fighter. (This is why we haven't seen a System version of the Bomber either, as a LEGO designer said a year or two ago... it would end up $150, at least before they zapped the TIE Fighter with a shrink ray.)

I'm going to guess the Medical Frigate would have been somewhere between the size of RubbleMaker's and Mortesv's Neb-B MOCs, and priced similarly to the Gunship. Looking at the three choices in the fan poll, they all could (and likely would) end up around the same size, which makes sense considering LEGO probably had an open production slot to fill, and could accommodate a set roughly this size.

But who knows? Maybe that $800 D2C rumored to come later in the year is actually the Neb-B... it would be an odd choice given the ship's limited screen time and relative obscurity... but anything is possible.

Edited July 17, 2021 by jdubbs

[Mandalorianknight]

8 hours ago, kidtheboss611 said:

That's just not what I said. My point is that they don't perceive prequel sets to do well thus they will use poor gunship sales as evidence from a biz side that they shouldn't make PT UCS. Not as as an agenda for liking OT but just as a tried and true method. It's my belief that that's not a fair way of measuring success since the ship is more expensive than other recent OT models (A Wing, Y Wing, R2). and instead should revert to OT. Again, that's not me saying they have an agenda but rather me saying they don't care to take a chance on more prequel UCS content. 

Also no need to get so defensive of the OT, we all love it, some of us would just love to not see the X-Wing for a while even if they sell incredibly well every time.

You explain it a bit more realistically here, but it still makes no sense. Lego once again stands no reason to kneecap themselves when selling prequel sets. Again, once you bring logic to it, it fails. They will use gunship sales as evidence to whether or not to make more PT UCS, they've been incredibly transparent about that. Let me be absolutely clear: without a shadow of doubt in my mind, they WANT the gunship to sell well. How do I know this? Becuase they would make money. If it sells well, they make more money, and have a ton of new options for UCS, that being the prequel sets, to make, hence getting even more money. Lego is a massive company, they aren't dumb, they can see this. You also say that the gunship is more expensive than other OT models, and then proceed to have some serious selection bias. Look at the past 4 years, there's a pattern. $200 d2c in summer, then alternating between $350 MBS and $700-800 UCS in the fall. For a 2hy set, the gunship is on the cheap side when you average the d2c prices. Plus, the gunship was never going to be $200, a gunship at that price would barely be larger than the 2013 gunship. 

Also, what did I say that was "so defensive of the OT"? Literally the only time I mention it in that post is by saying that lego doesn't care about prequels v ot, which is just a fact and not "defensive" by any stretch of the imagination lmao.

5 hours ago, Klaus-Dieter said:

Plus it's really a pity that TLG sells three UCS sets but no single Master Builder Series set.

Every other year, my guy, every other year. Endor Bunker October 2022, here we come! 

5 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Nothing shady about that IMO, it‘s just how business works: if you want more of the thing, buy the thing  If you want to see a sequel to movie X, watch movie X 

Exactly. Was it shady for ESB to end on a sort of cliffhanger? 

1 hour ago, jdubbs said:

At the same scale as the UCS TIE Fighter, a UCS TIE Bomber would easily be $300-350. It may seem like an equivalently sized ship, but it's deceptively large, especially when you consider how dense a LEGO build of it would be. I'd say the wings would be roughly the same number of parts (rotate the TIE Fighter's wings 90º, segment them into thirds) but you'd need 2-3 of the TIE Fighter's cockpits for each of the Bomber's cylinders. Just compare MOCs of the two ships made by the same designer... the Bomber is consistently 2x the number of parts of the Fighter. (This is why we haven't seen a System version of the Bomber either, as a LEGO designer said a year or two ago... it would end up $150, at least before they zapped the TIE Fighter with a shrink ray.)

As someone who tried to make a bomber MOC in the style of the 2018 tie fighter, can confirm. I think mine ended up at around 1300 pcs.

[ArrowBricks]

Never thought I’d agree with MandR (his friend Sands too) in their recent videos about the Gunship figures. Bang on the money. I’m tired of half-baked sets and out of touch designers within the Star Wars department. Get some young guns in there who know how passionate many of us are about new Lego Star Wars products. Lego in the past have proven how excellent they can be with their sets (FIGURES ARE THE SET). 
 

In other news I can’t believe it’s mid-July. Surely a month until we hear rumours right? I love rumours, I always go in so optimistic with what they could be doing for the following year! 

[RODDY]

Now that I’ve had a couple days to process this, my feelings on the Gunship are really kinda mixed. Is it great we’re getting UCS Prequel sets? Hell yeah. But I think the Gunship wasn’t the right pick to give the UCS treatment. It’s a gorgeous model no doubt but I still find it ridiculously oversized. Normally with vehicles like the A Wing or Y Wing, they usually carry just one passenger so it’s not bad. Or in the case with the Star Destroyer or Sandcrawler which has the ability to carry a lot of people or droids, the area that holds them is covered up. But with the Gunship that is literally a transport vehicle has all this barren space where the troops are supposed to go in. And the problem is even more magnified since it’s at such a large scale and it comes with only a single trooper. What good is having a transport vehicle without having troops to transport? And I’m not saying Lego should of included more figs, Lego always had a barren minifig selection to begin with for UCS sets. I think the figs that come with it are fine. What I’m saying is the idea of a transport ship just doesn’t fundamentally work at the UCS level imo when having troops inside of it is essential and not having the ability to close that gap since the doors only close half way. 

Will I still buy it? Definitely not a Day 1 purchase because I’m saving up for the UCS AT AT but I’ll probably get it next year because even though the Gunship isn’t an ideal UCS pick, I still want to see more UCS Prequel sets like an ARC 170 or a Clone Turbo Tank so I’ll bite the bullet. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by RODDY

[Gremer2]

I love the Gunship. I don't care about the figures, this massively oversized so the figures wouldn't look right inside of it. The ones that do come with it are (minus Yoda) probably the most notable characters that it transported. And if they did add Cody or a Pilot or any other desirable character, people would be whining about how they have to spend $350 to get it.

 

It looks beautiful and I love how massive it is. Maybe not a day 1, but I'm definitely getting it

[TheRacker]

I think the choice of figures make sense. Lego likes to put exclusive figure in UCS sets, but they can't put too desirable figures that every kid would want. It would be pretty sad if you're a kid and you want a Commander Cody figure, but the only way to get it is to have your parents shell out $350 for a huge complicated display model that you can't even play with. Lego would much rather put the cool and desirable figures in $100-$150 playsets with several other figures so kids can conceivably play with the whole set and have several figures interacting with each other, see Gideon's cruiser set. The UCS figures are just unique curios for adult collectors to appreciate. Is the "rule" that UCS figures have to be unique kinda dumb? Yeah, but at least it's usually inconsequential characters or just a slight redesign of existing figures. Of course Lego could put a Cody figure in this set and in a cheaper playset, but we know they won't so I'm glad they aren't locking an extremely wanted figure to UCS only.