LEGO Star Wars 2012 Pictures and Rumors

[Sparhawke]

The B-wing is a decent model if I had money to spare I would buy it. But there's some good stuff coming up that I could use that money for.

My sentiments exactly. While it does look pretty cool there just isn't a WOW factor in it to me and there are some other sets I would deff prefer to get first!

[Artanis I]

Thanks Erdie for the hi-res pics & info, it changed my mind a bit - at first I didn't like this at all.

I for one think the set looks really nice, it's smooth & closely resembles the artwork. I don't go for UCS stuff (way out of my price range) so I won't be buying it but I quite like this one, despite its obscurity. I'll be frank, I've seen ROTJ plenty of times and before today if you asked me what a B-Wing looked like I would've had no idea. If it weren't for the "It's A Trap" meme I wouldn't even recognise this ship.

But I love how the build is mirrored for a smooth, clean look on all sides, rather than using a "studs-up" build like many minifigure-scale Star Wars vehicles which leaves one side studded and one side anti-studded on wings which should be symmetrical.

That really annoys me, I think the Mandalorian ship is like that.

[cavegod]

I for one think the set looks really nice, it's smooth & closely resembles the artwork. I don't go for UCS stuff (way out of my price range) so I won't be buying it but I quite like this one, despite its obscurity. I'll be frank, I've seen ROTJ plenty of times and before today if you asked me what a B-Wing looked like I would've had no idea. If it weren't for the "It's A Trap" meme I wouldn't even recognise this ship.

You're kidding?

When I first saw ROTJ, when i got home the b-wing was what I wanted to buildapart from the atst

[Artanis I]

You're kidding?

When I first saw ROTJ, when i got home the b-wing was what I wanted to buildapart from the atst

No joke, I'll be completely honest: no matter how many times I've seen the movies, most of my visual knowledge & recognition of SW ships & vehicles is from reading Eurobricks... (apart from the really obviously famous ones). It's from watching them after being on here that I go: "oh, so there's _______"

It always amuses me to see "this is too big" "this is the wrong shape" etc - I wouldn't have a clue.

[GRogall]

HR image of the Box art!

Enjoy!

[sharky]

To me it doesn't seem like the cockpit rotates on it's own, or at least not smoothly. In the video when he is showing the cockpit, it looks like his hand is turning it. and then when he turns over the whole model, it seems to be in the same spot.

Anyone else notice the cockpit rotates depending on the model's orientation?

It didn't look like the cockpit was auto-leveling. It looks like he is rotating the cockpit manually. It would need a smoother spinning function and some weight on the bottom to achieve a self-leveling cockpit.

[Clone OPatra]

It didn't look like the cockpit was auto-leveling. It looks like he is rotating the cockpit manually. It would need a smoother spinning function and some weight on the bottom to achieve a self-leveling cockpit.

Quite right. It's also strange that they didn't even rotate it correctly on the box-art. The cockpit is horizontal with the middle wing, whereas at the angle that the whole ship is in the picture, the cockpit should be rotated a bit.

Still, since it's a display model it doesn't make too much difference, though when you get the urge to swoosh in the nude it might become bothersome.

[gotoAndLego]

Regarding the price point; Lego is not cheap, and SW UCS Lego is very expensive. However, I don't really understand this arbitrary discussion of brick count vs. price. First of all, the cost of individual bricks varies greatly and this set seem to utilize many obscure parts. We might as well discuss the length of the model vs. price and as such, the B-wing is much cheaper than say, the UCS R2-D2. A model represents much more than simply the sum of its bricks. Different models have different design procesess and some models goes though more iterations and longer test periods than others - all of which is part of the price.

Price per brick is used, IMO, because its the best way to get an average idea of value. Some people do factor in the value as to whether they will buy a set, Jabba's Palace, for example, has a lot of figs so using that ratio its a bad value and many people will not spend that much for a relatively small number of bricks. I do not break UCS sets down for parts so what's important to me is how the B-Wing looks rather than how many parts it contains. Obviously there is a limit to this point of view, for example, if they had used half the number of pieces to build out those wings I would not buy it. I don't think the "Lego isn't chep" argument holds water, because the UCS R2 represents a better "price per brick value" while still being subject to the Lucas-tax, as opposed to using the Haunted House or Modular houses for comparison.

Other people have suggested we use a ratio based on weight as a more accurate reflection of value, but I don't like that for the reason I mentioned concerning the wings.

Edited July 9, 2012 by gotoAndLego

[Parrothead Rasmus]

Wow. This is a fantastic set, and one I would pick up... if it wasn't for the horrendous price. 10217 Diagon Alley is $149.99, and 2025 pieces.

Has LEGO ever permanently dropped a price on a set before, like how Nintendo has dropped the price of their Wii over the past few years?

[pjpviv]

I was really excited for the B-wing but now I'm not so sure. The price tag and not being minifigure scale is making this set a pass for me I think

[Bilbo Baggins]

The boxart looks pretty awesome, I love the death star in the back

[Brickdoctor]

Thanks for the pic, grogall!

First post updated.

[intimmydation]

I saw the UCS B-Wing this weekend at Brick Fiesta here in Houston and have to say overall I wasn't all that impressed. Although, the cockpit is pretty damn cool and I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly, it was auto-leveling. It did spin very smooth when you manually manipulated it and was the best feature of the model. The rest of it just looked like it hard large pieces almost everywhere and that the build wouldn't be that exciting.

