LEGO Star Wars Sets vs MOCS

[Grand Admiral Green]

As we all well know, Star Wars Sets are Magnificent. But MOCS are like the non-LEGO sets, which is cool. 

But if you ask me, I would go with 50 - 50.

MOCS: You can build beyond any LEGO set

Set: You can build your favorite thing without any hassle

So...

That concludes my review for LEGO Star Wars Sets vs MOCS

If you have a different response, reply!

[Naixin]

I think it depends on MOC vs official as well. I’m solely a UCS collector and I think the official red 5 and y wing 2.0 are amazing. However I think the official star destroyer and sandcrawler are megablocks so I got the monarch MOC and cave gods crawler.

[Kage Goomba]

MOC's are dependent on style/taste.

The big kicker however for me - is cost.

As an example - I love the TIE Defender - Lego's version - frankly - is crap.

I found one that was gloriously built - UCS style - much like the UCS TIE Fighter that Lego produced in terms of quality/scale.

1-1.5k USD.....yeah. (rare parts)

*cries on the inside*

[The Boba Fett]

For me, MOC, if you want detail and accuracy , Set, if you want to "play".

As @Kage Goombasays though, MOCs at UCS scale can be very VERY expensive and sourcing parts can be a pain in the under carriage. So far I've gone the route of buying a couple of UCS models and modifying them so the details are more in line with what I expect.

Personally, I've had 6 Lego Star Wars sets and they now exist only in my parts bin or serve to mod my UCS ships. I won't buy another Star Wars set again but that's only because I want more detail and want my models to have more than a passing resemblance to what I see on the big screen! 

 

 

[karmajay]

I'm very creative in a technical/engineering way - which allows me to put together anything if I have instructions or to troubleshoot issues in a build people at my house make a mistake. I am NOT creative artistically which I think is a big part of using pieces creatively in a MOC so have issues building a large varirty of MOCS myself. So I'm glad we have LEGO sets that do the hard work for me. Also glad creative people provide instructions for MOCS that I can build!

[Kage Goomba]

I'm currently designing a MOC set myself - and its been a hell of a trip. Almost a week straight and I've learned more than I ever thought possible in terms of legos.

I've been messing with legos since I Was a kid - doing something like a UCS Style set (see my corellian transport thread for a clue - won't disclose just yet) - lets just say I can see why people shy away.

Takes an extraordinary amount of patience. Total respect points to people who design "big scale" UCS MOC Sets.

At least I can speak from the perspective as "noob" designer and not just a consumer - although I've been told I'm no noob based on my progress. LOL

Not sure I'd be a Lego Set for parts however - that would depend on the parts needed. Modifications also vary wildly so.

I guess will see what people suggest when I post my progress here once I get details sorted out.

Bottom line - it comes down to detail - subjective taste - and price tag. Lego corp has some great designs that don't really need much improvement - but that depends on the individual at that rate. MOC's provided an great alternative - but it may not be as cheap if you don't have pieces on hand - or it may be rather cheap. Depends on what your looking for.

There really is no wrong or right. Much like Art...beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[ForgedInLego]

11 hours ago, The Boba Fett said:

For me, MOC, if you want detail and accuracy , Set, if you want to "play".

I usually design my mocs around some unique mechanism that makes it fun to play around with, so I guess its the opposite for me. Shameless plug for my YT channel, but I think I have one of, if not the best republic dropship mechanism out there.

Ultimately it just comes down to cost. I have a hefty parts collection, and I never bricklink parts, so if I can build a half decent moc for free, why would I buy the set?

[lowlead]

With this UCS AT-AT I'm happy to see a convergence between the two!  I was casually shopping around for a good AT-AT MOC, then the 75313 set dropped.  Full stop - that's my big walker.  I'm hoping the same will happen with a TIE Bomber.  With the Star Destroyer, I started with a 75252, but ended up with the Eviscerator 2.0 MOC.  There's pros and cons to both MOCs and sets, but as long as LEGO continues to release large scale models that are top notch in design, I'll favor the set over the MOC. 

[Kage Goomba]

14 minutes ago, lowlead said:

With this UCS AT-AT I'm happy to see a convergence between the two!  I was casually shopping around for a good AT-AT MOC, then the 75313 set dropped.  Full stop - that's my big walker.  I'm hoping the same will happen with a TIE Bomber.  With the Star Destroyer, I started with a 75252, but ended up with the Eviscerator 2.0 MOC.  There's pros and cons to both MOCs and sets, but as long as LEGO continues to release large scale models that are top notch in design, I'll favor the set over the MOC. 

I'd love me a UCS TIE Bomber :)

And a UCS TIE Defender - not that crap spindly one they got lol.

[TeddytheSpoon]

There's a place for both IMO. While I would say I collect LEGO sets I'm not a particularly committed collector, so I tend to buy sets and/or factions that have interesting designs or that I simply enjoy from the movies. Most of the time that's enough to scratch my LEGO itch.

