If you could pick one Star Wars Set to own

[Blackknight112]

Maybe a poll can be added for this tread, with the most obvious choices

[The_Customizer]

Wow, that's a hard choice.

At first I would say the UCS Millenium Falcon, or Death Star (with minifigures)

But at second thought, probably Cloud City (10123)

[KillerAuzzie]

Clone Turbo Tank,

[Shawn]

I have every set other than the Yoda UCS and Darth Maul UCS. Two sets catch everyones attention that see my collection. The 7181 UCS Tie and The Death Star 10188. In all fairness, I do not have the UCS MF displayed since I am afraid to open it. I just cannot see opening a set that is going to be larger than a coffee table. Possibly someday.

After those two, I love 10019 and 10129 as well, but I would just buy 10198 instead of 10019. It is a very good set and just a little smaller without looking smaller when they are not side by side.

last but not least, I really like the minifigures as well. I am on a never ending quest to figure out how to display them and keep dust off of them at the same time.

[Fallenangel]

Well, really I would go for the Death Star playset. Its got lots of minifigs and just frames all the iconic scenes nicely. But its UCS!

So what would my favourite set be you ask? it definitely would be the 2007 Y-Wing! This just resembles classic modern Lego to me. The flesh smilie shows how the evolution of the minifig, the greebling showing how small pieces can be used for effect detail and the well scaled ship with perfect curves just shows how much Lego is more an art form than toy. And it was my first Lego set I bought as well.

I'm confused...

Edited March 22, 2011 by fallenangel309

[AndyC]

As lovely as the UCS Falcon is, I'd have to go for the 10212 UCS Imperial Shuttle. The Empire just had much cooler ships than the rebels.

[Emperor]

I'm confused...

Is this so hard to get? Some people love sets even though the angles aren't perfect or it doesn't look exactly like the studio model. In this case, I think the LEGO model looks much better than the fighter seen in the movies, so I absolutely agree with Roncanator. Every time somebody says he actually likes the way a LEGO model looks you just post some reference pictures, I think you really didn't get the idea of LEGO Star Wars sets if it is that easy to confuse you.

My choice would have to be the UCS Falcon, but I would just resell it and buy the sets I like (even though some angles might be half of a degree off ).

The set I like best is the 7662 MTT, and yes, I know that there are several flaws such as the droid deployment device but it is still an awesome set which looks great in your army and comes with a whole bunch of battle droids.

[Supersonic]

^^getting the UCS Falcon and reselling it is probably the best idea. But let's try just to think of owning a set, not selling it...

As I already have my favorite set (the 7665 Republic Cruiser, which I love even though its design isn't 100% accurate), I would love to have the UCS Star Destroyer. IMO, it's even more impressive than the Falcon.

[thegurumb]

Mods any chance of adding a poll to this post???

[Fallenangel]

Is this so hard to get? Some people love sets even though the angles aren't perfect or it doesn't look exactly like the studio model. In this case, I think the LEGO model looks much better than the fighter seen in the movies, so I absolutely agree with Roncanator. Every time somebody says he actually likes the way a LEGO model looks you just post some reference pictures, I think you really didn't get the idea of LEGO Star Wars sets if it is that easy to confuse you.

My choice would have to be the UCS Falcon, but I would just resell it and buy the sets I like (even though some angles might be half of a degree off ).

The idea of LEGO Star Wars sets is to sell toys that resemble the ships from the movies. I use reference pictures because some sets don't resemble the ship from the movie well enough (10175) while others do better(10179).

It doesn't have to look exactly like the ship; I would prefer it to be as close is possible within the limits of the medium (e. g. what I've seen others do on their MOCs). How many times do I have to say this? Yes, I know it is unrealistic to expect this of a LEGO set, that's why I don't buy too many sets and why I like sets that don't follow this rule (see below).