[mortesv]

Price per brick is used, IMO, because its the best way to get an average idea of value. Some people do factor in the value as to whether they will buy a set, Jabba's Palace, for example, has a lot of figs so using that ratio its a bad value and many people will not spend that much for a relatively small number of bricks. I do not break UCS sets down for parts so what's important to me is how the B-Wing looks rather than how many parts it contains. Obviously there is a limit to this point of view, for example, if they had used half the number of pieces to build out those wings I would not buy it. I don't think the "Lego isn't chep" argument holds water, because the UCS R2 represents a better "price per brick value" while still being subject to the Lucas-tax, as opposed to using the Haunted House or Modular houses for comparison.

Other people have suggested we use a ratio based on weight as a more accurate reflection of value, but I don't like that for the reason I mentioned concerning the wings.

Lego obviously isn't using only brick count to set the price (at least not very consistently). The paradox is that if they had used hundreds more tiny plates (instead of larger ones) to construct the core of the wings to get to a brick count of around 2000, we would have gotten the same exact looking model, but being way more unstable but at a "better" price.

A lot of factors are part of setting the price (and what Lego thinks they can possible get for it is certainly a factor here), and price per brick is IMO not giving a clear picture of value of the product and design costs/productions costs/brick value/license fees etc.

Anyway, I'm getting this set. If I thought it was poorly designed, I wouldn't care if it was dirt cheap per brick, I wouldn't buy it

[DFOL]

Quite right. It's also strange that they didn't even rotate it correctly on the box-art. The cockpit is horizontal with the middle wing, whereas at the angle that the whole ship is in the picture, the cockpit should be rotated a bit.

You're absolutely right that the cockpit should've been rotated a bit to appear correct. But i think the photographer left it at this angle on purpose, because it presents the cockpit in a more favorable way.

And a big thanks to GRogall for the box art picture!

[Fatteh]

You're absolutely right that the cockpit should've been rotated a bit to appear correct. But i think the photographer left it at this angle on purpose, because it presents the cockpit in a more favorable way.

For real? It's in space. There's no up and down. I don't think it's going to rotate just to suit the viewpoint of a particular observer.

Cool model.

[cavegod]

Quite right. It's also strange that they didn't even rotate it correctly on the box-art. The cockpit is horizontal with the middle wing, whereas at the angle that the whole ship is in the picture, the cockpit should be rotated a bit.

Eh? surely it all depends on what the Pilot sees as level you forget that it rotates as the rest of the ship moves.

[Clone OPatra]

Eh? surely it all depends on what the Pilot sees as level you forget that it rotates as the rest of the ship moves.

I don't forget that it rotates as the rest of the ship moves. The truth is, the whole idea of it moving as the ship moves is silly because it has no gravity in space for it to reference. Naturally, we just go with down for being how the cockpit should be oriented. In that case, the cockpit should be aligned with the bottom of the box, not with the middle wing. It's not a big deal. It doesn't really matter. I was just pointing it out.

[cavegod]

Yeah daft idea, rotate for landing yes but in flight pointless!

Why should it be aligned with the box?

[Brickdoctor]

I think the idea of it rotating is that with it being such a large craft and having heavy weapons mounted on its end, having the wing rotate around the cockpit allows the pilot to change the angle from which his weapon is firing upon his target without the cockpit moving and changing his view and risking disorienting him, in which case the cockpit can really be oriented any way the pilot chooses, whether aligned with 'down' or not.

Or it could just be a combination of Lucas Physics and a camera angle favorable to the set.

[Clone OPatra]

Why should it be aligned with the box?

As I said, the bottom of the box should be 'down' with respect to gravity, so the cockpit in the picture should theoretically be pulled that way, the bottom of the cockpit being parallel to the bottom of the box.

[Fuppylodders]

As I said, the bottom of the box should be 'down' with respect to gravity, so the cockpit in the picture should theoretically be pulled that way, the bottom of the cockpit being parallel to the bottom of the box.

Actually, I'd say you are wrong... if it were to be aligned with a 'downward' point of reference, it would actually be 'down toward the planet' as if you were in that B-Wing, you wouldn't be seeing the bottom of a box, but would know there is a big megablocks planet nearby As it is, it looks relatively close to 'down towards the planet'... but that planet doesn't even look spherical if you look at it from the right side of the B-wing compared to the left side (more spherical) of the B-wing... so who knows where 'down' really is (bad box artist)

lol?! I didn't type megablocks?! But I can't remember what I did type there... had me in confused giggles for a few secs

Edited July 9, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[bekindsorewind]

Palpatines Arrest is now on Toys R us.com, however it is at a disgusting $109.99 US! That's almost 17 cents per piece!

[Fuppylodders]

Palpatines Arrest is now on Toys R us.com, however it is at a disgusting $109.99 US! That's almost 17 cents per piece!

Thats about average nowadays

[NoteWorthington]

As I said, the bottom of the box should be 'down' with respect to gravity, so the cockpit in the picture should theoretically be pulled that way, the bottom of the cockpit being parallel to the bottom of the box.

There is no reason for the box to be anything, or gravity of anything to come into play. Its a picture, superimposed on a cardboard box, it's just artwork, there is no theorycrafting or overthinking to be done.