That said, creating a MOC is one of the most satisfying things to do as a LEGO enthusiast. One of the things I love about Star Wars is the depth of lore that every small thing has, so when I can I like to create obscure stuff that would never make it as an official set. It also allows me to have a consistent collection - what few MOCs I have are all to the same scale, and all have the same design 'language' since they're all by the same designer (me!). I'm a design engineer by trade so I quite enjoy the whole process, but I am also quite lazy, which is why I don't have many MOCs...

Something I've never done, though, is buy another designer's MOC, and I mean this with no disrespect to other designers! The main barrier here is price, although I understand the reasons behind the premium. I love appreciating other people's designs, but a lot of the time if the TLG version of a set is not up to my standards, I'll have a crack at designing it myself instead of buying a MOC.

[The Boba Fett]

11 hours ago, ForgedInLego said:

I usually design my mocs around some unique mechanism that makes it fun to play around with, so I guess its the opposite for me. Shameless plug for my YT channel, but I think I have one of, if not the best republic dropship mechanism out there.

Ultimately it just comes down to cost. I have a hefty parts collection, and I never bricklink parts, so if I can build a half decent moc for free, why would I buy the set?

Ah, no, don't get me wrong, much as I want lots of detail and my UCS sets are all on display, the more bits that are interactive the better. My UCS Discovery gets  changed around every other week! lol. I just think with some sets Lego focuses a bit on "playability" too much which can compromise the look of a UCS set. The stabiliser fin of the Space Shuttle set is a prime example of that to me. cool feature but looks messy to me. From what I've seen, MOCS don't tend to have that problem.

[jimmynick]

I'm of the opinion that large-scale UCS-type MOCs tend to be of higher quality than sets since they can take advantage of rare parts and illegal building techniques. I tend to prefer sets that are more like toys, since I don't feel quite so priced-out when I can get a nice swooshy X-wing for 50USD or equivalent.

[Kage Goomba]

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

I'm of the opinion that large-scale UCS-type MOCs tend to be of higher quality than sets since they can take advantage of rare parts and illegal building techniques. I tend to prefer sets that are more like toys, since I don't feel quite so priced-out when I can get a nice swooshy X-wing for 50USD or equivalent.

"Illegal building techniques" ?
If it fits....it sits....is what I presumed to be the general rule.

[jdubbs]

20 minutes ago, Kage Goomba said:

"Illegal building techniques" ?
If it fits....it sits....is what I presumed to be the general rule.

Guessing you've never heard of Jamie Berard. 

Lots of MOCs are built using connections that are either overly fragile (large assemblies held on by a single connection point) or stress the bricks in ways that aren't structurally stable. If you have to apply any kind of force to get two parts together, or bend the parts to do so, then you're likely using an illegal connection (or you've built it incorrectly). 

Beyond the "illegal building techniques": lots of MOCs are only ever built digitally, and can't support their own weight when built in real bricks. And lots of MOCs are built using parts that either don't exist (e.g., aren't available in the color specified in the digital instructions) or haven't been produced in quantity in years or decades... These may not be "illegal" per se, but they are effectively (or financially) "impossible". 

[Kage Goomba]

1 minute ago, jdubbs said:

Guessing you've never heard of Jamie Berard. 

Lots of MOCs are built using connections that are either overly fragile (large assemblies held on by a single connection point) or stress the bricks in ways that aren't structurally stable. If you have to apply any kind of force to get two parts together, or bend the parts to do so, then you're likely using an illegal connection (or you've built it incorrectly). 

Beyond the "illegal building techniques": lots of MOCs are only ever built digitally, and can't support their own weight when built in real bricks. And lots of MOCs are built using parts that either don't exist (e.g., aren't available in the color specified in the digital instructions) or haven't been produced in quantity in years or decades... These may not be "illegal" per se, but they are effectively (or financially) "impossible". 

Makes sense - at least in my MOC I've been taking such things into consideration. Good to know.

[LDigital]

In terms of my collection I have a mix of official sets and Mocs. I am all about minifig scale if I can get there and a lot of the UCS sets or play sets are over/undersized in reference to each other. 
 

UCS MF, At-At, Slave 1 and imperial shuttle mixed in with some brickvault and customs to make everything consistent. 

[Kage Goomba]

If I decide to get a moc..it will be one of these -> https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-82268/MOCOPOLIS/sw-ucs-imperial-tie-defender/#details

Gorgeous TIE Defender - utterly beautiful - but damn....1000 bucks plus easy.

<cries>

[SquirrelArmy]

59 minutes ago, LDigital said:

In terms of my collection I have a mix of official sets and Mocs. I am all about minifig scale if I can get there and a lot of the UCS sets or play sets are over/undersized in reference to each other. 
 

UCS MF, At-At, Slave 1 and imperial shuttle mixed in with some brickvault and customs to make everything consistent. 

I do prefer Minifig Scale when it comes to buying sets but if you want a large variety of Star Wars ships then you have to go Micro MOCs due to the sheer size of the ships in the Star Wars universe. I'm working on designing an AT-AT drop ship at the moment. A minifig scale version would be colossal but I think a Micro scaled version would work quite well using the AT-AT from the 20th Anniversary Hoth set.