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

[The Pearson]

Do we have any information on May the 4th this year?

[CF Mitch]

It's on a tuesday.

Regards,
Mitch

[Azani]

23 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

If I had to guess, either 1hy is the gunship (though I can't see it being only $200, so maybe it's either more expensive or for 1hy 2022), and 2hy is an AT-AT or death star. Given Azani's "unusually large" comments, it's got to be at least on par with the 2017 and 2019 sets.... 

I'm glad that the "2hy is a larger wave than 1hy" thing is clarified, thank you and @Falconfan1414 for explaining.

Yes, the 2HY UCS holds the same MSRP as 75192 had and has in the states.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Azani

[Admonisher]

Snagged 75299 "Trouble on Tatooine" at Kohl's this evening. Bought it just for the speeder and minifigs; bags 2 and 3 went right into the spare parts boxes. My one complaint about the set is the lack of a good way to seat Mando on the speeder without crimping up the cape. Presumably, going with stiff fabric rather than flexible cloth for the cape was a cost issue. I ordinarily prefer the slimmer profile of the stiff capes, but they are a pain when a fig is going to be displayed seated or stuffed into a cockpit!

I settled on the unorthodox solution of only affixing one of the cape holes to the neck, and the other to the left arm (not visible from the display angle) so that the cape appears to billow behind the Mandalorian as it does in the Season 2 promotional art. It will leave a few dimples, but nothing that would be very obvious if I ever elect to display the figure in a standing position and attach the cape as intended. Also whipped up a quick stand using parts from the unused hut and ballista builds, and I'm pretty happy with the results!

As with most LEGO speeders, the vehicle is significantly larger than it ought to be in proportion to the pilot ... but given the challenges of this scale, I think it's reasonably successful. It certainly doesn't look as oversized as Rey's speeder from 75099 (though it no doubt is).

Edited January 4, 2021 by Admonisher

[BigGuy4U]

13 hours ago, Azani said:

Yes, the 2HY UCS holds the same MSRP as 75192 had and has in the states.

Yikes, that's steep. I wonder what they would do with that many parts. Any idea if it's MBS?

[UberCorp]

I wonder it the 2HY UCS could be a Home One that’s close in size to 75252 (though I believe to exact scale Home One is larger).

We have never actually gotten the ship as a set (besides the interior set from 2009), despite it being the flagship of the Rebel fleet.

[Sneakguest]

On 1/3/2021 at 7:12 PM, CF Mitch said:

It's on a tuesday.

Regards,
Mitch

Lol

[Kit Figsto]

3 hours ago, BigGuy4U said:

Yikes, that's steep. I wonder what they would do with that many parts. Any idea if it's MBS?

I'm very intrigued.  One big factor is that from the standpoint of it selling well, what is both iconic enough to actually be a sellable product at $800 and also requires a price point that high?  The Falcon and Star Destroyer which we've gotten, I guess a remake of the DS II set could probably cost $800 if they made it larger (but even then, would it really require that many more parts than the $500 playset version to justify a $300 price increase?), someone else mentioned Home One but I don't know if that's on the same level as the Falcon/Star Destroyer, and pretty much any other ship is out just because of size.  

I suppose this confirms that the Gunship is either going to be the May UCS set or won't come until next year, since I don't see any possible way to make an $800 Gunship (and also that would probably sell terribly).

[Mandalorianknight]

5 hours ago, BigGuy4U said:

Yikes, that's steep. I wonder what they would do with that many parts. Any idea if it's MBS?

Most likely won't be MBS, with the 2hy pattern of large UCS sets alternating with $300-400 MBS sets it's most likely that it'll be a UCS set.

16 hours ago, Admonisher said:

Snagged 75299 "Trouble on Tatooine" at Kohl's this evening. Bought it just for the speeder and minifigs; bags 2 and 3 went right into the spare parts boxes. My one complaint about the set is the lack of a good way to seat Mando on the speeder without crimping up the cape. Presumably, going with stiff fabric rather than flexible cloth for the cape was a cost issue. I ordinarily prefer the slimmer profile of the stiff capes, but they are a pain when a fig is going to be displayed seated or stuffed into a cockpit!

I settled on the unorthodox solution of only affixing one of the cape holes to the neck, and the other to the left arm (not visible from the display angle) so that the cape appears to billow behind the Mandalorian as it does in the Season 2 promotional art. It will leave a few dimples, but nothing that would be very obvious if I ever elect to display the figure in a standing position and attach the cape as intended. Also whipped up a quick stand using parts from the unused hut and ballista builds, and I'm pretty happy with the results!

As with most LEGO speeders, the vehicle is significantly larger than it ought to be in proportion to the pilot ... but given the challenges of this scale, I think it's reasonably successful. It certainly doesn't look as oversized as Rey's speeder from 75099 (though it no doubt is).

I'm going to try to make a better tusken hut with the parts of the set, but if that doesn't work I'm stealing your stand design. 

