Limited Edition 6212 X-Wing

[Jaymercury]

Could we please not get into this again? Besides, there's already a thread for this.

Sorry but.. You find a way to put the accuracy of 6212 in to almost any discussion possible, in and out of the star wars forum, so I don't see how you can say that.

[Fallenangel]

Sorry but.. You find a way to put the accuracy of 6212 in to almost any discussion possible, in and out of the star wars forum, so I don't see how you can say that.

I'd like to make it clear now that while accuracy is a supporting claim for why I find 6212 less than satisfactory, it is not the main reason. You all seem to be implying here that the only reason I would have for disliking 6212 is because I'm some spergy nitpicker when the truth is the thing just looks terrible and they could definitely have improved the look of the set overall. Now I'm not actually expecting them to cover up all that messy Technic (it's never been a trend), but there's definitely quite a bit of room for improvement, and the fact that there wasn't any improvement over 4502 other than color changes was something that really bothers me. Sorry, but no matter how many minifigures they toss into the set the design of the X-wing itself doesn't look any better to me.

Edited April 27, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Fallenangel]

I don't understand how it's not movie accurate. It looks a helluva lot like an X-Wing to me, I don't know how accurate you can get with Lego bricks.

Let me show you then. (I swear, this is the last time I'm doing this.)

While miniscule details like control panels, little vents, or small angular differences are next to impossible to take into account with LEGO (at least in minifigure scale) certain conspicuous defining structures can be achieved effectively, especially with ships with lots of straight edges like the X-wing. After all, 100% accuracy is just impossible, especially with LEGO. This is why as builders we must take the identifying traits of a particular subject and make as best an effort as we can to make it recognizable to the average AFOL. For example, if one were building a TIE fighter, one would definitely include the hexagonal wing panels and twin ion engines. Likewise, someone building a Delta-7 would be sure to have the tip pointed. We can apply this to the hexagonal* cross-section of the X-wing's main fuselage.

This is what the back of an X-wing looks like. Now tell me if this ugly Technic mess doesn't speak for itself.

As you can see, the hexagonal cross-section runs the entire length of the ship, being a defining trait. If one were to cancel this, one would be alienating the subject to the viewer. It's difficult to pull off in the tapering forward fuselage (I'm working on it), but in the back it's fairly simple. Here are some different ways in which it can be done in LEGO:

Better Alternative 1 - Scrap the whole worm gear system altogether and use click hinges. It's simpler and a heck of a lot cleaner.

Better Alternative 2 - Prefer a more one-touch mechanism? Do what ILM did and connect a pair of wings to a central pivot situated inside the ship. The construction is incredibly simple and works well. Thanks to Dave Eaton for the idea.

Better Alternative 3 - If you want to keep the worm gear, do a better job of covering it up.

There are numerous other defining traits that 6212 fudges, such as the extended laser cannons, the sloping transition of the engine to the wing, the relationship between the sloped and straight portions on the wing's aft edge, the kitbashed detail behind the astromech droid socket, the location of the cargo bay relative to the cockpit, and the T-shapes in the air intakes (all of which can also be effectively represented with LEGO) but none of these are as immediately obvious as the hexagonal cross-section.

As I said, it's not reasonable to expect an interpretation in a kid's toy that's recognizable to an adult (we see things differently, after all) but that doesn't invalidate what I pointed out. Yes, I realize LEGO is a toy. Yes, I realize AFOLs are not their target market. Yes, I realize price, stability, and availiability of parts are an issue to the LEGO Group.

Why then, you may ask, am I so damn pissed about a set aimed at 8-year olds being ugly as hell? I’m sure the people over at BrickForge and other customizers don’t think as highly as a purist would of LEGO’s minifigures since it’s obvious to them that most AFOL MOCs could be better. The same goes for me and 6212. But you don’t see me waxing lyricals about how awesome the recent trend of LEGO making more detailed minifigures is (in fact I think it detracts from overall set quality) because in the end a LEGO minifigure in its non-customized state is a toy (however great a toy it may be) and it takes a good customizer to make it into a great display piece – to act like the new Boba Fett or the ARF trooper is beautiful on an orgasmic level would be to naively discredit the MOCers who put more work than LEGO ever did into making a minifigure look good. On the other hand, enough people have raved to me about how 6212 is supposedly the greatest thing LEGO’s ever released that it’s admittedly annoying (sorry Millacol88 but to go on and on about how the ugly Technic mess is spot-on accurate to the movies when so many MOC X-wings out there completely blow it out of the water is just ridiculous – I’m sure it’s great as for what it is - a toy - but don’t call a toy spot-on accurate when it obviously isn’t, even by LEGO standards, and I’m sure I’ve already made that last point clear).