What confused me is that Roncanator is saying is that he likes the ship because it's well-scaled even though the set is not well-scaled (look at the cockpit). (I suppose 'perfect curves' are a matter of personal preference.) If he said he liked the set because he feels it's more aesthetically pleasing than the actual thing, as you said that would have made more sense (regardless of whether I agree or not). And I like inaccurate sets too.

Where is this 'half a degree' thing coming from? I don't ever remember ever having said that yet everybody makes a reference to it. Yeah, I noticed some angles were off, but those were off by way more than half a degree.

[Clone OPatra]

Where is this 'half a degree' thing coming from? I don't ever remember ever having said that yet everybody makes a reference to it. Yeah, I noticed some angles were off, but those were off by way more than half a degree.

He is obviously employing hyperbole. No one thinks you literally said 'half a degree.' It's exaggerated for emphasis.

As for which Star Wars set I would like to own, the Death Star (not DSII mass of gray plates) is my clear choice. This set is the epitome of awesomeness in a SW set; not some rehashed vehicle but a massive playset like no other with a ton of awesome minifigs to boot. I love the playsets that I can afford such as the 7666 and Battle of Endor despite their flaws, but the DS is a playset on steroids! Alas, it was and is way out of my price range, but this topic is for dreams!

[Jedd the Jedi]

The one that got away for me will always be Jabba's Sail Barge - I really wish I bought that set; seems it was too expensive even there. Around that time was also the newer versions of the B-Wing, and the Y-Wing. Similar case is the newer Clone Wars Republic Gunship. Dad was still sore that our original Gunship had been broken apart and scavenged for parts (big mistake there) and was unwilling to buy what was essentially the same set (still think it's better, though).

In terms of the way out-there, "fantasy" sets, the UCS Millennium Falcon ranks pretty high, and so does the Death Star playset which looks just about perfect. The Cloud City playset looks like a great one, I've seen it in person and honestly it isn't that impressive, but for all those figs and for the sheer diorama power it would be nice to own. Jango Fett's Slave I as well - I'm trying to approximate it by swapping out pieces for ones of the correct colours on my 6209 Slave I, but I just don't have the right ones.

[Strand]

The idea of LEGO Star Wars sets is to sell toys that resemble the ships from the movies.

No. The purpose is to sell toys. That is all. TLG's proven willingness to simply invent new vehicles, sets or otherwise take significant creative license shows that screen accuracy is a very distant priority to simply making fun sets designed for children.

It doesn't have to look exactly like the ship; I would prefer it to be as close is possible within the limits of the medium (e. g. what I've seen others do on their MOCs). How many times do I have to say this? Yes, I know it is unrealistic to expect this of a LEGO set, that's why I don't buy too many sets and why I like sets that don't follow this rule (see below).

Therein lies your problem. You've admitted as much that you're extremely picky regarding screen accuracy of sets, and thus only speak for a certain minority (of the already niche AFOL demographic). You don't buy too many sets? This is precisely why TLG releases UCS sets. You would prefer it to be as close to its source as possible with an already 'crude' building block, but AFOLs only account for a minority of Lego's business, and thus they have no real obligation to only satisfy you. Besides, what are MOCs for?

What confused me is that Roncanator is saying is that he likes the ship because it's well-scaled even though the set is not well-scaled (look at the cockpit).

All things considered, the 2007 Y-Wing is remarkably well-scaled. It's reasonably-sized, has a surprising amount of greeblies etc. Again, if we're to nitpick here, the minifigs aren't even in scale with themselves. Their limbs too short, heads too large etc. We're talking about a medium where almost everything is innately out-of-scale. I'm beginning to wonder if Lego was the right choice for you after all.

[RileyC]

What confused me is that Roncanator is saying is that he likes the ship because it's well-scaled even though the set is not well-scaled (look at the cockpit). (I suppose 'perfect curves' are a matter of personal preference.) If he said he liked the set because he feels it's more aesthetically pleasing than the actual thing, as you said that would have made more sense (regardless of whether I agree or not).

