jdubbs

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

    953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About jdubbs

  • Birthday June 20

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Star Wars

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    California

Extra

  • Country
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

18975 profile views
  1. I wouldn't bet the farm on the aftermarket value of a minor packaging error. This is no Finch Dallow or Osprey scenario... an entire production run was done already, which means many thousands of units will be distributed, with no change to the figures or build itself... just one barely discernible change to a logo. And, given the number of people throwing a hissy fit about this set... trashing the designers and the company on Insta/FB... making YouTube videos bravely proclaiming how they're done with LEGO, leaving the party and taking their toys with them (don't let the door hit you on your way out...) there's really no guarantee a second production run will even be necessary. For all we know, this is the only version of the set that will ever exist.
  2. At the same scale as the UCS TIE Fighter, a UCS TIE Bomber would easily be $300-350. It may seem like an equivalently sized ship, but it's deceptively large, especially when you consider how dense a LEGO build of it would be. I'd say the wings would be roughly the same number of parts (rotate the TIE Fighter's wings 90º, segment them into thirds) but you'd need 2-3 of the TIE Fighter's cockpits for each of the Bomber's cylinders. Just compare MOCs of the two ships made by the same designer... the Bomber is consistently 2x the number of parts of the Fighter. (This is why we haven't seen a System version of the Bomber either, as a LEGO designer said a year or two ago... it would end up $150, at least before they zapped the TIE Fighter with a shrink ray.) I'm going to guess the Medical Frigate would have been somewhere between the size of RubbleMaker's and Mortesv's Neb-B MOCs, and priced similarly to the Gunship. Looking at the three choices in the fan poll, they all could (and likely would) end up around the same size, which makes sense considering LEGO probably had an open production slot to fill, and could accommodate a set roughly this size. But who knows? Maybe that $800 D2C rumored to come later in the year is actually the Neb-B... it would be an odd choice given the ship's limited screen time and relative obscurity... but anything is possible.
  3. Yeah I wouldn't mind seeing the tan ATT tank in this scale, or even another attempt at the Naboo Fighter.... I think either would make really nice display models. I doubt they will venture into the capital ships until they run out of OT ones to do (or redo), unless this set ends up selling like gangbusters, perhaps.
  4. The thing is, it's a pretty arbitrary statistic/factoid, and one that amounts only to correlation, not causality — I would be surprised if anyone at LEGO treated this as even vague guidance for pricing/designing UCS sets, let alone a hard-and-fast rule. And I doubt many of the people voting for the Gunship in the fan poll considered this or were even aware of the statistic. Bear in mind the last System gunship was only slightly smaller than minifig scale (and really only in length, not in height/wingspan/etc.) So the only way LEGO could have done a minifig-scale gunship at even $200 (never mind $300+) would be to load it up with dozens of minifigs and some side-builds, but I don't think that would rise to LEGO's idea of a "UCS set"... which is what this poll advertised. And I bet a lot of people would still find fault with that, asking why LEGO couldn't just release the gunship as a wide-release $120 set and sell the side builds separately, and some clones in a battle pack. Which, maybe after this they will eventually do?
  5. Re: Phase 2 Cody, LEGO was damned if they do, damned if they don't. Don't include him? People will b!tch that he's been overlooked, once again. Do include him? People will b!tch that they have to pay $350 to get him. <insert shrug emoji here>
  6. Remove a chip every time someone mentions Cody. (Just to keep it interesting... otherwise we'd all BINGO within an hour.)
  7. Time to dust this off: Here is a handy-dandy checklist for you to craft your complaints about a certain D2C set coming soon to your orbit! Or, use it to make your own BINGO card and play along at home when the salt starts flowing! [ ] THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS?!? This is a complete and utter shock that we had NO WARNING about despite the last six months of rumormongering! This set should have been {insert your own absurdly low and completely unrealistic number here!