This in turn may lead you to ask why I even bother with sets in the first place, and that’s a valid point. Recently I haven’t been buying much in the way of Star Wars LEGO and in any case I first got into this hobby after seeing some great MOCs. The Star Wars midi-scale sets from ’09 and ’10 are an exception because they don’t include minifigures at all and are more focused on the build itself in the style of 10129 or 10174, which I thought was great (even better that both 7778 and 8099 eventually went on sale for nearly half their original prices in part because none of you minifigure-oriented AFOLs and your kids would buy them). I understand that many here wouldn’t even consider buying those two sets because they didn’t have minifigures, and that’s fine, though by no means is it a reason to bash the set.(I realize this applies to me and 6212, so sorry, but I said I would stop.)

*Okay, I know it's actually a nonagon, but that's not as easily represented and would surely constitute nitpicking to some AFOLs here, so I went with hexagon.

Edited April 27, 2011 by fallenangel309

[simonjedi]

My god, let it go.

[Commander_Rob]

Oh, so the fuselage cross-section is the problem? I see now.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Commander_Rob

[Fallenangel]

My god, let it go.

That was it.

Oh, so the fuselage cross-section is the problem? I see now.

It's actually the way they chose to construct the S-foil mechanism (worm-gear pushing four separates hinges into place as opposed to a single central pivot) but if I used that as the point people would write it off as a play feature. So instead I'm emphasizing the fact that by choosing to represent opening wings in such an obtrusive way they've botched the shape of the fuselage, which is so blatantly inaccurate that you couldn't possibly call it a nitpick.

Edited April 22, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Piranha]

You guys are so funny

I picked up 6212 recently and haven't built it, and I also agree that it is time for a redesign (w/ new figs)

[JimBee]

Let me show you then. (I swear, this is the last time I'm doing this.)

While miniscule details like control panels, little vents, or small angular differences are next to impossible to take into account with LEGO (at least in minifigure scale) certain conspicuous defining structures can be achieved effectively, especially with ships with lots of straight edges like the X-wing. After all, 100% accuracy is just impossible, especially with LEGO. This is why as builders we must take the identifying traits of a particular subject and make as best an effort as we can to make it recognizable to the average AFOL. For example, if one were building a TIE fighter, one would definitely include the hexagonal wing panels and twin ion engines. Likewise, someone building a Delta-7 would be sure to have the tip pointed. We can apply this to the hexagonal* cross-section of the X-wing's main fuselage.

Hexagons....

I was simply saying that I thought the Lego X-Wing was excellent, and all of the arguments about how inaccurate it is are just ridiculous. I wasn't looking for an ultra-detailed conterargument, I know there's already a thread filled with them. You said yourself that you've wasted so much time obsessing over the shape of X-Wings. It's a fictional starfighter, made out of plastic bricks. Why you're logging hours making revision after revision, topic after topic, argument after argument about this, is well beyond me. Can't you go outside and play or something? Just take a break from this, dude.

I refuse to turn this into another flame war, so I won't reply again.

[Fallenangel]

I was simply saying that I thought the Lego X-Wing was excellent, and all of the arguments about how inaccurate it is are just ridiculous. I wasn't looking for an ultra-detailed conterargument, I know there's already a thread filled with them. You said yourself that you've wasted so much time obsessing over the shape of X-Wings. It's a fictional starfighter, made out of plastic bricks. Why you're logging hours making revision after revision, topic after topic, argument after argument about this, is well beyond me. Can't you go outside and play or something? Just take a break from this, dude.

I refuse to turn this into another flame war, so I won't reply again.

You don't get it, do you?

Edited April 23, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Mr Man]

At the risk of getting back on topic . Maybe the X-wing was just so successful in sales TLG just didn't stop selling it.

Edit:Does limited mean its sold in a limited number of shops, or is available for a limited amount of time?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Mr Man

[Aeroeza]

Hexagon.

Hexagon.

Hexagon.

Hexagon.