Yeah sorry that would've probably been a better way to explain myself. I do realize some parts are a bit inaccurate, but it's really unavoidable in my opinion. In 2007 I recall they werent pressing out specific parts for sets so the use of the x-wing cockpit piece is unavoidable, unless the spend an age trying to get a brick built one, but then that has no glass in it. The set is in pristine condition which the production model isn't. I prefer the gleaming white to the dirty white and grey, its just more vibrant and feels Lego-y to me (can we make that an adjective now?). Let it be noted also that there are only 2 cheese slopes on the set. So I think its some impressive detailing to get the intricate detail done. Also, what I mean by well scaled is that its well proportioned unto itself. There's no part I feel that you can say, thats way to big or they could've shorten that.

[Fallenangel]

Also, what I mean by well scaled is that its well proportioned unto itself. There's no part I feel that you can say, thats way to big or they could've shorten that.

-_- Can we just drop this? I don't think I even want to answer to this. Okay, it was a stupid thing to say, nobody else gives a damn about accuracy around here, end of story.

Edited March 23, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Aeroeza]

-_- Can we just drop this? I don't think I even want to answer to this. Okay, it was a stupid thing to say, nobody else gives a damn about accuracy around here, end of story.

Hey! I'll jump on board the accuracy boat!!

You aren't alone for admiring what Lego can achieve in recreating a studio model (within the limits of the medium). But I also enjoy what Lego can accomplish as an 'abstracted' sculptural tool- so I'm prepared to see a mix of both 'styles' within a set i.e. an appeal to accuracy merged with the abstracted Lego form. Most UCS' do this most wonderfully and although not perfectly proportioned will instead achieve their own appealing results which reflect the choices and preferences of the builder.

I for one have a hard time picking a favorite model that I couldn't live without and would prize above all the rest. But in a pinch, like most who have answered here, it would be a UCS and it would probably have to be the Falcon...

No wait what about the ISD?

Dang it, the shuttle!

Hang on, what day is it? UCS X-Wing day?

... or is it time to scare the young ones with the Maul bust?

You know what? I give up. Put me down as someone who would get an anxiety attack if I had to choose.

[Strand]

-_- Can we just drop this? I don't think I even want to answer to this. Okay, it was a stupid thing to say, nobody else gives a damn about accuracy around here, end of story.

I'd be happy to, if the attitude changed. Your position merely went from "You guys are wrong" to "You guys don't care about accuracy," which is wholly inaccurate. I care about accuracy as much as the next man, but I give Lego a certain free pass. Why? Because it's Lego. That and the box also states "Ages 6-12." I have UCS sets, Airfix kits etc to satisfy the need for accuracy. Constantly bringing up inaccuracy in a Lego board is pointless, that or simply acknowledge that there are other fans who share the same values, but (for whatever reason) can simply live with the things you can't. When it comes to the point where you have to finish something you say with "nobody else", it means you're likely the only one with a chip on your shoulder, and not the hundreds of others sharing this board.

[Brickdoctor]

In 2007 I recall they werent pressing out specific parts for sets so the use of the x-wing cockpit piece is unavoidable, unless the spend an age trying to get a brick built one, but then that has no glass in it.

I too really liked this set even if I never got it, but actually that cockpit piece most resembles that of the Y-wing, and the T-65s and T-47s are the ones with the bad cockpits. It's more accurate than you think!

[AndyC]

The one that got away for me will always be Jabba's Sail Barge - I really wish I bought that set; seems it was too expensive even there.

Ooh, now you've got me thinking. The sail barge could almost topple my vote for the UCS Shuttle. It is, without doubt, the best non-UCS set I own. Thankfully I'm glad in real life that I don't have to choose between them, the only set mentioned in this thread that I don't own and never took to was the Death Star playset, I actually much prefer the epic Death Star II model.

[Diaaabo]

Right now, the UCS ISD, the UCS Imperial Shuttle and the chrome C-3PO.