MKJoshA

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 by lego the hutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by jdubbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :cry_sad:

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

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 :shrug_oh_well: If you want to see a sequel to movie X, watch movie X :tongue:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by RODDY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2021 at 3:34 PM, 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.

Honestly the price is perfect. This would not have worked as a smaller $200 UCS set, you wouldn’t be able to have as much detail. I think it’s the perfect middle ground for a UCS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

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). 

I might be missing something, but no, not most sets. Figures are a factor in some, and the main point of smaller sets like battlepacks, but the point of a set isn't the figures. With a UCS set, the figures are never supposed to even be a consideration, especially since the creation of the separate MBS label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RODDY said:

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. 

I disagree. I think it’s the perfect choice, being arguably the most iconic prequel ship design there is. I still think you’re missing the point about the figures too, it doesn’t need troops to transport because it’s UCS and exists purely as a large display model, which brings me to my next point: the size. How is this oversized? It’s UCS…being massive is the point, especially for a ship that is a lot bigger in universe than an X-Wing or Y-Wing. Why would it need to be smaller? For a ship of its size, I think the scale is perfect and captures exactly the right amount of detail, which wouldn’t have happened if it was smaller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArrowBricks said:

 (FIGURES ARE THE SET).  

Not with UCS sets buddy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I disagree. I think it’s the perfect choice, being arguably the most iconic prequel ship design there is. I still think you’re missing the point about the figures too, it doesn’t need troops to transport because it’s UCS and exists purely as a large display model, which brings me to my next point: the size. How is this oversized? It’s UCS…being massive is the point, especially for a ship that is a lot bigger in universe than an X-Wing or Y-Wing. Why would it need to be smaller? For a ship of its size, I think the scale is perfect and captures exactly the right amount of detail, which wouldn’t have happened if it was smaller

I’ll give it being the most iconic Prequel vehicle but just because it’s iconic doesn’t mean it will translate well as a UCS set. Maybe I didn’t say it clear enough but what I mean is that without the troops, the cargo hold looks extremely barren and empty which brings it down quite a bit in my book. Having clone troopers really would help round out the set and give it the depth it lacks if it was minifig scale . But because it’s so big, adding troopers wouldn’t help that problem much since they are out of scale. So you’re left with a husk of a set. Even having the doors close all the way would have fixed that part, but because it’s an AoTC it wouldn’t be canonical accurate. To me the troopers are just as important as any other feature of the Gunship that make it feel truly impressive and why it should of not been a UCS set. It’s a Low Altitude Assault Transport after all, it’s in the name of the ship that it transports troops.The ARC 170 and Clone Turbo Tank doesn’t suffer from this problem because the former only holds a couple of pilots while the later has coverings. 

Edited by RODDY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArrowBricks said:

Lego in the past have proven how excellent they can be with their sets (FIGURES ARE THE SET). 

So what you're telling us is that this is an empty picture? 

10227-1.jpg?201201160157

:grin: Sorry, I had to

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly if I had the space I'd likely get the gunship, but honestly the only thing that bothers me are the twin missile pods at the top of the wings. They seem too thin and not conical enough. But thats literally my only gripe. Its beautiful, but that inaccuracy bugs me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On the subject of sequel UCS sets I would buy a UCS Kylo’s shuttle without a second thought, and I think a lot of other people would too. Honestly it makes a lot of sense IMO for a UCS set in the near future. That said the one we have is essentially near UCS display value anyway so. 
Honestly I’m just enjoying watching people screech about a set I’ve very calmly and quietly decided isn’t for me and am minding my own business about. This is a great time to be a primarily play scale collector with all the free entertainment :laugh:. Getting Cody in this set was always a pipe dream, and while I do agree that the clone commander should have been a pilot, I think a lot of people are dismissing an absolutely gorgeous set over what amounts to 1 single helmet mold. 

Edited by hondohnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only prominent character that is exclusive to a UCS Vehicle is Piet, other than that, you've got R2-BHD, Will Scotian, and the Four-Square Imperial? Everything else is a variant or more detailed version of something available in other ways. Cody wasn't coming in this set, and lego has a very long track record that backs that up. (Obviously I'm ignoring anything that retroactively aligns more with the MBS like the 2008 Death Star, and I feel the Sandcrawler is its own special little thing)

Edit: I feel like i'm being very absolute in this comment. What I should says is every piece of previous UCS content that represents a Vehicle points to A. No super desirable exclusive figs and B. no figs needing new molds (a rule the MBS is beginning to break to be sure). Lego may well break this trend one day, but it seems like a lot of people are expecting it when the evidence says otherwise.

Edited by Archer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

So what you're telling us is that this is an empty picture? 

:grin: Sorry, I had to

Someone take the star destroyer set and shop the figs out, if that's nothing I'll take your entire stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

So what you're telling us is that this is an empty picture? 