Bit hard to see, but there's definitely a hexagon.

WTF?! Where's the hexagon?

Actually the main part of the fuselage has a seven sided cross section (only the nose has six)! But what's an irregular-sided symmetrical heptagon between friends?

[Siegfried]

Edit:Does limited mean its sold in a limited number of shops, or is available for a limited amount of time?

From what I've seen it means a limited number of shops.

[Mr Man]

Recently, Lego seems to be keeping sets out longer, which is certainly their right to do. They're catching more of the market that way, market segments that would otherwise be going to scalpers. However...

I have been a bit frustrated with how long the 6212 "Limited Edition" X-Wing has been out. Any good explanations why the "limited edition" set has been the longest running, continuously produced star wars set to date? It was released in 2006. Doesn't really seem "limited" now, does it.

So it seems that the limited means it was only sold in certain shops not the amount of time it is sold for.

[Fallenangel]

Actually the main part of the fuselage has a seven sided cross section (only the nose has six)! But what's an irregular-sided symmetrical heptagon between friends?

If you're referring to the fact that the fuselage underside is dual-faced while that of the nose is a single curved surface, I did add that, counting that and the plteau on which the shield generator and astromech droid socket are situated, the actual shape is a nonagon. You are right, though, and you can see that at least on my MOC I made as best an effort as I could to capture that aspect (though I feel I should give dateman credit for doing it that way rather than trying to attach slopes to the bottom at an angle). I think that you also have to take into account the fact that many AFOLs do not photograph the undersides of their MOCs (and would thus view the mention of the underside as an unreasonable nitpick) as well as the fact that the existence of the plateau may not have been immediately obvious to many who had only seen the film once or twice.

All this illustrates that even the best MOCers are forced to make crude approximations in representing a concept in hopes of triggering in the mind of the viewer the recognization of the more complex shape that the MOC is intended to be reminiscent of. This is most easily observed in the MOCs of people such as Tim Goddard or Chris Deck - even at such a small size and with such few pieces they manage to represent a subject in a way that is immediately obvious to the viewer, and constructed in very interesting ways as that. In the case of the X-wing, it's next to impossible to take into account all the various faces in their precise shapes, sizes, and angles relative to each other, so instead I must take the crudest simplification that still looks clean and is vaguely reminiscent of the original subject, which results in a hexagon. And when something, allowing for the crudest of simplification as stated above, does not take into account even that, it just doesn't look good to me. I would agree that in other respects - price, minifigures, choice of subject - 6212 is a fine set. But in terms of the design of the starship itself, 6212 disappoints, and does so quite obviously.

To answer the topic title... yes, it's a Toys R Us exclusive and therefore "limited".

Edited April 23, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Aeroeza]

...the actual shape is a nonagon. You are right, though...

To answer the topic title... yes, it's a Toys R Us exclusive and therefore "limited".

May the accurate 'n' sided polygon be with you (in that TRU limited edition kinda way)!

[Blackicep8ntball]

Yup guys, looks like it's confirmed. A few of you guys pointed out that it seems "limited edition" only means "limited availability" rather than produced in limited numbers. BrickDoctor pointed out that it's the TRU exclusives that get the limited edition label, and I checked that out. Indeed, the only sets I could find with "limited edition" are also TRU exclusives, so looks like the main question is answered. Thanks for the input.

P.S. I still think it's a little strange to see limited edition on the longest selling lego product, but at least now we know why.

[Fallenangel]

On the other hand... 7663 Sith Infiltator was a "Special Edition". Does that mean it was a Wal-Mart exclusive? (There's no CGI, so it can't mean the other thing...)

[Clone OPatra]

I think the best reason for why it is still around and in production (as somebody already said) is that LEGO feels it's done a good enough job, and so a new one wouldn't look much different anyway. Like the Snowspeeder (and the Falcon, I guess), the X-Wing has little chance of changing. This may not sit well with some due to inaccuracies, but the LEGO T-47 is horribly inaccurate as well and it's evident that the company doesn't care.

I personally still like my original X-Wing set much more than the newer two, but that's only because it's grey and clunky looking, and the X-Wing really is not a pretty ship (like the T-47, which isn't pretty either). I don't think that LEGO will ever do very well at making ugly, beat-up looking ships though. Maybe the ugly part (Sith Infiltrator).