}. [ ] IT’S WAAAAAY TOO BIG!!! This isn’t to scale with all of the other UCS sets I didn’t buy! I specifically ASKED FOR and thus was totally ENTITLED TO EXPECT that it was going to be minifig scale! Besides, Mandy promised! [ ] ONLY 3,292 PIECES?!? This other, non-licensed set that came out five years ago had WAY MORE pieces at the same price. All parts are CLEARLY created equal, inflation DOES NOT EXIST in my imaginary head-canon, and thus... this is a complete ripoff! …and a variation if you want to parlay your complaints about PPP into an indictment of Disney, the sequels, etc.: [ ] DISNEY TAX STRIKES AGAIN! Disney HATES THE PREQUELS and clearly did this so the set wouldn’t sell! I blame Kathy Kennedy! [ ] ONLY TWO MINIFIGS?!? This is a TROOP TRANSPORT!! What good is a troop transport without any troops to transport? I expected AT LEAST two dozen clones because some other $350 set had that many minifigs! [ ] THAT'S NOT THE CLONE I WANTED! Why isn't my own personal pet clone variant the one they selected? Why ask me which figs I wanted if you're not going to tailor this set specifically and exclusively to my wishes?!? [ ] TOO MANY STUDS!!! I found this all-SNOT MOC with 10,000 pieces — that looks like it would collapse if you sneezed at it — and it had NO STUDS so it is clearly better! LEGO designers can’t design for $#!T! [ ] NOT ENOUGH STUDS!!! This other MOC I found had way MORE studs and is clearly better! LEGO designers can’t design for $#!T! [ ] I CAN’T BELIEVE LEGO repeated this same, barely-noticeable mistake from the last System Gunship on the UCS version. Am I the only one who pays attention to these details?! (Yes. Yes, you are.) [ ] I CAN’T BELIEVE LEGO didn’t print thirty different unique-to-this-set tiles, and instead expects me to APPLY STICKERS to a UCS SET! For a set this expensive, would printed tiles really have been so hard? (Yes, Yes it would.) [ ] ORANGE?!? Wait... ORANGE?!? Who the hell asked for ORANGE?!?
  8. The difference is that people don't collect Cloud Car Pilots en masse, to build armies with. (Well, someone might... but I'd wager they're the exception to the rule). Whereas collectors do scarf up boatloads of Biker Scouts to use in the Emperor's Arrival and Ewok Battle from Return of the Jedi, not to mention their appearances in Mando, Fallen Order, etc. And, there are people who just love collecting hundreds of Imperial troops, to line up in a grid... go figure. The Advent will help lower its resale value, but it will take a battle pack or similarly cheap/desirable set, for it to hit the $3-4 point.
  9. Jang has a video on the subject:
  10. ...to push button A instead of button B. It was a mistake. They happen. If you're gonna quote me, quote the full context.
  11. I don't know that it was one person's fault. Nor did I say that. I said it only takes one person to make a mistake. No matter how many people LEGO employs, no matter how many people there are in an approval workflow... one person is all it takes.
  12. If you identified those assumptions as assumptions upfront, instead of presenting them as facts and then back-tracking later, perhaps people wouldn't take issue with your posts.
  13. Please stop making assumptions and passing them off as facts. I don’t work for LEGO either, but even I have seen multiple versions of multiple catalogs throughout almost every year. There are catalogs that include licensed IP sets, and catalogs that don’t. Catalogs with generic gray boxes, catalogs with placeholder images, and catalogs with final product shots. Catalogs for big retailers, catalogs for small retailers, and catalogs for consumers. Catalogs for this country, and catalogs for that country. Summer catalogs that include the fall sets, and summer catalogs that don’t. The list goes on. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that somehow, catalog variant A got published instead of catalog variant B. It didn’t take 20,000 LEGO employees to approve this. It took 1 employee… to push button A instead of button B. it was a mistake. They happen. People here are complaining because LEGO didn’t announce anything “new” when they said beforehand that they would. But the fact is, they did… they announced three sets that, barring leaks, we would have never seen prior to this event. If you want complain about something, maybe you should be complaining that LEGO’s big reveal got spoiled… by a leak… something everyone here craves and consumes like catnip. How different would the narrative be the morning after LEGO CON, if those leaks had never happened? You’d all be falling over each other to gush about the Light Cruiser, and Fennec’s dual-molded helmet, and so on. But instead, it’s a lot of griping that the “new” things that got leaked two weeks ago no longer feel new, and now you want something newer. Cry me a river.
  14. I get that some of you are disappointed that this set or that set didn't debut at LEGO CON, and that perhaps the content was a bit scattershot and surface-level, but I think it's worth pointing out that this was the first event of its kind that LEGO has undertaken, and they did so in the shadow of a global pandemic which (in the EU, at least) is still very much a concern. I am inclined to believe that if LEGO had been putting this event together in a COVID-free world, it would likely be longer, with proper panel discussions and interviews, segments geared to each of the major lines/themes, audience participation, building challenges, etc. There is clearly much more that LEGO could do in the right circumstances. If you would like to see a more robust LEGO CON in the future, you might try phrasing your feedback as ideas of how LEGO could improve and expand upon what they did this year, rather than griping about how horrible you thought this first attempt was, or how much it "missed the mark" or whatever. If all LEGO reads about the days after this event is how much people hated it, they're not very likely to invest more in it the next go-round (if they even attempt another go-round). But tell them you love the idea but want to see more out of it, and perhaps they will give you what you want a year from now.