1 hour ago, Kit Figsto said:

I'm very intrigued.  One big factor is that from the standpoint of it selling well, what is both iconic enough to actually be a sellable product at $800 and also requires a price point that high?  The Falcon and Star Destroyer which we've gotten, I guess a remake of the DS II set could probably cost $800 if they made it larger (but even then, would it really require that many more parts than the $500 playset version to justify a $300 price increase?), someone else mentioned Home One but I don't know if that's on the same level as the Falcon/Star Destroyer, and pretty much any other ship is out just because of size.  

I suppose this confirms that the Gunship is either going to be the May UCS set or won't come until next year, since I don't see any possible way to make an $800 Gunship (and also that would probably sell terribly).

I'm 99% confident it'll be either an AT-AT or an absolutely massive Death star 2.

[Kit Figsto]

39 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I'm 99% confident it'll be either an AT-AT or an absolutely massive Death star 2.

How big would an $800 AT-AT be is the thing?  I'm not challenging your assertion, I'm actually legitimately asking, because I don't have any AT-ATs, so I don't know how hollow/solid they are on the inside and how many pieces are devoted to the body versus the legs. 

I for sure agree that an AT-AT definitely checks the "iconic" box, but is that a feasible model?  The current, $160 model apparently is 15 inches long and 14 inches tall.  Scaling that up, say, 3x (which I think would be bigger than minifig scale) gives a model that's almost 4 feet long and about 3.5 feet tall.  I would assume that they can't make the interior too full/would have to leave it mostly hollow, because a 3 foot box would probably be way too heavy to stand on four legs without buckling very easily (you could do it by cheating and using metal poles inside of the legs, like I know they've done with some of their large sculptures, but obviously that doesn't work with a set). 

So I guess my question is, if you were to start building an AT-AT at a UCS price point, is it possible that at some point, $800 is almost too big, to where you couldn't realistically make a model that large and have it still be functional/displayable without structural issues?  

[hondohnaka]

36 minutes ago, Kit Figsto said:

How big would an $800 AT-AT be is the thing?  I'm not challenging your assertion, I'm actually legitimately asking, because I don't have any AT-ATs, so I don't know how hollow/solid they are on the inside and how many pieces are devoted to the body versus the legs. 

I for sure agree that an AT-AT definitely checks the "iconic" box, but is that a feasible model?  The current, $160 model apparently is 15 inches long and 14 inches tall.  Scaling that up, say, 3x (which I think would be bigger than minifig scale) gives a model that's almost 4 feet long and about 3.5 feet tall.  I would assume that they can't make the interior too full/would have to leave it mostly hollow, because a 3 foot box would probably be way too heavy to stand on four legs without buckling very easily (you could do it by cheating and using metal poles inside of the legs, like I know they've done with some of their large sculptures, but obviously that doesn't work with a set). 

So I guess my question is, if you were to start building an AT-AT at a UCS price point, is it possible that at some point, $800 is almost too big, to where you couldn't realistically make a model that large and have it still be functional/displayable without structural issues?  

TLG has said as much. They want to do a UCS AT-AT really bad but the scaling is borderline impossible. With something like the Falcon or the ISD, they can be given a stand/landing gear. An AT-AT, half the model IS the landing gear, and they don't get extra support. Also, building vertical is much harder then building horizontally, especially at that size, so I wouldn't be surprised if we never see a UCS AT-AT, as much as I would absolutely LOVE one. They're my favorite ship, but the 2020 playset is probably as good as they'll get. 

[Brikkyy13]

22 hours ago, Azani said:

Yes, the 2HY UCS holds the same MSRP as 75192 had and has in the states.

Best start saving now, just in case I want it. That means at least $1300AUD, possibly even more. 

[AIex]

perhaps a fig-scaled sail barge?

[Zap Rowsdower]

46 minutes ago, AIex said:

perhaps a fig-scaled sail barge?

I actually think that's a good guess. I'm pretty sure Hasbro made a massive Sail barge a few years ago so there is a market.

I agree with the other posters that an AT-AT is unrealistic. Outside of that, I think the Death Star II makes the most sense. 

[Frizzlefry25]

Yikes, I will have to tap out on the UCS this year. It was one thing to drop some $$$ on the UCS Falcon and Star Destroyer (because I missed out on the originals) and they are so Iconic. But I cant think of another vehicle that I would spend that kind of money on. Plus, it is one thing to get a set like that once every 3-5 years, but man there seems to be alot of big sets in multiple themes in the $350+ range lately. I mean how many people can get them all?!!! 

You can still get an $800 falcon, a $700 SD, and a $350 Mos Eisley, a retiring $500 Death Star, and now another $800 is coming?

[Darth Malgus]

I've posted in the future speculation thread, wondering here if anyone has heard of any High Republic sets for 2HY?  Seems to be a big push from LFL on this era.