It's a shame that we get better revamps of useless things like the Infiltrator (which is still ugly) and Podracers, but for some ships it's quite clear that LEGO has found a basic look that it likes. Maybe the newest Tie Advanced is proof that LEGO can remake a model completely and for the better after several tries, but other sets suggest that it's not going to happen for everything (Falcon, N-1).

[Siegfried]

On the other hand... 7663 Sith Infiltator was a "Special Edition". Does that mean it was a Wal-Mart exclusive? (There's no CGI, so it can't mean the other thing...)

I've seen the "Special Edition" to mean exclusive to any store in Australia. For example the "Special Edition" Atlantis set, 8080 Undersea Explorer, was exclusive to K-Mart. (The Australian K-Mart has no ties to the USA store).

[Fallenangel]

It's a shame that we get better revamps of useless things like the Infiltrator (which is still ugly) and Podracers, but for some ships it's quite clear that LEGO has found a basic look that it likes. Maybe the newest Tie Advanced is proof that LEGO can remake a model completely and for the better after several tries, but other sets suggest that it's not going to happen for everything (Falcon, N-1).

Perhaps LEGO just wants to keep the rendition recognizable since the subject is so iconic. As you've said, while many "useless" subjects have made leaps and bounds design-wise, the ships you've mentioned look very much the same as they did in '04.

Someone on FBTB also mentioned that the reason that the '04 rehashes were so different from the original lineup was because of better parts and such, and that we shouldn't expect it again. It's really a shame, since sets like the T-47 are badly in need of a new design.

With the 3D release of Episode I next year I wouldn't be surprised to see 7161 Gungan Sub on the shelves again before long.

[Clone OPatra]

Someone on FBTB also mentioned that the reason that the '04 rehashes were so different from the original lineup was because of better parts and such, and that we shouldn't expect it again.

That certainly has some truth to it, but at the same time the Tie Advanced (which was very slightly redone around '04), the Y-Wing (which was simply re-released in '04), and the Sith Infiltrator (in recent '07) got or are getting significant upgrades, so there is a very slight chance that we could see upgrades for other sets as well, though it is rather unlikely.

Perhaps the real problem is that most MOCs that get the shapes of such ships better use techniques that are far beyond what goes into a normal SW (or any) LEGO System set, so it's unlikely that those ships could be done better while still adhering to LEGO's desired level of complexity. I don't really know.

I'm sure a new Gungan Sub would be leaps and bounds above the first one (just see my review for my opinions about that set), and it might happen. Perhaps once ANH rolls around in 3D we will finally get a new (and better) X-Wing to kick 6212 out of production.

[Fallenangel]

Perhaps the real problem is that most MOCs that get the shapes of such ships better use techniques that are far beyond what goes into a normal SW (or any) LEGO System set, so it's unlikely that those ships could be done better while still adhering to LEGO's desired level of complexity. I don't really know.

I think that in the end it's really this as well, because it's obvious that LEGO isn't going to have an AFOL-quality build in a child-oriented set. As I said before, it's unreasonable to expect better.

LEGO has to design their sets to hold up under these conditions, or else parents are not going to buy them for their children. So yes, LEGO has to substitute playability for accuracy. If you don't like it, go make a MOC. That is, after all, the entire point of LEGO. (Yes, I know you, fallenangel, made a MOC. I was speaking generally here.)

Incidentally, theJudeAbides is the same person who mentioned the other point:

Now I know some of you might be thinking, "so what you're point, Jude?" My point is similar to one made earlier: When the 2004-2007 remakes hit, we saw a substantial increase in the accuracy of the sets due to the large increase in new parts available. However, as we've continued to get remakes of those sets, there hasn't been the obvious increase in "quality," at least, not in the way most AFOLs would define it.

I'm sure a new Gungan Sub would be leaps and bounds above the first one (just see my review for my opinions about that set), and it might happen. Perhaps once ANH rolls around in 3D we will finally get a new (and better) X-Wing to kick 6212 out of production.

Funny that your opinion of 7161 is somewhat similar to my opinion of 6212, though one conforms to the consensus and the other doesn't. I think that the biggest issue with 7161 is that at minifigure scale organic shapes just don't translate well into LEGO.