10227-1.jpg?201201160157

:grin: Sorry, I had to

 

 

Lego probably saw how badly that sold! It’s a conspiracy against the Prequels !! ;) 

2 hours ago, ood0 said:

Not with UCS sets buddy. 

Figures are the set. That’s not to say the bricks aren’t the set also. The figures are plastic just like the bricks in my mind. I get it UCS is about the model but imagine a snowspeeder pilot in the recent A-Wing. That’s how I view the use of a Clone Commander for the Pilot of the Gunship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ArrowBricks said:

Figures are the set. That’s not to say the bricks aren’t the set also. The figures are plastic just like the bricks in my mind. I get it UCS is about the model but imagine a snowspeeder pilot in the recent A-Wing. That’s how I view the use of a Clone Commander for the Pilot of the Gunship. 

No, they really aren't the point of a UCS set. Also rather than the snowspeeder pilot in the A-wing, it's more like Mon Mothma in the A-wing. It's not that the figure doesn't make sense in the context of the set, it's that they aren't the pilot. I didn't like it at first, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It's not like the minifigs of a UCS set are meant to be put in the pilot's seats, and pilots aren't always the most memorable figs associated with a vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, not even the system-scale gunships have proper pilots (included that is), so it tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

No, they really aren't the point of a UCS set. Also rather than the snowspeeder pilot in the A-wing, it's more like Mon Mothma in the A-wing. It's not that the figure doesn't make sense in the context of the set, it's that they aren't the pilot. I didn't like it at first, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. It's not like the minifigs of a UCS set are meant to be put in the pilot's seats, and pilots aren't always the most memorable figs associated with a vehicle.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. At no point have I said the figures are the point. The point is the figures are ‘the set’ because they are the bricks. Anyway… 

Yeah maybe. It has been though with any other ‘Pilot’ of UCS set. It’s like throwing Mon Morgan to Pilot the UCS Millennium Falcon. 

21 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I mean, not even the system-scale gunships have proper pilots (included that is), so it tracks.

This is fair but Atleast it was a Clone Pilot. I’d like to think a new helmet mould for £330 could be possible. 

Edited by ArrowBricks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ArrowBricks said:

This is fair but Atleast it was a Clone Pilot. I’d like to think a new helmet mould for £330 could be possible. 

But why would you want a new helmet mould locked behind that huge price?

You really aren't making any sense. Minifigures are just a tiny bit of window dressing for a UCS set. When you say "they are the set", what that means colloquially is that they make or break the set - i.e. they are the main point of a set. When it comes to UCS, they most certainly are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

When it comes to UCS, they most certainly are not.

While that is true, and personally I don't really expect, nor am phased by the lack thereof, new or exciting figures, almost every UCS set over the last ten years has included a new and much upgraded variant of a figure, and normally they are the pilot of the vehicle, even when they are not necessarily the most iconically related to the vehicle, such as a brand new technician and officer in the ISD, over Vader or Admiral Piett, gunner and pilot in the snowspeeder, over Luke and Dak, and R2 BHD in the Y wing, instead of, well, anyone. For about eight consistent years now the figures have always been included and are generally the pilots, and since every other UCS set, even much cheaper ones have gone to the effort to include very good quality figures, it seems valid for criticisms to be directed at the figure selection in this much more expensive set.

15 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

But why would you want a new helmet mould locked behind that huge price?

As much as I'd appreciate a new mould I completely agree I wouldn't want it locked behind an expensive set.

To be honest, I am unsure why there is any complaint over these figures, as it has been made clear they aren't teh sole factor of a UCS set, and they aren't that bad anyway.

Edited by Stuartn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stuartn said:

To be honest, I am unsure why there is any complaint over these figures, as it has been made clear they aren't teh sole factor of a UCS set, and they aren't that bad anyway.

People disagree with how Lego chose their minifigures. No problem with that. The only way I'll get this set is if there is a sweet exclusive gift with purchase. Phase 2 Cody wouldn't make a difference for me (wouldn't it be funny if they revealed the gift with purchase was a phase 2 Cody? Anyway, there probably isn't one regardless). It's just too big to display with my space.

There's always going to be a barrier to acquire some minifigs. There isn't a problem with rewarding big money purchasers with a new minifigure that could also pop up later. 

So while I don't think the lack of an new minifigure or a pilot is a big deal, it's still not smart (in my opinion) to not put more weight to minifigure selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the gunship are, it looks great but I'm glad it doesn't have any special figures like Cody because I don't plan on getting it, at least not anytine soon. I agree with the designers' view that UCS sets are about the builds, not the figures. Locking a highly desirable figure behind a big expensive set is a terrible idea. I will say they should have at least given the figures arm printing. I think that would have at least made them more special. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.