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

How big would an $800 AT-AT be is the thing?  I'm not challenging your assertion, I'm actually legitimately asking, because I don't have any AT-ATs, so I don't know how hollow/solid they are on the inside and how many pieces are devoted to the body versus the legs. 

I for sure agree that an AT-AT definitely checks the "iconic" box, but is that a feasible model?  The current, $160 model apparently is 15 inches long and 14 inches tall.  Scaling that up, say, 3x (which I think would be bigger than minifig scale) gives a model that's almost 4 feet long and about 3.5 feet tall.  I would assume that they can't make the interior too full/would have to leave it mostly hollow, because a 3 foot box would probably be way too heavy to stand on four legs without buckling very easily (you could do it by cheating and using metal poles inside of the legs, like I know they've done with some of their large sculptures, but obviously that doesn't work with a set). 

So I guess my question is, if you were to start building an AT-AT at a UCS price point, is it possible that at some point, $800 is almost too big, to where you couldn't realistically make a model that large and have it still be functional/displayable without structural issues?  

I'm confident it'll be the death star or the AT-AT because they're the two most iconic vehicles not yet made that would work at such a high price point. The AT-AT might have some problems, but I think it'd be possible to make such a model without major compromises to stability, though it might not be able to be fully articulated. Also, the size thing isn't completely accurate. The most recent falcon was 33 x 22 x 8 inches at $170, whereas the UCS was 17x12x5 for $800. Price wise it's similar to the most recent AT-AT and 2HY UCS, but it's less than twice the size.

1 hour ago, AIex said:

perhaps a fig-scaled sail barge?

There's a few reasons I can't see them doing this. The first one is that, while somewhat well-known, the sail barge isn't all that iconic, certainly not iconic enough to be one of the three largest star wars sets of all time. The second is that such a set would be more likely to be MBS than UCS, which while there's nothing explicitly stopping this, would stop the pattern. The third is that there's some pseudo-controversy around jabba sets, and while I hope lego makes more jabba sets, an $800+ one seems unrealistic. Again, the second and third alone wouldn't rule it out, but the cost of the set makes me confident it won't be a sail barge.

[Gremer2]

Could it be a Death Star with coverings? It seems like they'll always have a Death Star on shelves

[Admonisher]

5 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I'm going to try to make a better tusken hut with the parts of the set, but if that doesn't work I'm stealing your stand design. 

Be my guest ... if you can call a couple of plates loosely stuck together a "design!" If you're looking to salvage more pieces for your expanded hut, you might MOC your way to a smaller-profile speeder, as I've done in this thread. You might lose a few hut parts in the process, but the trade-off would hopefully be worth it...

[Stuartn]

11 hours ago, UberCorp said:

I wonder it the 2HY UCS could be a Home One that’s close in size to 75252 (though I believe to exact scale Home One is larger).

We have never actually gotten the ship as a set (besides the interior set from 2009), despite it being the flagship of the Rebel fleet.

I wish Home One, or the Profundity, Liberty or any of the star cruisers from the movies were made (it would display nicely with the Nebulon B frigate set, if we could get it here). I am also surprised it hasn't been done, considering the exposure it got in ROTJ.

I think Home One would have to have a very high piece count to construct the odd angles it possesses, which would bump up the price, or otherwise be much smaller than 75192. Either way, I agree it would justify the high price.

Could the 2hy UCS set be the Nebulon B frigate? It would have the size to justify the high price, and since it was one of the options in the survey that chose the gunship, it would be likely that Lego would have some idea, plan or even example of the potential set?

[Brikkyy13]

There’s a list of prices floating around now, 75308-75316 with no skipped numbers. It’s claiming 3 D2Cs this year... no way that’s true, is it?

[Paul11283652]

10 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

There’s a list of prices floating around now, 75308-75316 with no skipped numbers. It’s claiming 3 D2Cs this year... no way that’s true, is it?

MandR pretty much said the same a few weeks ago. $200 USD, $250-350USD, and something larger in the spring if I remember correctly.

My guess is 75309 to be the Republican Gunship.

 

Another thought I had is that 75313 could be a rerelease of 75192.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Paul11283652
Another thought.

[lego_guyon02]

49 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

There’s a list of prices floating around now, 75308-75316 with no skipped numbers. It’s claiming 3 D2Cs this year... no way that’s true, is it?

Most of the list is correct, although I personally haven't heard anything about 75308.

[BrickBob Studpants]

Sounds pretty promising  Sad to see there still aren‘t any battle packs though, so we can probably kiss them goodbye for good 

[storskogen]

10 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

So I guess my question is, if you were to start building an AT-AT at a UCS price point, is it possible that at some point, $800 is almost too big, to where you couldn't realistically make a model that large and have it still be functional/displayable without structural issues?

This MOC

is about 15,000 pieces and is minifig scale with no interiors. I’m almost afraid $800 wouldn’t be enough even for a Lego set.