[Blondie-Wan]

I think System Star Wars sets can be exempt from that complaint seeing as we get rehashes of previous vehicles (regardless of whether or not people think that's a good thing). More often than not the rehashes are better than the originals, and they may even include better minifigures. With 6212 you'd think LEGO would bother to update the (ugly) design after 7 years (though I guess the new Falcon proves that LEGO's pretty much given up on Original Trilogy starships at this point). 4502 may have looked fine back in '04, but it looks pretty bad next to more recent designs. And I really don't get why minifigures are so popular, though that's just me.

@simonjedi: Correction - a generic Rebel pilot with Wedge Antilles' helmet is in it. As one AFOL put it, "$50 for a new helmet print..."

It kind of makes you wonder why they don't keep all the sets on longer. We should be able to walk into a Toys R Us in 2020 and pick up a shiny new 7161 Gungan Sub.

In fairness, I think TLG's approach with 6212 is pretty much the same thing as with certain other "limited" (by which we really mean vendor-exclusive) $50 Star Wars sets, such as: 7262 TIE Fighter and Y-wing - conceptually a remake of 7150/7152, and using the exact same Y-Wing design as those sets (combined with the same new design for Vader's TIE as the one in 10131 TIE Collection); 7264 Imperial Inspection (using essentially the exact same Imperial Shuttle design as the one in 7166 Imperial Shuttle, save for a piece or two near the back); and 7283 Ultimate Space Battle, a set essentially combining two copies of 7256 Jedi Starfighter and Vulture Droid (with set-specific color and minifigure variations for Obi-Wan's fighter, of course) and 7252 Droid Tri-Fighter (with an extra buzz droid figure). Each of these sets is a $50 Star Wars set created for a particular retailer, and each one recycles at least one existing model design for the bulk of the set.

I suspect it's not "laziness" so much as simply not wanting to devote too many resources to sets that are initially intended to have limited availability, both in terms of where they're carried and for how long (I suspect TLG didn't initially intend to keep 6212 around for so long, but did so because of unanticipated demand).

Of course, that still doesn't dismiss the other complaint that there's a lot less to this set than to 4502, which does have Yoda's hut in addition to the fighter, but plain, ordinary inflation can account for that. With the other $50 vendor exclusives I mentioned, they were either out at about the same time as the sets they draw upon (the USB being out at the same time as the sets it combines, the last TIE & Y-Wing combo being out at the same time as the TIE collection that featured the same design for Vader's TIE), or were simply substantially larger and more expensive than the sets they drew upon (Imperial Inspection being quite a bit more than Imperial Shuttle). With the X-Wings, 6212 was released a couple years or so after 4502, but at the exact same price point. TLG's profit margins would likely have been narrower than they were the first time around had it been a straight reissue of the exact same set the way 7142 and 7152 had been. They cut it down a chunk by dropping Yoda's hut, but made up for it somewhat by including more minifigures.

[Fallenangel]

Of course, that still doesn't dismiss the other complaint that there's a lot less to this set than to 4502, which does have Yoda's hut in addition to the fighter, but plain, ordinary inflation can account for that. With the other $50 vendor exclusives I mentioned, they were either out at about the same time as the sets they draw upon (the USB being out at the same time as the sets it combines, the last TIE & Y-Wing combo being out at the same time as the TIE collection that featured the same design for Vader's TIE), or were simply substantially larger and more expensive than the sets they drew upon (Imperial Inspection being quite a bit more than Imperial Shuttle). With the X-Wings, 6212 was released a couple years or so after 4502, but at the exact same price point. TLG's profit margins would likely have been narrower than they were the first time around had it been a straight reissue of the exact same set the way 7142 and 7152 had been. They cut it down a chunk by dropping Yoda's hut, but made up for it somewhat by including more minifigures.

I can't help but think Yoda and his hut would have been preferable to the rest of the original lineup (the former just allows for more playability in my opinion, and Yoda isn't exactly a common minifigure anyway). I would have to agree with you, though, that other repackaged sets that reused previous designs generally had a lot more to them and that 6212 is rather lacking in comparison.

I wonder why 7877 isn't another Limited Edition then? The design is essentially that of 7660, and it's certainly not the only way to build one...

[Brickdoctor]

I wonder why 7877 isn't another Limited Edition then?

Firstly we don't know for sure that it isn't a Limited Edition. And secondly it would only be a LImited Edition if it's a TRU Exclusive, not because it's essentially a carbon-copy of the previous edition.